From: barham@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Amiga OS weaknesses and strengths
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:29:11 EST
Organization: Queensland University of Technology

Ho ho, this is gonna be fun...

barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
> In article <C0Et7p.GwA@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
> >It happens on mine... to be specific, when I create an alias for an
> >application and move it to the desktop, double-clicking will (about
> >half the time) bring up a dialog box saying it can't find the
> >application!  I have to find the folder holding that app and open it!
>
>    True, but we are talking about a problem with aliases here, not with project
> or document files.  Aliases are easily possible on the Amiga, but there are
> no automatic facilities for creating them available, even in freeware or
> shareware.

Is it true aliases on the Mac are the equivelent of links on the
Amiga?  I may be wrong but this is what a Mac worshipping relative of
mine says.  What'a'ya'mean no automatic facilities are available for
creating them?  I use a program called WBLink, or something like that
- drag an icon (ANY icon) on to it and it creates a link.  Is that
automatic enough?  I'm not overly familiar with the Mac's aliases, so
I may be barking up the wrong tree here.

> >THEN double-clicking on it works.  Is THIS the great UI you're talking About
> >Marc?
>
>    BTW, this is the first mention of a problem with the surface features of
> the Mac OS that I've seen mentioned after wading through 100 messages.  I
> rattled off numerous problems with the Amiga OS right off the tomp of my head
> with no difficulties, but people had to dig to find something wrong with the
> Mac OS in this respect.  (BTW, this is not without fixes.  Several freely
> distributable programs will fix this completely)

Bah - UTTER TRIPE!  COMPLETE HOG-WASH!  TOTAL AND COMPLETE FLUGLE-
HORN!  I have read heaps of "Mac OS" problems that nobody had to dig
to find - sure the cause may be "deep down" but the manifestation is
PAINFULLY OBVIOUS right on the surface.  Don't get your definitions
in a not, Marc - If there is a deep down problem, it will manifest
itself on the surface, thus becoming a surface problem (if I have
cancer of the bowel and that gives me an auto-immune skin rash, does
that mean I don't have a skin problem?  It's really just in my
imagination, right?).  The Macs "deep down" problems just happen to
surface in particularly ugly ways.  All the surface sugar and spice
aint gonna help that no matter what bells and whistles you give it.

> >Load a graphic into Teachtext, THEN try to enter some text.
> >
> >Sorry.  Won't do it.  Graphics OR text.
>
>    TeachText is mainly a document viewer.  If you want to compose a document
> with graphics, use a word processor.

Yar, this is reasonable.  The mac has some nice usability and
programming features but they are undone by the garbage they sit on
top of.

> >I've often wished the mac had the "Open Parent" capability on it's desktop
> >that WB 2.0 added.
>
>    I've been using 2.0 for a LONG time (since right after it became available),
> and I noticed that feature only just now.  Shows how often I use it.

Your problem, not ours.  Perhaps you just need to find a use for it.

> >Open a mac window that has one icon way off screen.  You have to scroll
> >the window over there and drag it, scroll the window, drag it, scroll
> >the window... to get it to be next to the others.   That's cause the
> >"Cleanup Window" menu item only moves icons to the next "grid" spot,
> >unlike the WB "CleanUp", which re-arranges all icons to be as visible
> >as possible.
>
>    I agree, the Mac 'cleanup' facility has problems.  It also does not take
> into consideration the space for file names.  Score another one.  Still have
> a ratio of about 50:1 of Amiga GUI problems to Mac GUI problems, though.

Oh, please - you are stretching it a little.  Perhaps we're just not
as clever as you?

> >You can temporarily move icons around on WB, without the OS forcing that
> >position permanently, as does the mac.  Same with windows and window
> >dimensions.
>
>    Automatic snapshotting is something I wish the Amiga had.  I hate having
> to select 'snapshot' EVERY time I arrange the icons in a window, to save
> the arrangement.

Tell me Marc - how many times do you move stuff around on the
workbench or in a window to be a permanent change, and how many times
do you do it just to see whats underneath or for some other "non-
permanent" reason - I think 99% of people would have to say they
would do it far more for the latter reason.  So don't you think the
"automatic" thing should be what people need most often - ie for
stuff to stay where you've said you want it - then when you really
want it to be moved permanently, you snap-shot it.  How often do you
re-arrange your Workbench, anyway?  I RARELY use snapshot - I have my
WorkBench set up how I want it and it stays that way.

