DR GEM (OpenGEM)

[Terry Yager]

http://gem.shaneland.co.uk/

--T

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote

> http://gem.shaneland.co.uk

Good to see that the Gem legacy is still going,
I'm a little concerned about that site, because
it doesn't plant a clear inpression as to when
all this software has been updated.

One of the few reasons I connected to the
internet was because of this & that the files
were huge (3 Mb), before then I was just
downloading stuff off the library's computer! ;-)

Cheers.

[Terry Yager]

Good to see that the Gem legacy is still going,


Cheers.

Yeah, that's what I thought when I found the site. (Now if only we could find a source for TopView...)

--T

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

>> Good to see that the Gem legacy is still going,


> Yeah, that's what I thought when I found the
> site. (Now if only we could find a source for
> TopView...)

Not familar with TopView, what's that another
GUI?

Cheers.

[Terry Yager]

Yeah, sort of...I think it was distributed by IBM, but I could be wrong.

--T

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Yeah, sort of...I think it was distributed
> by IBM, but I could be wrong.

Oh okay! :-)

Merry Christmas.

[barryp]

Yeah, sort of...I think it was distributed by IBM, but I could be wrong.

Topview was a very forgettable IBM product. I had it and used it for a few microseconds in 1986±1, other products were far more useful.

[CP/M User]

"barryp" wrote:

>> Yeah, sort of...I think it was distributed by IBM,
>> but I could be wrong.

> Topview was a very forgettable IBM product. I
> had it and used it for a few microseconds in
> 1986±1, other products were far more useful.

Oh so it was done that late, so it looks like they
eventually scraped this idea for OS/2?

It makes be wonder what IBM think about this
whole GUI thing, after all they were once against
making any GUIs for the IBM. I guess there've
flipped their lid & thought it may not be such a
bad idea. After all they part contributed to OS/2
& even this Topview, which is earlier still.

I think you could blame the Mac for all this GUI
stuff, cause really it came out there first with
the plain Mac in 1984. This was around the same
time Microsoft started their Windows project.

Cheers.

[Terry Yager]

[quote]

Topview was a very forgettable IBM product. I had it and used it for a few microseconds in 1986±1, other products were far more useful.

I have never had the privelege, tho I've always wanted to take it out for a spin around the block, check under the hood, kick the tires and slam the doors. So what is it exactly, a true GUI, or more of a file manager/Dos shell kinda thinggy?

--T

[Terry Yager]

I hate replying to my own posts but I have found the answer to my own question. A quick Google search turned up this site:

http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/topview.htm

--T

[barryp]

[quote]
Topview was a very forgettable IBM product. I had it and used it for a few microseconds in 1986±1, other products were far more useful.

I have never had the privelege, tho I've always wanted to take it out for a spin around the block, check under the hood, kick the tires and slam the doors. So what is it exactly, a true GUI, or more of a file manager/Dos shell kinda thinggy?

I just remember that it was part of a list of hardware/software that we were directed to buy. I spent a few minutes with it and decided that we had wasted some of our money. Nobody else in the office was interested enough in it to experiment. I would call it a task switcher, no graphics. (IIRC)

[Erik]

I think you could blame the Mac for all this GUI
stuff, cause really it came out there first with
the plain Mac in 1984. This was around the same
time Microsoft started their Windows project.

The Mac was hardly the first GUI. Xerox had the Alto and it's family running at PARC and beyond several years before Apple came out with the Lisa. The Lisa pre-dated the Mac by over a year. . .

Erik

[CP/M User]

"Erik" wrote:

>> I think you could blame the Mac for all this GUI
>> stuff, cause really it came out there first with
>> the plain Mac in 1984. This was around the same
>> time Microsoft started their Windows project.

> The Mac was hardly the first GUI. Xerox had the
> Alto and it's family running at PARC and beyond
> several years before Apple came out with the
> Lisa. The Lisa pre-dated the Mac by over a year
> . . .

NO!! I didn't mean the Mac was the first computer
with GUI!! I mean't it was the first computer to be
competive with the IBM, sure Lisa came a year
before that, but with a $10,000 price tag & no
colour could hardly be called a threat to the IBMs!

Sure Mac didn't have colour either, but was much
more affordable, which is why I believe it was more
of a threat! :-)

And please don't tell me about Steve Jobs visit to
Xerox, because I seemed to have been told it a
many times! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

> I hate replying to my own posts but I have found
> the answer to my own question. <snip!>

Which is why the edit button comes in handy! ;-)

Though just replying to yourself, creates more
posts for the system! ;-)

Cheers.

[Terry Yager]

Topview was a very forgettable IBM product.

Well, since it is an IBM product, the chances are slim that it'll ever be released as freeware...

--T

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

>> Topview was a very forgettable IBM product.

> Well, since it is an IBM product, the chances
> are slim that it'll ever be released as
> freeware...

Well it seems silly of IBM to be doing this. Here
we have this (possibly) rare piece of software,
which wouldn't have any chance of being sold,
if it was marketed as freeware & it could hardly
be high modified to attract all those Windows
users.

So, the way I see it is, if IBM choose not to
release it as freeware, then there will be no
support or interest in this software. IMO it's in
a worse position now, than if it were Freeware!

