Today, we’ll explore old graphical shells for MS-DOS, test the most famous of them, and recall completely forgotten projects that once attempted to make working with computers more intuitive and convenient. We’ll look at what they could do in practice, how they differed from each other, and why some gained popularity while others fell by the wayside.

It sounds strange, but I liked MS-DOS. However, when I was just starting to learn how to use computers, Windows already existed, but it hadn’t been brought to Russia yet. I encountered Windows 3.11 at a very mature age, and Norton Commander was our primary file management tool at first. Meanwhile, my professors at college kept saying, “Norton is software for idiots; there’s the command line,” and they forced students to memorize the bizarre syntax of DOS commands.

The paradox is that, despite the love of some individuals for “pure” DOS, using the system soberly wasn’t particularly comfortable: the operating system was sorely lacking convenient tools for working with files and multitasking. And initially, MS-DOS developed in roughly the same direction that Linux would later follow: the flies, i.e., the console, were separate from the cutlets, i.e., the graphical interface overlay on the command line. Even the first versions of “windows” before the advent of Windows 95 were often called “a window file manager for DOS,” since they relied on DOS itself as their foundation.

Moreover, Windows alone didn’t exhaust the arsenal of graphical options available to users: in addition to Windows, in the early 1990s, there were several window interfaces for the IBM PC, each with varying degrees of usability . Some of them were created as alternatives to Windows—cheaper, faster, sometimes simply because “we can also slap together windows with interesting wallpaper.” Others were born from more practical motives: to create a simple shell for working on corporate PCs with a semblance of multitasking, or simply to give the system a look that wouldn’t intimidate people seeing a keyboard for the first time. As a result, an entire ecosystem of graphical environments emerged around MS-DOS, which are remembered far less often today than Windows 3.x, although many of them were no less interesting technically and conceptually.

The idea to install and test the most advanced graphical environments of the MS-DOS era occurred to me spontaneously. In yet another attempt to build a retro gaming console, I bought an ancient Hewlett-Packard nettop with a VIA Eden processor at a well-known online flea market. This chip, as we know, is a classic x86 and architecturally very close to the Pentium MMX, which theoretically makes this platform a good choice for installing Windows 9x and software designed for it. My nettop had 512 MB of memory, and in place of a hard drive, it had a gig CF card with a CF-to-IDE adapter.

Apparently, because of this outlandish drive, neither Windows 95, nor Windows 98, nor even Millennium Edition would run on this machine. Only Win2K installed and ran without a hitch, but if I wanted to dive into the world of NT, I had Windows 11, and this computer was supposed to run something more old-school. Surprisingly, the unpretentious MS-DOS 6.22 booted on the first try, and I thought: let this machine run DOS with old-school graphical interfaces. Well, no sooner said than done!

Packard Bell Desktop

In the early 1990s, IBM-compatible computers were being manufactured by anyone and everyone, putting brand-name hardware manufacturers at a disadvantage. Numerous companies were churning out similar computers with the same operating system and roughly identical specifications, often costing less than brand-name personal computers. Companies were forced to seek competitive advantages, such as experimenting with their own graphical user interfaces, to differentiate themselves from competitors while simultaneously lowering the barrier to entry for home users.

One such experiment was the Packard Bell Desktop, which appeared in 1991. It was a graphical environment for MS-DOS, primarily aimed at owners of Packard Bell PCs and included with new machines. Essentially, it served as a visual “startup window”: after booting, the user saw a screen containing a set of buttons, each of which launched a specific program.

We controlled the interface using a mouse. Most of these programs aren’t installed on my nettop, so if I try to launch any, Packard Bell Desktop displays an error message.

The shell has a fairly simple settings system, activated by clicking the Options button at the top of the window.

Here, for example, you can change the appearance of the cursor.

Changing the button layout is also very simple: select Move in the Options menu, click the icon you want to move, and then click again where you want it to appear on the screen. You can change the button names, the path to the executable files, and, if necessary, create your own button. Select Add in the settings menu, then choose an image from the standard Packard Bell Desktop library.

All that remains is to enter a name for the new button and select an executable file for it from the list of already installed programs or specify the path to it manually.

Essentially, the Packard Bell Desktop is a desktop with a set of customizable shortcuts for launching MS-DOS applications. It doesn’t add multitasking capabilities or any additional features, but the extreme simplicity and usability of this interface, designed for the untrained and inexperienced user, cannot be overlooked. It’s important to understand the context: Packard Bell was targeting the mass home market at the time, where buyers were often getting a computer for the first time. As a result, the software included with the PC had to address not only a technical but also a marketing challenge—creating the feeling of a “ready-to-use device.” And the Packard Bell Desktop, with its factory-installed software, accomplished this task admirably.

In 1991, MS-DOS was the most widely used operating system: by the beginning of the decade, it held a dominant market share, accounting for approximately 70% of OS shipments for new PCs, and by 1993, for x86 computers, it accounted for approximately 79%. However, its complexity was considered the main obstacle to widespread adoption of personal computers. While Packard Bell Desktop isn’t as flexible as Norton Commander, while Norton emphasized efficient file management and was a tool for those already familiar with PCs, Packard Bell Desktop was more reminiscent of a home appliance remote control. This interface wasn’t intended to be a universal file system administration tool; rather, it concealed the file system behind a set of buttons that allowed the user to launch programs, open help, or switch to “pure DOS.”

GeoWorks Ensemble

The history of GeoWorks Ensemble began around the same time as the Packard Bell Desktop, a period when the industry was still trying to figure out what a graphical interface for mass users should look like. The technology was developed by Berkeley Softworks (later renamed GeoWorks), founded by engineer Brian Doherty. The new project was based on the 8-bit GEOS for the Commodore 64/Apple II, ported to the IBM PC platform and adapted to run on MS-DOS.

GeoWorks Ensemble was positioned from the start as a ready-to-use, out-of-the-box workspace. It included the GeoWrite word processor, the GeoDraw graphics editor, the GeoManager file manager, and a set of auxiliary utilities like a calendar and address book. This approach was a significant departure from earlier versions of Windows, where users had to separately find and purchase all the necessary applications. And unlike Packard Bell Desktop, it wasn’t just a “start screen with buttons,” but a fully-fledged workspace with a basic set of software.

GeoWorks was supplied on five 3.5-inch or 5.25-inch installation diskettes. To install the graphical environment on a computer, the user had to boot into DOS, insert the diskette, and run the installer.

GeoWorks Ensemble’s appearance is very reminiscent of Windows 3.0: roughly the same windows, icons, VGA palette, and resolution settings. But it’s much more like a full-fledged operating system with a windowed graphical interface.