From: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
Subject: Re: More Amiga OS weaknesses and strengths
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:00:52 GMT
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.

In article <C0F5z7.A7A@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>In article <C0Et7p.GwA@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>>In article <C0CJnH.4DL@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>>In article <C0CHqr.EEB@news.udel.edu> don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes:
>>>
>>>   What happens if you give a text file a project icon, enter "c:more" in
>>>the tooltypes for the icon, and "more" is not in the "c:" directory?  Do
>>>you get an "Unanble to open your tool 'c:more'" requester?  This does not
>>>happen on the Macintosh.
>>
>>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.  

Uh, uh.  You're not going to get away with that one.  To distinguish between
double-clicking between document files and applications and aliases, you
are talking "under the hood".  We can't do that, remember?  (your rules)

The point it, double-clicking from the Mac desktop is not reliable.

>
>>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.  

It was the FIRST message I sent in response.

>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.

I didn't have to dig at all.  I listed many things either broken or
inadequate to the Amiga from the top of my head.  Didn't hurt at all!

>(BTW, this is not without fixes.  Several freely
>distributable programs will fix this completely)

Such as?

Besides, there are 3rd-party programs, free & otherwise, to fix many of the
stupid things you said about the Amiga too, Marc.  (Wish there was one
to fix you).

>
>
>>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.

But you were the one talking about how you could intermic graphics & text
in Apples simple little Teachtext app.  I just pointed out that
you were wrong.

>
>>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.

Shows how much you know about the Amiga Marc.  I KNEW there was a reason
you constantly bash it... you aren't familiar with 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.

Only in YOUR mind.

>
>>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.  

So you'de rather GIVE UP CAPABILITIES than have it either way.
Just like a mac head.

>
>>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.

Here's a mac example, Marc.  Open a small window, Open a big window.
Cover the small window with the big window so that it's completely
covered.

Now... there is no way on the mac to get at the small window without
either MOVING or CLOSING the big window... both of those operations
are "permanent" i.e. remembered by the mac until you change them again.

On the amiga, you can simple push the big window to the back.
Both windows are still open, both still in EXACTLY the same positions
you originally put them.  Very intuitive nd simple.  Unlike the mac.

>
>>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.  

So?  There is still a range of sizess available... not just one like on the
inflexible macintosh.

>
>>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.

Sure you do... just use the Amiga's trashcan.  It stays there too until
you decide to forcibly remove it.  Even over a reboot (unlike pre-6.0
versions of the Mac trashcans, which would delete the stuff you
put in there at arbitrary times without asking the user).


>
>>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.

Obviously, you only see the things you want to see (which are always
"problems" with the Amiga).

>
>>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.

Then buy some 2.0-compatible software, Marc!  I use ARexx all the time.
My commercial JForth compiler supports it.
My shareware text editor (Textra) supports it.
I even use ARexx to link the two together so that Textra acts as
an integrated editor with JForth.
One of my Textra customers recently sent me some scripts to allow
Textra to act as an integrated text editor for HSPascal users.

Just in my own little world of JForth & Textra, ARexx use is
prolific.

Do you know HOW yo use ARExx?

No wonder you don't like the Amiga... you refuse to use it's best stuff!

And as far as other software, just about everything I see supports ARexx.
My latest addition is ProWrite 3.3... looks like a super ARexx interface.
Even my shareware communications package (yes, I'm registered) comes
with an ARexx interface.

So the biggest Amiga bad-mouther of them all doesn't know about
or use major AMiga features, eh?

> 
>>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.

And what is this Marc?  The stupid "Hide application" option?
The thing that can take 10 seconds to erase & completely redraw the
new applications windows?

And this is the user interface you want to tout over the AMiga's?

>
>> More
>>recently, public screens.
>
>   
>>The Amiga has always had a shell of some kind... the Mac?  nada.
>
>   Check out the Macintosh Programmer's workbench.  This is something that
>I wish the Amiga had.  A nice shell with graphical structures.  Does the
>Amiga shell have any GUI aspects?  Does the Amiga shell even have any menus?
>No to both questions.

I use MPW every day (and it stands for Macintosh Programmers
WORKSHOP, not workbench).  But it's an application... not part of the OS.