Cheers,
CP/M User.

[Terry Yager]

I've searched all over the web and cannot find anyplace to d/l it. Mebbe I should try some of the abandonware usenet groups next. They seem to be a little less p'ticular about posting copyrighted stuff.

--T

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

> I've searched all over the web and cannot
> find anyplace to d/l it. Mebbe I should try
> some of the abandonware usenet groups
> next. They seem to be a little less p'ticular
> about posting copyrighted stuff.

Yeah, Generally I find that commercial software
isn't on the web for very long. I've seen
abandonware sites come & go very quickly,
because the software is still copyrighted. As
far as I know, people who do this are warned
to take down the site & if they don't then more
drastic measures are taken. This would apply
for software which maybe 5-6 years old, but
even older software is too.

For CP/M which is provided through the Unoffical
CP/M Website, even though it's unoffical, the site
maintainer has got written permission from the
copyright owner to distribute the software. So
even though it's copyrighted, it's still fine to use
as long it's for personal use.

Cheers,
CP/M User.

[Terry Yager]

I'm glad that CP/M is freely distributable now. Didja ever read DR's original licencing agreement? It is *non-transferable*, so whenever we bought a second-hand CP/M machine we were expected to pop for the software all over again. At least now I'm running legal after all these years.

--T

[barryp]

I've searched all over the web and cannot find anyplace to d/l it.

I would be very surprized if you find it. IBM probably watches that sort of thing very carefully.

FWIW: Many other programs do the "Top View" thing far better than IBM ever did. IMHO

Out of curiosity, why the interest?

[Terry Yager]

Out of curiosity, why the interest?


Oh, just a general curisoty about early attempts at GUIs, software integration and such...(and a general loathing for MicroSoft products and Winderz in p'ticular.)

--T

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

>> Out of curiosity, why the interest?

> Oh, just a general curisoty about early
> attempts at GUIs, software integration
> and such...(and a general loathing for
> MicroSoft products and Winderz in
> p'ticular.)

Of course, it's good to find some support
for such software! :-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

[MystikShadows]

If it's gui you want, it's gui you're gonna get ;-).

http://toastytech.com/guis/index.html

for everything you wanted to know about GUIS (and everything you didn't need to know too lol).

You'd think I was selling this site or something lol. It's a good website to go to find out what GUIs were and still are :-) and would be in the future ;-).

[CP/M User]

"MystikShadows" wrote:

> If it's gui you want, it's gui you're gonna get ;-).

> http://toastytech.com/guis/index.html

> for everything you wanted to know about GUIS (and everything you
> didn't need to know too lol).

For this site's information, it's wrong. For instance:

GEM was a very popular GUI for DOS until Microsoft Windows killed it.

Windows didn't kill GEM - Apple did. They sued DR over alligations that GEM 1.x was a carbon copy of their Apple Mac system - they won. When Windows 3.x came around Apple tried the same ol' thing, they lost.

Everyone knows that it was the Apple Lawsuit that cripped GEM, not Windows. Therefore GEM took on a very One Dimensional system & was reduced to VIEWMAX program in DR DOS 6.0.

> You'd think I was selling this site or something lol. It's a good website
> to go to find out what GUIs were and still are :-) and would be in the
> future ;-)

Sites which make mistakes look silly, hence this is why I'm guessing your winking & smiling a lot!

CP/M User.

[MystikShadows]

Technically speaking it was windows indeed....well the lawsuit didn't help them but in between they cound hav switched things around and turned thmeselves over in a short time...so it was DR who shot themselves in their own foot...and during that time Windows was busy getting himself popular.

They said that because the apple was the apple market and GEM and Windows were the PC market. As such they are very accurate. As for the winking and smiling, it's the way I am. Not much that can be done about it. :-).

[CP/M User]

"MystikShadows" wrote:

> Technically speaking it was windows indeed....well the lawsuit didn't help
> them but in between they cound hav switched things around and turned
> thmeselves over in a short time...so it was DR who shot themselves in
> their own foot...and during that time Windows was busy getting himself
> popular.

The only system which was like GEM at that time was the Apple system. Windows was very primative when the lawsuit occured with GEM & it was at least another 5 years down the track when Apple tried to bust Microsoft with Windows. From my perspective, DOS was still doing business when Windows 3.1 was around - with it's own line of serious software & not so serious stuff. But then Windows 95 came along & decided to push DOS on the back lines & this has been occurning to happen since every new edition of Windows release. It's hardly an OS on it's own & many of the crappy Windows do-nots rules has forced proper DOS programs out of functioning.

I don't necessarily believe that DR shot themselves anywhere, it was Apples happy trigger finger which set things off - surely they didn't like the fact that IBMs were Cheaper than Macs & since their in direct competition, it was going to happen regardless. As I said they tried to bust Windows too, but lost - mainly due to Microsoft's case from the power they already had.

> They said that because the apple was the apple market and GEM and
> Windows were the PC market. As such they are very accurate. As for
> the winking and smiling, it's the way I am. Not much that can be done
> about it. :-)

This is just all about which processor is better - the 68xxxx based or 80xxx6 processors, it's like a bunch of 8bit enthusiests arguing between which is the best one.

CP/M User.