[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Geos vs. Geos

Subject: Re: Geos vs. Geos
From: puritan_2076@yahoo.com (Leon Howell)
Date: 7 Mar 2004 14:00:58 -0800
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2, comp.sys.cbm, comp.os.geos.misc
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: <ae64f04a.0403061048.32d0072b@posting.google.com> <6p3l40pursttjboh0r964fs9rutbmmeft1@4ax.com>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:4127 comp.sys.cbm:8764 comp.os.geos.misc:17596

> 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?
 
> Apple GEOS was never very popular. It was up against the IIgs, and Mac
> which were already resonable established.

Oh, well, I like AppleWorks better anyway.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Geos vs. Geos
  - From: Jens-Michael Gross <grossibaer@grossibaer.de>

References:
- Geos vs. Geos
  - From: puritan_2076@yahoo.com (Leon Howell)
- Re: Geos vs. Geos
  - From: Pheuque <Pheuque@antisocial.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Marinetti and DNS look-up
Next by Date: Re: Archiving old magazines on website
Previous by thread: Re: Geos vs. Geos
Next by thread: Re: Geos vs. Geos
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread