From: fihsu@athena.mit.edu (Hsu I-wei)
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 08:36:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.063021.28547@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>
>Wow, this sort of comment REALLY points out some Amiga inadequecies:
>
>1) Apps have private screens.  This shoots to hell an enforcement of
>commonality between apps.  What a wild blend of software that designs its
>own interface.  Woo woo.

Yeah, we've had plenty of software with its own unique interface. However,
nowadays software companies are trying to follow the style guidelines..
I consider separate screens to be a blessing.. and I'm sure you've heard
by now the reasons, so I'll move on...

>
>2) It seems beyond me that Amigaworld, *AMIGA*World, wouldn't have shots of the
>Workbench.  Think about it.  What a farce that the Amiga GUI is so irrelevant,
>being some kind of program loader, that it isn't touted.  Sheesh.  You can't
>do that with Windows or OS/2.  The basic structure of windows are all the same.
>You can't help but see the basic of Windows/OS/2 by looking at screen shots of
>Windows or OS/2 screen shots.
>

Yes it's true.. you rarely see WB screenshots in Amiga World. Depending on
what you do, WB might just be a program loader. Hell, Windows can be a
program loader too.. for secretaries who just run Microsoft Word or something.
I'll speculate here why there might not be so many WB screenshots:

1) graphics applications..  in this case number of colors and choice of
colors can be important. While 256 color GUI is commonplace for Windows,
not so on Amiga. A graphics app running on a 4 (or even 2 color..) color
Workbench screen might not be feasible, so the software opens up its own
screen and picks its own colors.

2) telecom programs..  Now here are programs where it'd be nice to run on
   the Workbench. But you never see advertisements for telecom programs,
   because the PD/shareware ones are better. :)  I am running a telecom
   program called VLT which lets you decide whther it runs on its own screen
   or on the Workbench.. very nice.  (Btw, I run it on the Workbench, until
   it starts getting cluttered by other apps. :)

3) word processing..  Looking at the ads for Final Copy II.. it could be
  running on the same screen as Workbench.. can't tell because it's covering
  up the entire screen with one huge window.


>Hopefully, HOPEFULLY, hires and HI color workbenchs are worth using.  And some
>Amigans tout the BLAZING SPEED of the WB?!  Good grief! I sure would hope so,
>to lauch a program to be able to stop looking at it.

I'd use Workbench some before flaming it so. Maybe Jerry and Greg agree with
you.. I believe they've both used WB 2.0. And your points on no enforcement
on the interface are well taken. It's up to the programmers to stick to
the look and feel of Workbench.

And as a return..  a couple of annoyances about windows along the same lines..
Can you open up a shell on the Windows screen? Or do you have to use the
MS-Dos shell (which essentially opens up its own screen ;)? And why would you
want to launch MS-DOS editor from Windows? Surely there's a Windows editor
that comes with Windows that can do everything the MS-DOS editor can... If
so, why even have an icon for launching MS-DOS Editor!?

>
>-- 
>Dan Stephenson                                               das9674@usl.edu  
>"There once was a Lady from Hyde/who ate some bad apples and died/but while
>we lamented/the apples fermented/making cider inside her inside!" 
>                        -Member of the Court, Texas Renaissance Festival  

Francis

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy