From: mike@struad.uucp (Michael Cianflone)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some Amiga questions!
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:23:06 GMT
Organization: Structured Applications & Designs, Inc. R&D Institute.

In article <1992Dec23.064455.14012@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>I found where to change the point... I made something a lot better...
>but now when I click on the desktop, or something, it changes into
>the number '1016' with a red band on the top and bottom if it...
>and THAT acts as the '
>pointer!
>
>What gives?
>
>Also, the way it recognizes when there is a floppy in the drive is neat, just
>like the Mac.
>
>Hey, I figured out the 'screens' trick!  Granted, I'd rather just iconize    
>something, perhaps...  hey, how DO I iconize something?!  Anyway,
>I 'dragged' the Dpain II screen down and saw the workbench!

  Yep, that was a *screen* you dragged down.  Different from a window.
A screen has a resolution and pixel depth. A window is just that, a window
on a screen. 
>
>Also, did you guys know that if you fold down the feet on the keyboard it
>can fit snugly *under* the Amiga 1000?   Nice to get it out ofthe way sometimes.
>I cannot imagine why C= would make the A500..well, AT ALL with the nice 
>looks and detached keyboard ofthe Amiga1000.  The A1000 looks a lot
>'better' than the A500, IMO.
>
>What's this 'F -> E' scrollbar thing on the left of my windows?  What is it?

  You know, you really should get one of those gadgets that lets you run 2.0
on the 1000. In any case, the F/E are the full/empty guys that tell you how
full the disk is getting. 1.3 really is pretty awful compared to 2.0/3.0.
Don't judge the Amiga when running 1.3. It's like running DOS compared to
running OS/2. There really is a world of difference. (not that 1.3 is like
DOS, just that there is a big difference in each respective OS).

>
>Hmm... ohm regarding the usefulness of screens, since windows do not
>seem to move off the screen edge, you sorta need them.  In my OS/2,
>for example, I can drag down a full screen app by the title bar.  Drag it down,

  No, in OS/2 you can drag down a *window*, not a screen. A screen is something
that has a resolution and pixel depth independant of the resolution and
pixel depth of the ones behind it or in front of it. On the Amiga you can
have (for examplen) a 640x400 workbench that pulls down to show the 320x200
deluxe paint screen behind it. THe pixel depth and resolution is changed on
screen as you're pulling the screen down. Pretty nifty.

>to the side, any where, and it is still 'full screen'.  Now, it can't
>be some weird resolution or color difference like on the Amiga, but real close
>and better in some respects.  And the 640X400-type mode (
>640X480) on my my PC doesn't flicker so bad.  Wow!

  Such is the bad thing with being compatible with video. But then you
could get a different Amiga that fixes that and still remains video
compatible. Remember, you are using an Amiga that came out in 1985. If you
want to compare that to PCs and OS/2 nowadays, then let's get an 8088 and
DOS 3.x (or whataver was out then) and compare that to the 1000. It's very
difficult to go from a 1992 machine to a 1985 machine and keep thing in
perspective.

>
>Well, lemme go try to find Lemmings in this box..... 8)
>-Dan
>.
>
>--
>Dan Stephenson                                         das9674@usl.edu  
>"Yes Dan, I have heard of Ultima Underworld..."

  Saw Ultima Underworld at a friends house. Looked neat, but not great.
Nothing special about it. *Definately* not something that couldn't be done
on the Amiga, faster. Just that there is a bigger market in the PC world
so it's done there.