🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <954@usl.UUCP>, elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green) writes:
> >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. 
> 
> Well whoopeedo to you, too, Mr. Computer Bigot. Just what we need,
> another flaming Mactribesman cluttering up the net with his diatribes
> about how his computer is better than every other computer in the
> world 

Just what we need, another flaming Amigatribesman cluttering up the net with
his diatribes about how his computer is better than any other computer in the
world.

> (to hear some of the Mactribesmen speak, their Mac is better
> than a Sun!). Frankly, who gives a #$%@#$% about whether you have to
> recompile your code after changing the gadgets? Doesn't exactly sound
> earth-shattering to me...

What if you want to modify a commercial program that you don't have the sources
to?  Tonight, I was looking at some modifications that people have made to the
Finder to allow different icon spacing, dating conventions, etc.  Try that
with Intuition.  Also, try to produce a foreign language version of an 
application without the sources.  I think it's a big deal (and obviously you
never even considered these advantages).

> Oh so true. Intuition has some definite problems with speed in that
> area, mainly because it is sitting on top of a real operating system.
> The Mac stores disk directory entries with both their corresponding
> icons, and the filenames/locations/etc. 

This is WRONG!  The Mac operating system does not store icons/folder locations
in the directory entry for that file.  Rather, the Finder creates a file
called the DeskTop, which contains the icons and their locations, comments,
etc...Many people tend to believe that the Finder and the operating system are
one and the same.  They are not; the Finder is merely an application program.

> Tripos/Amigados doesn't, since
> if you are operating in the CLI environment, there are no associated
> icons.  The Amiga has to go looking for ".info" files due to the
> implementation chosen (I personally think they should have stored all
> the icons in a single ".info" file in each directory, instead of
> having to go chasing around looking for them).

Amazing.  This is more or less what the Mac Finder does.  Could Apple have done
something right in the eyes of this person?
My biggest pet peeve about the Amiga is that it is possible to have 
applications that have no icon, because there is no .info file.  This is very
confusing to novices, who, when given a disk that they are told has something
on it, get horribly confused when no icons appear.  They should have had a 
default, generic icon.  Not everyone uses the CLI, you know.

> >>> ... 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.

**** The below comments you are about to make, are based on the above text,
which I did not even type!

> You must not be very demanding! I do alot of programming. One thing I
> like to do on Unix is to call up a shell window in GNU Emacs, compile
> my program, run it, and as the errors pop up, edit my program and do
> it all over again. I also suspend the editor alot to pull up dc or go
> brouse thru /usr/src/local looking for likely solutions, etc. I can
> see where, if you just use your Mac as a terminal or a word processor,
> you could prefer the Mac to an Amiga (that tiny monitor shure has nice
> looking characters!)...

My mac that I am typing this on has a 12" (720x364) screen, it's called a
MacXL (Lisa for the diehards).  If you want to really see true multitasking,
see a Lisa running Lisa 7/7 software, still the best multi-tasking micro
to date.

> but while I can use my preferred work style on
> both Unix and the Amiga, I wouldn't be able to use it on the Mac due
> to the lack of multitasking. Programming the Mac sounds an aweful lot
> like programming my C-64 -- I HATE single-tasking computers, they're
> so awefully limited.

I have used multi-tasking in program design on a Burroughs B25, it was nice
but there was no super advantage in it.  With design systems like Lightspeed
C & Pascal, where compile times are less than 10 seconds, I'll be done and
in my application before you have switched over to your compiler.  The
biggest fault in Amiga multitasking (at least on the ones I used at the 
local amiga dealer), is that they kept on crashing at regular intervals.  I'd
rather have a one task system that works, than a multitasking that bombs.
If you really want nice multi-tasking (and since you have made the jump to
the amiga), why not wait and look at the new open mac, it will have what
you want and more.

> >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.
 
> Obviously, you've never used an Amiga. The right button is used ONLY
> pull down menus, in all the Amiga software that I have used, and the
> left button is used ONLY to move windows around, tweak gadgets, etc.

Yes, I have used the amiga, but the two-button mouse is not straight forward
as to it's meaning.  I can take a complete computer novice (like
yourself?) and have them working faster & better on a mac than an Amiga.
Also, I hate the word 'gadget', makes me think of a cheap toy construction
kit where you slap together gadgets to make something.  

> >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.
 
> Talk about your LIES!!!! The Amiga is right now reaching the point of
> takeoff. Within the last month, several pieces of hardware have been
> release for a suitable price that make the  Amiga competitive with any
> computer on the market today.

Just try to add a cheap 20 meg hard disk.  I can get 20 meg SCSI drives
for $595 LIST.

> For example, if I had an Amiga (just
> lusting after one, thank you), I could add 4 megabytes of RAM to it
> for under $1200... try that with your Mac! See ya, Mr. Computer Bigot!

Yeah I can add 2 megabytes now for $220, that's only a tad more expensive than
Amiga 256K upgrades isn't it (retail price?)  When the 1 megabit chips are out,
I'll be able to have 4 megs internally w/o an expansion box (that is twice as
big as the Amiga.)

> By the way, I think the Mac Plus is a nice machine... the Computing
> Center here has several Macs used by the secretaries (the techies
> generally have PC-Drones or other such machines, since they enjoy
> playing with soldering irons and you need a hacksaw to open a Mac).

A Hacksaw?  I have seen internal hard drives, fans, 4 meg memory upgrades
w/ 68020 & 68881 boards.  How is it so hard to open, don't you know how to
use a screw driver (w/star tip)?
-- 
Brian Bezanson {seismo,ihnp4,allegra,topaz,harvard}!uwvax!gumby!bezanson
Manta Software Corp.				  bezanson@gumby.wisc.edu