🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <233@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> olson@endor.UUCP (Eric Olson) writes:
>OK, guys, I have a few questions for anyone to try to field about the ST:
>
>- Why "lazy" menus? ... (i.e., make it like the Mac?).

   Ask the lawyers at Apple, Corp.  (Weren't you around for the Apple vs.
DRI discussion?)  Anyway, there is a utility in the latest issue of STart
magazine which claims to be able to make the ST do stuff "like the Mac".

>- Holding down the arrow in a scroll bar doesn't cause continuous scrolling
>(like on the Mac).  WHY NOT?  This seems like a very obvious thing to do.

(See above answer)

>- Nothing I've seen except NeoChrome (which throws away the user interface
>standard altogether) uses the right mouse button.  The documentation doesn't
>talk about it.  In fact, I don't think GEM supports it.  Good thing it's
>there, huh?

   Is this a serious comment?  I'll assume so and treat it as such.
   First off, there *is* a use for it that you can demonstrate for yourself,
in the privacy of your own home.  First, open two windows.  Now, hold down
the right mouse button.  OK, double-click (left) on a file in the *non*-active
window.  Whaddya know!  A use for the right mouse button!  Even ignoring
that small but useful use, do you think there's a possibility that A) people
may want to use it in their own applications, and B) there just may be some
things in life that you haven't yet encountered?  Good thing it's there, huh?
It's sorta like the cigarette lighter and ashtray in my car; I sure as hell
won't use 'em, but I'm sure there are a few people who would, and I'm not
going to complain to the dealer that they're there.

>- A large number of programs (for instance, GEM KERMIT) seem to look for
>their resource files (or something) on A:\.  Since I have a hard disk,
>I'd really prefer they look on the current default drive.  Also, everything
>seems to want to be at root.  Subdirectories are virually useless on this
>machine.  And don't create more than 40 of them (well, don't access more
>than 40 of them between boots).  As far as I can tell, there's no way
>to tell the linker to look anywhere else for the .O files besides root.
>You can't append drive or directory specs to the files in the command line,
>and there's no option like -I in the preprocessor (CP68), which tells
>it to look "at a different drive" (but a directory spec worked there) for
>the #include files.  Something tells me Atari didn't develop the software
>for this machine on itself.

   The above points are all good; they are either programming bugs or 
laziness, or the result of short-sighted operating system design.  The
linker and compiler I use are fairly good about allowing me to specify
different directories for include files, source and object files, and
library files.  If you're the legitimate owner of a piece of software
which you believe needs enhancements, write a letter to the company.
I'm sure they'd be happy to make their product more attractive.  Complaining
to me won't get you far.
  The only thing I'd disagree with is the RSC files on the A:\ drive problem.
All the programs I've seen, including GEM kermit, seem to look for the 
RSC file on the drive/folder from which the program is executing.

>
>- Since the desktop is sooooo difficult to use (compared to, say, a Mac),
>it would be nice if there were a reasonable CLI.  Is there?  The one I have
>(version 0.1) doesn't have a single error message, and no documentation.
>So far I can change the directory, ls, and run programs.  Is there a copy 
>command?  Pipes?  I/O Redirection?  If I had a good CLI I could just pretend
>I've gone back in time and I'm working on a PDP-8 again.  How about a CLI
>that launches GEM applications in GEM mode?

   Oh, the Mac again, eh?  Well, I'll explain a little better.  The fine,
original-thinkers at Apple made the Macintosh in the image of a Xerox
icon-based OS interface.  The folks at DRI did the same.  However, one of
those companies was bigger, and had more money to spend on lawyers, so
they made the other company make some small yet significant changes to 
their OS interface, so they wouldn't have the same "look and feel" as that
original Xerox product.  Life is strange, no?
   As far as CLI's go, are you complaining about a PD (i.e. free) program?
If not, are you complaining to *us* because *you* wasted money on a product
that doesn't deliver what *you* think it should?  Anyway, Michael Beckmeyer's
(sp?) Micro C Shell seems like a good, Unix-like CLI, complete with pipes,
I/O redirection, a copy command, and a host of other Unix-like commands.
Look into it, unless you don't want to have to pay a nominal fee (~$30)
for a very useful program.
   And as for PDP 8's, go back in time and see how much your PDP 8 costs.
I think too many detractors of reasonably-priced personal computers expect
them to be MicroVaxen, not pc's.  If you want the capabilities of a Vax
buy a Vax.  But don't complain when you buy a $500 machine and it can't
outperform a Vax.

>In case you're wondering, I'm not too happy with the software on the ST.
>It seems like a PC running GEM, not a small Mac.  But, of course, it's
>not a PC (although why not, marketingwise, I'll never understand), it has
>a 68000.  Running CP/M-68K (essentially).  And GEM/VDI.  And GEM/AES.

   The ST is maturing, in both hardware and software.  The Macintosh has
a good 2-year lead on it.  If you need a monochrome machine that has
software now, and a user interface you like, why didn't you buy a Macintosh?

>I'm slightly sorry to vent all these complaints, but I see very little to
>praise.  What is this machine good for?

  I dunno.  Who would be dumb enough to buy a useless machine?
--

 - Joel Plutchak
   uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
   ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu

Warning:  The above constitutes a large amount of opinion, with a smattering
of fact thrown in for good measure.