OSes Historical OS desktop environments (pictures)

[Second Summer]

I came recently across this article with pictures and fun facts about some of the many desktop environments, from the early days to more recent times.

In Pictures: A visual history of OS desktop environments - Slideshow - PC World Australia

A trip down memory lane, tracing major milestones in the evolution of the desktop environment.

www.pcworld.idg.com.au

Do you see any that you recognise? Are there any others that you feel should have been mentioned?

I remember using the Atari ST 1040 in school around 1989-1991, and it had a desktop environment that looked a lot like the early Apple, and maybe the GEOS shown in the article.

 

[Chryssie]

Thanks for posting that interesting article! I love computer history and I recognized several of those having run both OS/2 and Linux in the past.

 

[Lou]

I've used all the versions of Mac OS.

 

[Second Summer]

I remember using the Atari ST 1040 in school around 1989-1991, and it had a desktop environment that looked a lot like the early Apple, and may the GEOS shown in the article.

It turns out the Atari ST had a version of another desktop environment shown in the article I posted in the OP, namely GEM. However, it's worth noting that the similarity to the Apple Macintosh was a definite thing according to this source:

Due to its graphical user inferface, it was known as the "Jackintosh”, a reference to Jack Tramiel.

The Atari ST was part of the 16/32 bit generation of home computers, based on the Motorola 68000 CPU, with 512 KB of RAM or more, and 3½" double-sided double-density floppy disks as storage (nominally 720 KB). It was similar to other contemporary machines which used the Motorola 68000, the Apple Macintosh and the Commodore Amiga. Preceding the Amiga's commercial release by almost two months, the Atari ST was the first computer to come with a fully bit-mapped color GUI, using a version of Digital Research's GEM released that February.

 

[Second Summer]

A couple of things that strike me reading this article and others like it:

• Microsoft somehow ended up as the 'villain' even though Apple and others were also quite evil. Apple sued Digital Research, and won(!!!), for their GEM graphical environment, because it was "similar" to Apple's Lisa and Mackintosh graphical environments ...! And for anyone familiar with the "Unix wars", you'll be aware that the different Unix companies also frequently attempted to use the courts against the competitors.
• The article claims little progress has been made over the years in graphical desktop environments since the beginning. Maybe that is true. And I wonder what the reasons are? I think one reason is the users' conservative attitude. Whenever someone tries to do something new, loads of users complain vehemently. For example, Ubuntu Unity received a lot of hate. Likewise with Gnome 3 and now Gnome 40. Personally, while I think it's fun to look back at some of the old desktop environments, I'm veeery happy for the progress that's been made despite all the backlash.
• Where will graphical desktop environments go in the future? What new features will we see? What company / project will develop them first? Will voice commands ever become a useable thing? Hand movements? How much longer will we keep the mouse?

 

[Veganite]

This thread reminded me of a video I caught yesterday. Talk about old computer systems. This was quite interesting.

 

[majorbloodnok]

I recognised and remembered almost all of them, but think they should also have mentioned the BBC model B and Windows NT.

 

[Brian W]

I remember learning BASIC on a 380Z at school. You used a cassette tape to store and load programs and it plugged into your TV, having no monitor of its own.

 

[tlc1976]

I only fully identified the Xerox and Windows 95. First computer I ever used was my uncle’s Atari with BASIC. In school we used a monochrome Apple II GS. For myself, I started on Windows 3.1, then went to NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000, now 10. I used 2000 until 3 years ago but couldn’t do a lot with dialup internet anyway. Anything that required security I did at work. Finally got better service available for the first time in my life about a year and a half ago.

At my old job I used IBM CADAM on a mainframe, even in the late 90s. Loved it.

 

[Second Summer]

I did not recognise so many of the desktop environments in the article, actually, despite my almost lifelong interest in computers.

My first computer with an actual desktop system was Windows 3.1. I absolutely hated it! I had seen what marvelous things computers were capable of in the home computer era and with 80386 PCs with MS-DOS before Windows. To me, Windows 3.1 and later versions therefore all seemed like extreme bloatware.

I started at university in 1995 where labs had Unix systems and later Redhat Linux. I installed Redhat Linux 4.1 on my personal computer around 1997. While I did have to use Windows at work for a few years, since 2006 or so I have been able to work entirely with Linux. I've used multiple many different Linux distros since then, as well as FreeBSD, and mostly they have had different versions of the Gnome desktop environment.

 

[ewomack]

I go back to Windows 3.1. Prior to that, pre-working years, I had a Commodore 64, an Atari 800 and various Macs and PCs. I've used just about every version of Windows since (except the big flop Windows BOB). The article makes a good point about "It's amazing how far we've come... yet how little progress has been made." If you haven't seen that 1968 Xerox PARC demo (link below, probably for the historically curious only), it's pretty mind blowing knowing what they figured out before PCs even really existed. En masse, we're really just getting to where they were back then (with some exceptions, of course, such as mobile phones, etc.).

If you really want a historical computational experience, there is an Altair 8800 emulator here. I think I had to read 50 pages of the manual to figure out how to add 2 numbers together.

 

[Second Summer]

I had a Commodore 64

Commodore 64! My first computer!

If you really want a historical computational experience, there is an Altair 8800 emulator here.

Thanks, but no thanks!

 

[majorbloodnok]

Commodore 64! My first computer!

That’s a pretty telling starting point. Not the Vic 20, but its almost identical successor with a whopping 64k RAM that came out just two years later.

 

[Second Summer]

Came across this on Twitter:
Apple's macOS GUI from 1984 up to the present:

 

[Second Summer]

That’s a pretty telling starting point. Not the Vic 20, but its almost identical successor with a whopping 64k RAM that came out just two years later.

Well, it was actually already 1988 before I got my C64, so the Vic20 didn't really make much sense. By then the C64 had a vast amount of games and other software which made it an extremely compelling product. Although, at that point there were already other home computer machines such as the Commodore Amigas and Atari ST machines that had better hardware and also had very compelling games / software offerings. I can't really say exactly why I didn't get one of those instead, but anyway the tail end of the C64 era was quite spectacular, so I'm thankful for having had that experience.

 

[g0rph]

Commodore 64! My first computer!

Thanks, but no thanks!

My second (owned), but I indefinitely borrowed a ZX-80 before getting my Vic 20
I got it with 2 game cartridges and 16K ram pack.
The computer was £190
The tape drive was £45
The RAM I am unsure of, but maybe around £50
The games,for 2 £50
Total around £335
When I allow for inflation from 1980...comes to £1160 or $1360

People think games are expensive now, but 1 game at £25 is equivalent of £86 - And these days whole teams work sometimes years to make games...
Back in the day it was a bloke with a computer knocking something up in a week!

Since then I had C-64, Amiga then PC all the way... Now on Win 11 on my 17" MSI laptop

 

[Second Summer]

I've used all the versions of Mac OS.

I've never owned a Mac/Apple computer but my wife is a lifelong addict. I can definitely see the appeal of it, especially when compared to Windows. Although I'm also simultaneously put off by its proprietary nature, how you are forced to use only Apple-approved cables, power bricks, get repairs only at the Apple Stores etcetera, and how they seem to be generally making it increasingly more difficult for users to use.

There are two Apple-like free and open-source OSes (both based on FreeBSD) in the making that I'm curious about:

• helloSystem - here's a tech news article about it: helloSystem 0.8: A friendly, all-graphical FreeBSD
• ravynOS (formerly a AiryxOS)

helloSystem is the one closest to a stable, usable release. ravynOS is integrating some Apple components that happen to be open-sourced, and also writing some things from scratch, so there is much more work to be done there before they have a releasable product for the unwashed masses. But I think it will be really nice once they get there.

 

[Lou]

Although I'm also simultaneously put off by its proprietary nature, how you are forced to use only Apple-approved cables, power bricks, get repairs only at the Apple Stores etcetera, and how they seem to be generally making it increasingly more difficult for users to use.

There is a bright side to all that.
Some of this may not be relevant or even true anymore but back in the day there were so many cables for non Mac computers. Mac users had a much limited number. Although today it seems like there are quite a few varieties.
There are Mac repairmen all over the place. Not just in the Apple Store.

I've Never felt they made things difficult. rather the opposite.
Although they have a long history of making there products difficult to repair.

 

[majorbloodnok]

There is yet another side.

Back when Apple and Microsoft were fighting for an as yet infant personal computer market, they took diametrically opposed approaches. Apple chose stability and the only way applications could interact with anything else was by asking the OS very nicely. This made everything very reliable and stable (if an application crashed, it was just the application that suffered), but restrictive to programme for. Microsoft chose ease of programming and flexibility, and the result was a developmental Wild West with unstable applications crashing all over the place and bringing the whole OS with them. However, it was easy to programme for and so it quickly became the platform of choice for creative developers and, since it offered a wide range of applications, the general public.

In effect, the majority chose choice over reliability. It’s only because of the head start with mobile phones that Apple had (and therefore the wide range of apps already available) that we haven’t seen the same happen with IOS vs Android. Apple do their level best to make stuff expensive, but not IMHO difficult for the user.

 

[g0rph]

There is yet another side.

Back when Apple and Microsoft were fighting for an as yet infant personal computer market, they took diametrically opposed approaches. Apple chose stability and the only way applications could interact with anything else was by asking the OS very nicely. This made everything very reliable and stable (if an application crashed, it was just the application that suffered), but restrictive to programme for. Microsoft chose ease of programming and flexibility, and the result was a developmental Wild West with unstable applications crashing all over the place and bringing the whole OS with them. However, it was easy to programme for and so it quickly became the platform of choice for creative developers and, since it offered a wide range of applications, the general public.

In effect, the majority chose choice over reliability. It’s only because of the head start with mobile phones that Apple had (and therefore the wide range of apps already available) that we haven’t seen the same happen with IOS vs Android. Apple do their level best to make stuff expensive, but not IMHO difficult for the user.

Many of us are old enough to remember the Sinclair Spectrum, the Commodore Vic-20 / 64, then there was a Texas Instruments TI994A, an Acorn Atom, a Tandy TRS-80 and an Amstrad, a Dragon a Sharp etc etc etc.
The common factor... none of them could speak to each other.
What Microsoft and IBM did was start a path of standards. Standards are good, and one reason I will not touch any Apple products with a 10 foot barge-pole.
I detest what "innovations" Apple have brought in... Proprietary cables, soldered memory, non-replacable battery, missing headphone jacks and the Apple tax. Want 64GB or 256GB? Well be prepared to pay 10x what the memory difference is worth for the bigger storage.

The last Apple product I had was an iPhone 5. I hated every minute. From the shambolic mess the iTunes system was, to the fact I could not have my phone screen how I wanted it.

I need a new tablet soon. I am looking at the Lenovo Tab 11 pro or the new OnePlus Pad. They are nowhere near as powerful as the basic iPad, but they have better screens, 120+ Hz refresh rate and a pen that isn't marked up 200% I had toyed with a new iPad, but aside from the unnecessary cpu power advantage, to bring it up to the same standard as that Lenovo (high refresh rate, 256GB, pen) would cost 3x as much.

I should like MacOS, as my early jobs were on Unix mini-computers, but I don't.
I am also a fiddler and a software dev. Most stuff I write is for Windows. Which IMO works like a charm.
I have rooted most of the Androids I have owned and made them my own too.