>The Amiga shell is still heavily entrenched in the
>MS-DOS and CP/M paradigm in this respect.  The programmers at Commodore just
>don't seem to have any idea that a mouse can actually be useful for shell
>operations.

Well, if there was a need, someone would come up with a 3rd-part shell
that would provide this (like they HAD to do with the mac, since
THE STANDARD OS HAS NO SHELL, like I said originally).

The smooth way applications interact on the Amiga, both in terms of
real-time response AND because of the excellent IPC, of which ARexx
is a high-level implementation of, reduces the need to have
all that fat in the shell.

>
>>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.

First of all, buffering of mouse events is so screwed up on the mac...
it shouldn't be there for the reasons I cite above.  Absolutely
no response from the mac while you click & click away, then it comes back
to life, and your clicks are doing all sorts of things you never intended!

At least the AMiga is 100% consistent... when the busy pointer is up,
no point clicking.  When it's not, click away sucessfully.  The idiot
mac is so bad that, even though it has a 'busy pointer', it's appearance bears
no relation to the receptiveness of the machine... You can do evolutions
where the mac pointer will change back & forth several times, or
disappear (won't reappear till you move it), and the whole time
the machine is not only NOT RESPONDING to your clicks, but storing
them up to unleash later when God only knows what they'll do.

It's the epitome of bad user-interface design!  True junk programming.

>
>>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.

But the inability to fix the problem and "Retry", whatever the reason, is
a serious user-interface flaw, and that's what we're talking about.

Besides, if it IS due to the "under the hood" crap OS, that
means it will never support it.  At least the Amiga, with it's great
internal design, can be made to do it.

>
>>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.

Total crap.  Amiga icons, at least all the standard ones, are not
HUGE.  They are sized quite nicely.  They can be made HUGE (or smaller,
something the MAC DOESN'T LET YOU DO), but RARELY appear so.  It is
certainly false that the Amiga icons TEND to be huge.  The Amiga
can handle different size icons... don't try to make an advantage
look like a disadvantage.  ('Course... that's what you always do, no?)

>
>>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.

Yeah, peeking through to the surface to screw up the mac's user-interface.

It may be permissible to discount internals when we are talking about how
difficult it is to open and manage a window on the mac and how easy it is
on the Amiga because... when all is said and done, both OS's do support
opening and managing windows.

But when an internal difference prevents or limits the user-interface, it
is VERY applicable to discuss that user-interface limitation.  After all,
it IS a user-interface limitation, which is what this is all about.

(And this is certainly one you're never going to fix with any 
3rd party product!)

>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.

Doesn't "seem" that way to me.  In fact, I have formatted several floppies
on the Mac that failed, then when that floppy was re-inserted in the
mac, it CRASHED the machine!  (seems like ANYTHING can crash the mac...
a strong wind... a full moon...)

>
>>Yeah, I could go on all day about how much better the Amiga user-interface
>>is than the Mac's.
>>
>>All of this deals with "surface features", Marc.  Too bad we're not
>>talking "under the hood", cause that's where the mac is a real
>>abortion (probably even bloody, too).  Just one example is the
>>"GetNewDialog()" system call which doesn't tell you if it failed or
>>not!  If the right DLOG, DITL or other required resource isn't there
>>or is corrupted, the calling program will never know and guess what???
>>THE COMPUTER CRASHES!!!  (Nothing new to the Mac, so I guess that's
>>not really a big deal, huh?)  Technically, the machine is so inferior, that
>>instead of fixing it, Apple released tech note #14 which lamely tries
>>to justify why it's OK for GetNewDialog() to NOT return an error
>>code!  (Basically sez if the user has mucked with a programs resources,
>>he DESERVES TO CRASH!)
>
>   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.

But we're talking user-interface here, marc, and USER'S AREN'T SUPPOSED
TO MUCK WITH MAC RESOURCE FORKS.  The fact that they can get themselves into
so much trouble doing it is a liability.

And just think about the implications of Apples engineering fiasco of
GetNewDialog().  It means that ANYTIME A MAC APPLICATION OPENS A DIALOG,
IT MIGHT CRASH AND THE APPLICATION CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT.

Yeah, it's a GREAT system... to avoid being sucked into.