🚀 go-pugleaf

[ a sacrifice for the net line eater]


>From: gary@cirl.UUCP (Gary Girzon)
>Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.amiga
>Subject: re: Amiga and ST (important comparisons?)
Re: Demar's comparisons:
>How does one arrive at the magic 70% time figure?
I would be interested in knowing this too.

>The ST does not offer an alternative to GEM for a "real" user 
>environment. Icons may be more user friendly for applications, 
>but real software development is much more efficient given a 
>"shell" environment.

The ST *does* have an alternative to GEM in two forms (that i know of):
	1) Command.com - which is included with the developer's
	   kit. 
	2) commercial shells - for example a shell is supplied with
	   Haba C and allows various unix-like commands such
	   as ls,rm,mv,cp,etc...and redirection.  It also includes
	   a set of unix-like directories such as usr,bin,lib, etc.
	   You may add commands to your shell by putting the
	   executable to your new commands in bin.

These are the only two shells I am aware of but they do offer an
alternative to GEM.

I believe Aztec C offers a very nice unix-like shell for the Mac
and will soon offer it for the Amiga (according to the sales rep
i talked to they are also planning on Aztec C for the ST).
(by the way i am in NO way affiliated with Aztec...)

By the way I am one of those people that believe both Commodore/Amiga 
and Atari made a mistake by not putting some form of windowing OS9
into their machines.  Hopefully this will come but why didn't they 
save us all alot of trouble.

Sidelight: in command.com - ls and cat seem to work on my version??
           One day i forgot i was no longer on unix typed in ls and
           it worked!   must be some kind of alias.
                          cd