> >Amigas have always had some kind of depth arrangement capability on
> >their windows... unlike the Mac which forces that brain-dead "click on
> >it and it obscures everything else" approach.  (I can even get my Amiga
> >to work that way, if I want... try getting the Mac to be as versatile).
>
>    I don't know what you mean.  I've never had any problems with the way
> windows are arranged and manipulated on the Mac.

The Mac, like Windows, is a pain in that the active window HAS TO BE
the frontmost window - the minute you click on a window it comes to
the front.  I can have this functionality on the Amiga if I want, BUT
I DONT WANT!  Often I want the active window to stay behind.  An
example in some simple window stuff I'm doing at the moment is that I
have a large window (basically a glorified text editor) which is
unsizable (my choice - its due to the nature of the application).
Then I want a free floating ToolBox sort of window, with all
the controls in it for the app.  Trouble is, whenever I click on the
main Window, the ToolBox disappears behind it.  Yuk.  And no, I DONT
want it to be an MCI child window, because I want it to be able to go
outside the bounds of the main window - its a real pain in the bum!

> >Mac icons are not only limited in size, they are fixed!  Can't be any other
> >size.
>
>    Have you tried loading an icon larger than 80x40 into IconEdit?  The icon
> gets truncated.  Commodore is trying to enforce size limits, too.  Good idea,
> because the Amiga's rather large icons are the reasons that things like
> automatic feedback during drag&drop can't work very well.

Fine, limiting size is a GOOD IDEA - but a) We CAN make it bigger if
we REALLY want to - IconEdit doesn't have to be used, and b)  1x1 up
to 80x40 is a bit better than 32x32 (or whatever the Mac is) period,
don't you think?  You were obviously getting a little desperate with
this remark.

> >I've often wished the mac had a "delete" menu item on the desktop.
> >I detest having to find the trashcan after I've covered it up with
> >windows.
>
>    At least the Mac has a trashcan.  When you delete an item on the Amiga,
> it's gone forever.  You don't have a second chance to retrieve it.

Oh, no trashcan on the Amiga?  Funny, iy had one last time I looked.
Yours must be "broken" like the rest of your WorkBench.  Are you sure
you installed 2.1 correctly?

> >I LOVE how the Amiga lets me shift-select files on different volumes,
> >in different drawers, etc.  On the mac, they all have to be in the same
> >location :(
>
>    Not a problem I've ever noticed before.

Oh, of COURSE NOT Marc, it's called the blind eye of faith - if the
Mac doesn't do it, it isn't worth doing!

> >Of course, there's ARexx, the like of which has been drooled for for
> >a long time on the mac.
>
>    And something that I've, to date, never used.  I was really excited about
> it when Commodore announced that ARexx was going to be standard with 2.0.
> Then I found that I could not find any uses for it, mostly because none of the
> programs that I want to write ARexx scripts for support ARexx.

Gee, dont you EVER upgrade?

> >Then we can talk about user-interface features that the AMiga has always
> >has that the mac never will... like draggable screens.
>
>    Screen-dragging is a cute hack that has no real uses.  Multiple screens
> that can be swapped is far more useful, and the Mac has a software
> approximation of this.

Marc, if the Mac had draggable screens and the Amiga didn't, they
would be Gods gift to computers.  Draggable screens are brilliant and
in NO WAY a "CUTE HACK".  Arrrrrrrrrgh, comments like that make me
shiver sometimes.  Regarding the Macs "Software Approximation" -
EVERYTHING on the Mac is a "software approximation" - because it
doesn't have the hardware to do it.  AND IT REALLY SHOWS!

> >The Amiga has always had a shell of some kind... the Mac?  nada.
>
>    Check out the Macintosh Programmer's workbench.

Did they get copyright clearance on the name WorkBench?  Seriously,
though, is this part of the standard OS you get out of the box?  If
not, why should it enter into the discussion?

> This is something that I wish the Amiga had.  A nice shell with
> graphical structures.  Does the Amiga shell have any GUI aspects?

Why the heck should it?

> Does the Amiga shell even have any menus?

To do WHAT?

> No to both questions.  The Amiga shell is still heavily entrenched in the
> MS-DOS and CP/M paradigm in this respect.

Which is its purpose in life.

> The programmers at Commodore just don't seem to have any idea that
> a mouse can actually be useful for shell operations.

Oh, so its not just marketting and management that are cretins?

