🚀 go-pugleaf

> 
> 	For simple BEEPS, the MAC wins.  One thing I'd like to see as an 
> 	addition to one of the run-time libraries for the amiga is a simple
> 	BEEP call.
> 
> 	It isn't dificult to make the Amiga BEEP, just long winded because the
> 	run-time library was set up to utilize the full capability of the
> 	amiga's sound and you have to set-up a lot of junk.
> 
> 	Taking another point of view, I can make the amiga say something to me
> 	with a very simple program (maybe even less than a page).  Try doing 
> 	that on a MAC.
>

        If you like, I will post 2 programs, one that takes input from the
	keyboard and converts it to speech.  It takes up roughly 24 lines
	of code.

	The other program will play 4 voice music.  In this, the largest
	portion of the code is data for the music (I was too lazy to put it
	in an external file).

 
> >  with its ES command, lets you exit back to the Mac's shell from a
> >  crashed application.

> 	If even one task on the MAC crashes (oh! I'm sorry, there is only one
> 	task!), you have to reboot your MAC too. 
> 
Flame on.
	Excuse me, but can you read?
Flame off.
	The 2 lines listed here say that you do not have to reboot your
	mac after a crash.  It is true for MacsBug and more powerful debuggers
	like db, from Manx.

> >  Resources - The Mac has a what-you-see-is-what-you-get editor called
> >  the resource editor that allows you to change menus, fonts, icons, and
> >  every detail of alerts and dialogs (requestors on the Amiga) without 
> >  ever recompiling.  An amiga programmer must laborously speel out these
> >  things in C code that does not look at all like the finished product.
> 
> 	HA! this is a major difference between the Amiga and the MAC.  On 
> 	the MAC all your requestes and such form a kind-of 'secondary' file,
> 	and thus you can easily edit it without recompiling your program.
> 
	Just a side note here.  You don't have to put all the resources in
	resource files.  they can be generated on the fly, or in a way similar
	to that of the Amiga.  Resource files were designed so that the mac
	software cold easily be translated into foreign languages.  As an 
	example of this, I have a version of Macpaint in French.  The code is
	all the same. Only the resources were changed to accomodate language
	differences.  It would be a Herculean task to have to translate a
	all the strings, menus, etc, in a program the size and complexity of
	MacPaint without the resources.


> 	lies in reading/writing/finding. (but here I believe the MAC+ has
> 	a faster filesystem; the amiga only beats out the older MACs).
> 
> >  High level printing - Since mac applications comminucate with printers
> >  as if they accepted high level graphics calls, most applications did not
> >  need to be recompiled to accept laser printers, even though the
> >  applications had not been designed with laser printers in mind.  Amiga
> >  applications have to have special code for each kind of printer.
> 
> 	The code is part of the system.  A particular application 
> 	program doesn't need to know or care what kind of printer is on
> 	the other end, it just uses a standard set of escape codes through
> 	AmigaDos's printer device (just another file).  I think the Amiga's
> 	printer interface wins here.
> 

	I disagree with you here.  The process of printing a bitmap is the
	same as drawing it to the screen.  No escape codes.  You just open
	the printer driver and draw the bitmap.  All the graphics calls to
	the screen can be done to the printer, rectangles, ovals, polygons,
	complex regions --all in any combination of framing or painting with
	control over the line width and patterns.
	Consider this:  you draw a Ploygon and the drawing routines know 
	enough to give you better resolution for a laser printer than a
	dot-matrix --transparent to the programmer! (actually, I think its
	the printer driver that does this, not the drawing routines).
	
	Think about how easy it would be to do the printing for a Macdraw
	document. Its just a screen refresh with the printer driver open.


> 	This only happens if you are not using intuition.  If you are using
> 	Intuition, OOB lines are clipped properly.  In fact, one uses the
> 	same graphics calls whether using a custom window or one with
> 	cliprects.  In fact, anything you do via cliprects is clipped
> 	properly.  In fact, you can have X processes in overlapping windows
> 	and completely oblivious to fact as the graphics are clipped properly
> 	and saved in alternate buffers so when you move the window nothing
> 	is lost.
> 
> 	Most people use cliprects, at least during development.
>

	Rectangles? you can only clip with Rectangles :-)
	Sorry, I can't help a little unfair prodding here.  I just
	finished a program that had to make a telephone look like it
	was ringing, so I just used the shape of the phone as a
	clipping region, and drew circles "underneath" it, producing
	concentric sections of cricles that were clipped by the phone.
	It would have taken much longer to do that if it wasn't in ROM.
	The code would have been substanstial instead of trivial.

 
> 	And the hardware on the Amiga IS faster than a MAC+.  The MACs software
> may be superior now, but then again the MAC's been out a couple years longer
> than the Amiga.  Lets see what happens in another year, you may be in for
> some surprises.
>
	No argument here.  After seeing, using and programming the Amiga, my
	conclusion was that it seemed to be developped in a hurry. It seemed
	to lack refinement in spite of all its power.  I can't wait to see
	the programs when the machine has been more refined, but at the same
	time, I can't wait to see the Mac programs then.

Steve Hawley
joevax!sdh