Re: Geos vs. Geos

[Jens-Michael Gross <grossibaer@grossibaer.de>]

Leon Howell schrieb:
> 
> > As I recall they were in no way exacutable compatible. In other words,
> > Geopublish 64 would never work on the Apple, but the data files could
> > be downloaded and with the help of some conversion program made to
> > load from one version to another. I also think fonts somewhat
> > compatible.
> 
> Probably the resolution. The C=128 could run C=64 applications under
> Geos 128, so I was hoping I could get some C=64 stuff easily. Were
> they identical, though, or would using Geos on a IIc+ not be the same
> as using it on a C=64?

The Apple GEOS did have additional functions in the Kernel (memory and
floppy management, screen management etc.)
And even the identical functions were on different locations.
It is very likely that the applications just needed different header
files and a recompile but the compiled binaries are 100% incompatible.

Teh C128/C64 is a different thing. The handling of the system (except
for the 80-column screen mode) is identical on both computers and the
jump table for the system functions was the same in both GEOS versions.
So it was compatible on binary level.

Except for some minor differences (handling the APPLE floppy drive
etc.), the C64 and Apple GEOS have been quite similar in look and feel.
I've never worked with the Apple GEOS but I have seen some screenshots
ans as far as I can remember, there was not much difference.

The programmers reference book listed C64/C128 and Apple GEOS sytem
functions in alphabetical order (with notes like 'only on apple', 'not
on apple' etc.)

Grossibaer

-- 
If Microsoft would invest only 5 minutes to make Windows boot 1/1000
second faster, 
we would save 30 working hours worldwide every day.