> >The Amiga has always had an instantaneous response at the mouse... never
> >even moves "choppily".  I've lost count of the times I've clicked
> >on some mac control several times, tried other windows, all while
> >the machine was "busy", but still showing me an "arrow" cursor.
> >Then, when the machine became free, all those clicks came to life.
> >Except now, because of windows popping in fron of other windows, others
> >closing, etc., all my clicks are doing things I didn't want them to do!!!
> >Some user-interface!!! P-U-U-K-K-E-E!
>
>    Buffering of mouse events is another thing I wish the Amiga had.  Right
> now, the Amiga's Workbench does NOT multitask very well.  Many operations
> will put the 'busy pointer' up for many seconds, and during this time any
> mouse events are lost.

Oh boulderdash - Good grief, WorkBench multitasks exactly like ANY
OTHER PROGRAM on the Amiga.  If you get that wonderous wait pointer
you can (unlike the Mac or Windows) go off and do stuff in another
application.  Oh, sorry, maybe that's not "surface" enough?
Certainly workbench isn't multithreaded (ie while workbench is doing
one thing you cant be doing something else that is done by
workbench), but it is still light-years ahead of the Mac and Windows
in this regard.

> >Not to mention modal dialogs...  the mac makes real sure you get the
> >message (won't let you do anything else till you close it!!!).  I LOVE
> >the way I'm always able to go do something else on my Amiga... even
> >fix the problem the dialog is compaining about so I can click "Retry".
> >Oh, yeah, the Mac dialogs don't give a retry button, now do they?
>
>    Both of these are carry-overs from the Mac's lack of real multitasking,
> which in turn is a problem with the internals and not the surface aspects.

Oh fardles.  The fact that when a requestor comes up you can't do
anything anywhere until you satisfy it is not a surface aspect?  Who
cares what the cause is, the manifestation is on the surface and it
stinks!

> >And I really wish I could "snapshot" my mac hard disks and floopies
> >so they would appear on the Mac desktop where I want them to appear!
>
>    This feature is more necessary on the Amiga than on the Mac.  On the
> Amiga, icons (even the system default icons, viewed on a 724x482 screen)
> tend to be HUGE.  This necessitates giving the user a way to snapshot the
> volume icons.  On the Mac, the icons are small enough that the default
> positions are never a problem.

What garbage - the size of the icons has NOTHING TO DO with needing
snapshotting or not - I want things to appear where I want them to
appear because that is where I want them to appear, not because
they're too big!  Good grief, if ever I get a program that some has-
been graphic artist has given a 200x100 icon to, I jolly well create
my own at a reasonable size.  Don't you?  Send my some icons and I'll
send you some very attractive replacements at whatever size you
specify (I'm serious about this - I LIKE creating the little buggers).
Then see if snapshotting still isn't useful.

> >Then we should mention the little user-interface things like
> >how formatting mac floppies prevent you from doing anything else (while,
> >as you know, an Amiga can format a floppy in every floppy drive
> >attached and at the same time... and you're free to do other work
> >at the same time!  (That's a phrase Amigans use alot: "...at the
> >same time"! :-)  (A favorite phrase of mac users is" "Where can I
> >get a cup of coffee... maybe even a hotel room?".)
>
>    Another little problem with the internals peeking through to the surface.

Oh, Marc, what utter bull (Sorry, I'm starting to get personal now -
I am referring to what you are saying, not yourself as a person).

> BTW, Amia format operations seem to take forever and a day, and don't seem
> to have very good error-checking during the format.  I don't know how many
> times I've formatted a disk on an Amiga, only to have write errors to the
> disk not much later.  the Mac seems to have better verification of disks
> during the format.

Hmm, I never have had this problem - You don't use your disks to
spread peanut butter on your bread or anything, do you?  I always
find if format works, the disk works for yonks.  Either your careless
with disks (which we know you're not) or you need to get a new drive.

> >Yeah, I could go on all day about how much better the Amiga user-interface
> >is than the Mac's.
> >

[stuff about Macs resources and programms crashing if they're not
available and Apple saying that is what should happen to useless
users who stuff up a programmes resources]
>
>    Well, at least the user CAN muck with a program's resources.  Amiga programs
> have things similar to resources, but there is nothing available for the
> Amiga to allow a person to change these aspects of Amiga executable files.

Oh dear, this is really sad.

> ---
> | Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "No, I just think that a computer grafted on top of another computer
> is a kludge.  It has nothing to do with the AGA chipset." -- me

Chow,

Tim.

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| t.barham@qut.edu.au (Tim Barham) - "Dances with Lemmings"          |
| Applications Programmer for the Computer Based Education Section,  |
| Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia      |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out..."              |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy