Talk:GEM (desktop environment)

Another GEM graphics engine

GEM is also a graphics engine for Pure data - Omegatron 16:10, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and that GEM - the Graphics Environment for Multimedia - has its own page. I'll add a hatnote. Guy Harris (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

See Also

Is there a reason the first See Also link is to GEM, which redirects here? Thryduulf 01:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alternative to Windows?

"It was a low-cost alternative to Microsoft Windows that was generally much more functional until Windows 3.0 was released, at which point GEM essentially disappeared."

I have removed this phrase, i can't see how something that originated 2-3 years prior to windows can be considered as a low cost alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.9.227 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dubious claim

"somewhat less well known as the operating system for a series of PC-like computers from Amstrad."

1) GEM is not an operating system.

2) What does "PC-like" mean? PCs manufactured by companies other than IBM? At the time, the terms "IBM clone"/"PC clone" or "IBM compatible"/"PC compatible" would have been used.

As I recall, the Amstrad 1640 PCs were bundled with DOS 3.2 and GEM, circa mid-late 1980s. All of the software was supplied on (and run from) 5.25 inch floppy, hard drives being an optional extra. Ah, memories. 217.155.20.163 23:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Atari MS-DOS PCs were bundled with DOS 3.2 and GEM Suite (GEM Desktop, GEM Write and GEM Paint), in mid-late '80s too. Suite was supplied on 5.25 FD with 3 manuals in english customized by Atari, PCs were Atari PC2 and PC3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.117.169 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

GEM 4 & Timeworks Publisher

GEM 4 would work fine with Publisher, the problem (from memory) was that the code for the font handling was never handed over to DR as it should have been by its developers, which meant that at GST there was no option but to continue working one the code which was being added to do the font scaling needed for Publisher.

Chenab 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. GST's method of ignoring font files that were not being used on the page and CCP's GEM/4 were incomptabile. GST's worked by intecepting the Int 21 findfirst/findnext file interupt, so could change from page to page. CCP's had a list which controlled the load order, if it did not get the files it wanted it sulked. I know cause I wrote it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Atari

The Atari section is a little messy. Much of it is written in a passive tone, and some of it doesn't agree with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Much of the information is also specific to TOS, which is not quite the same as GEM. I suggest that it be re-worked. Unless someone objects, or beats me, I'll be posting a re-worked version with a week or so. Yngvarr 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is done... Yngvarr 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

gem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.75.118.248 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates

It would be nice to see some dates, or at least years mentioned in this article. One gets no idea of the time frame of GEM in relationship to the Macintosh and Windows 1.0. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bezier curves

Re: "GEM/4, released in 1990, included the ability to work with Bézier curves, a feature still not common outside the PostScript world."

Is this trying somehow to differentiate whatever GEM/4 offered with the Bezier curves that are a native part of:

• Adobe Flash since 1993;
• Mac OS X since 1999;
• the Windows Presentation Foundation since 2006; and
• many, many others?

I guess you could, if you were desperate, argue that OS X is inside the PostScript world since the display model is PDF and PDF is prerendered PostScript?

— 64.245.141.66 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

.app redirect

.app redirects to this page. I've nominated the redirect for discussion. -Taras (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

".acc" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect .acc should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#.acc until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)