I have to preface this comment with, I am not a Microsoft nor Windows fan-boy. Generally I get accused for being one when I make this next statement.
I don't think Win95 could ever be called OS/2's 'half brother'.
It was basically DOS + Windows3 (32bit) modded to look like it was a gui not cli.
I tire of hearing this tripe. This could be said for earlier versions of Windows, but not 95. While 95 maintained a close relationship to DOS, it was much more than a simple graphical shell and did not run on top of DOS as it is often accused.
Having said that, GEOS and GEOS 128 were my staple platforms for many many years. I used to write papers for elementary school in geoWrite, and was pretty much the only kid doing so. I was, however, admonished by at least one teacher, stating that it was important for me to learn handwriting skills. Mind you, if you turn in a hand-written paper these days, there MUST be something wrong with you.
So, that was from about 1986-ish to 1993 when I made my full transition to the Amiga. Then in mid-2000 I started with my own Windows-based machines but still using my Amigas. Sadly, I never got a good geoWrite-like word processor for the Amiga, I just used WordPerfect.
I never liked MacOS or the Mac. It always just seemed like a toy to me. Compared to GEOS on my 64, I looked at the Mac and thought, I can do that crap on my 64.
Then there is X. I find this intriguing.
Do not add new functionality if you are not aware of any existing application that requires it.With that kind of mentality, a graphical shell like X should never had existed since even at the time no application required it. Seems to me that the only way this credo would work is if X and other applications are developed in parallel. I realize the need to avoid feature creep and bloat. Perhaps I miss something?
