From: 22black@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Martin Black)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Date: 13 Dec 92 07:17:50 GMT
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.

das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.025825.19202@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.021529.20368@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu
>>(Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>>
>>>2) Wow, that WB 2.0 looks AWFUL.  Granted, I haven't actually used it, but
>>>from the screen shot, it looks SO primitive!  I guess it is the 4 colors only
>>>that does it.  Really, it hardly looks any better than the mouse-interface 
>>>for MSDOS 5.0's EDIT.COM.  Or QBasic. You get the picture.  Really, you guys
>>>may claim Windows and OS/2 looks to flashy/blocky/clumsy, but WB2.0 looks
>>>primitive as hell!
>>
>>Let's be fair: what screen shot are you referring to? Many of the images are
>>either software which does not take advantage of 2.0 (1.3 hold-outs),
>>aren't style-guide compliant, or are taken from low-resolution displays.
>>
>>In fact, in the January issue, you'd have a hard time coming up with anything
>>that didn't fit into the above categories. Unfortunately, most of us feel
>>the same way you do.

>I am not too postive.  The Final Copy II shots looked adeqate, I suppose, mostly
>because you didn't see too much of the Workbench.  Mostly, the scrollbars
>looked primitive, the scroll button was SO basic.  The sizing button on the
>top right, while I not understand them right off from jsut look at them (
>which I should have done, BTW) looked too big.  Gosh, Amigans bash Windows
>for BIG BLOCKY buttons?! Sheesh!

>There doesn't seem to be any commonality among windows.  In Windows, there
>is always the command-button thingee in the top left, and the super-inuitive
>max/min buttons on the top right.  The scrollbars in Windows look more
>professional, IMO.

>That, and those awful 4 colors!  Sheesh!  You Amigans REALLY don't know what
>you're missing with 4 colors.  Going back to a 4 color mode
>once used t 16 or more colors should be impossible, IMO.  Really, those WB
>screens looked like so much CGA.  Ack.

>And the Workbench is suppose to be SO SOO GREAT!?  Ha!

Again the Final copy II screen that you saw, had absolutely nothing to 
do with the workbench.  It was all their coding for scrolls, etc.
And on Final copy II, and it was using 16 colors.  There are intuition
routines to do all this but not many use it, instead they code their own
because they want compatability with os 1.3.  And another thing on colors,
sure we might have only 16 colors on the screen, yet don't have to use the
same 16 colors on every screen. Ie on the final copy II they have their own
16 colors, paint prog you have your ham 4000 colors, and etc.
On the os/2 and mac, you have got only one screen and one pallete.

And with aga there is even more.  256 colors for the final copy II screen,
256 for your pro page dtp, 256k for you dpaint 4.5, and 256 colors for your
workbench.  The nearly only reason why people that aren't into graphic arts
want more than 256 colors for the vga card is because they want each app and gif
to have their own 256 colors.  On the aga amiga that is what we have got.
Our 16 colors or our 256 colors, is like their 256 colors and 65k colors 
respectively.


Dan I thought you owned an amiga?  You should know all this.

Martin