🚀 go-pugleaf

>> I am not a great amiga expert,
>Obviously...
Obviously you have never used a Mac...

>>   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.
>The Amiga has a Font Editor and an Icon editor shipped with it (the Font
>Editor is officially new for release 1.2).  I've got a public domain
>Menu editor which lets me define menus, graphically, then produce C code to
>create them.  And a full featured gadget editor is just around the corner
>(can you edit MAC gadgets as easily as all the other stuff?).
You missed the point here, you can graphically edit ALL the Macs resources
(windows, dialogs, menus, icons, strings, etc...) without having to change
any of the original programs code or need for any recompiling.  If I want to
change/modify a Mac Menu, all I have to do is use a resource editor.  You
have to recompile with the new code AND ORIGINAL SOURCE [Flame On: No wonder
you need Multitasking, you have to do many things to make one change: Flame off]

>>   Disk Operating system interface - The mac's operating system takes a Pascal
>>   view of the world.  this is not great for a C programmer, but most Mac
>>   compilers have a pascal keyword that handles the details.  The system
>>   itself is pretty decent.  The Amiga's operating system is written in
>>   BCPL [etc.]
>The Amiga's disk interface is far faster than the MAC's.  That should say it
>all.  There's very little in the DOS that requires byte boundary access anyway.
WRONG!!! Though the Amiga may be faster from a hardware DESIGN point, in 
practical use, I could always go to sleep waiting for it to read in a disk, and
I could watch ROOTS in the time it took to open up it's 'folders'.  The Amiga
OS, at least from Intuition/Finder Section was defintely slower than on the
Mac 512E or Plus.

>> ... Although
>> the hardware of the Amiga should be faster than a Macintosh, the superior
>> software of the Mac consistantly makes it easier to use, faster, and more
>> powerful at the kinds of tasks that I like to do.
>Can't comment on ease of use, that's a personal preference, though I like the
>option of not having to use a mouse all the time, only when I want to.  With
>a few minor exceptions (circle/ellipse drawing, I believe), BYTE found the
>Amiga to be consistantly faster than the MAC, in graphics, disk, sound, etc.
>I like to do my tasks a few at a time, thank you.
The Mac is far easier to use, because Apple created a standard interface that
99% of all Mac programs follow.  You can use nearly any mac program, to some
basic extent, without ever having read the documentation.  I hate the 2 button
mouse on the Amiga.  One minute you use the right button to open a window, the
next you have to use another button.  It has less functionality than the Mac
Mouse.

The Amiga is a great piece of hardware, but it was brought out by an ailing
firm that is still on the edges of financial disaster, and the Amiga is not
helping Commodore out a lot.  The Atari ST for it's price and software has the
Amiga beat out, and the Mac edges out the Atari in the higher end market.
The Amiga has probably seen it's last days as a viable computer, due to price
drops in Atari and Apple lines, and the introduction of Apples //GS.

Time is a telling factor.  Let's have a net re-union next year and see if
the Amiga is still sold by Commodore (or anyone else).  Commodores low-end
market is falling to the big boys.

Brian Bezanson					       bezanson@gumby.wisc.edu

-----------------------------
'Here today, gone tomorrow...'
-----------------------------

-- 
Brian Bezanson {seismo,ihnp4,allegra,topaz,harvard}!uwvax!puff!bezanson
Manta Software Corp.	  "     "     "     "    "       !gumby!bezanson
bezanson@gumby.wisc.edu    bezanson@puff.wisc.edu