🚀 go-pugleaf

Followup-To:


In article <2322@princeton.UUCP> chiu@princeton.UUCP (Kenneth Chiu) writes:
>In article <426@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) writes:
>>In article <1142@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes:
>>>. . .personally I hate mice and windows with a passion.
>>
>>  Me too, at least as a development environment.  That's why I use Micro
>>C-Shell.  However, for some applications (end-user programs, editors, games,
>>etc), a windowing system is ideal.  It's nice to have the flexibility; it's
>>even nicer to be able to push the mouse aside and get some *real* work done.
>
>Are you saying that you would rather program on a 24 x 80 terminal than a 19"-
>screen, bit-mapped workstation? (e.g. Sun)

   Huh?  Are you saying that green cheese falls from the sky in .6 micron
spheroids?  Can you say confused?  How about non sequitur?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to keep this Atari-related, a question:

   Why are things like ST Rogue usually advertised using grungy IBM screen
photos?  The ST version is wonderfully detailed, and is almost worth the
price just to admire the artwork.  The IBM version uses those silly
IBM screen "graphics" characters, while the ST has individual mini-icons
for the rogue, for each type of monster (they even all have shadows!), and
for each type of item or trap, as well as good representations of passageways
(with cobblestones) and rooms (rather than the IBM/mainframe style of dots
and dashes).  Even the Atari Explorer (BTW, nice pic, Neil...) had an IBM-style
photo along with the ST Rogue article.  Why give people a poor impression of
a nice machine and superior version of the software?
--

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