From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: Re: Does reading this group make you depressed? The story of a victim.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 06:01:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.191959.9373@klaava.Helsinki.FI> lindblad@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jarkko Lindblad) writes:
>Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:
>
>>    No.  I am countering your lumping of development tools like text editors
>> and programming languages with productivity software.  You can't compare them
>> at all.
>
>Jesus... so I guess that programming languages, text editors,
>AmigaTeX, Real 3D and others are not productivity software. Oh Jesus,
>then I guess they're games.

   No, they are development tools.  Pretty simple concept to me, really.  Just
because something isn't a productivity application doesn't mean it is a game.

>	What is productivity software n your opinion?  Just word
>processors and spreadsheets, I guess.

   Word processors, spreadsheets, databases, desktop publishing programs, 
drawing programs, etc.  My definition of "productivity" software includes
software that allows a computer to be used as a tool for the composition of
documents, reports, presentations, and other forms of media.  Basically, 
productivity software is software that allows you to actually create 
something substantial, something that actually exists.  I don't put the
development tools into this category because they are most often used in the
development of software, and not in the composition of media that has a
form, an existance outside the computer.
 
> I don't think you mean databases
>as we do have several different Superbase-versions.

   Is SuperBase even still supported?  I don't think it is.  But even if it
is still being supported, does it have the up-to-date features available on
databases on Mac or IBM, such as dynamic-linking (called "hotlinking")?

>WordWorth and
>Finalcopy are pretty good text editorts, probably not as good as MS
>Word for Windows, but good enough for 99% of users.

   Typical Amigoid mentality.  Belittle Mac and IBM versions of the few 
software applications that are better on the Amiga than on the Mac or IBM, 
but completely excuse the mediocrity of Amiga applications that are not as
good as their counterparts on Mac or IBM. 

   If a morphing program for the Mac had 99% of the features needed by
low-end video users, but was not nearly as powerful as a similar Amiga 
morphing package, would you excuse the Mac morphing package as being 
completely adequate?  No, you would flame it as being complete inadequate.
      
>This 99% does not
>include you, I know.

   You are so short-sighted it's a wonder you don't bump into walls (or do
you?).  Advanced features in a word processor are often of the kind that you
don't notice them unless they are not there.  For instance, a few weeks ago
somebody was complaining about some graphical word processors messing up on
the kerning of fonts on the printed output.  MicroSoft Word for the Mac has
built-in a small facility for adjusting the kerning of the output.  Most 
people would not use this facility all the time, but it is pretty damn nice 
to have when the automatic output isn't quite right.  Another nice facility
of MicroSoft Word is the built-in mini typesetting language.  It isn't 
exactly TeX, and most people would not use this facility very often either, 
but it is also very nice to have once in a while to print an occasional
mathematical formula.  I could list literally dozens of other examples.

> Then there are ProCalc (never seen) and Maxiplan
>spreadsheets - probably not too good ones, but porobably not too lousy
>either. 99% of computer users don't use spreadsheets. You do.

   No I don't, but I wouldn't touch an Amiga spreadsheet with a ten-foot
pole.  I know people who have tried composing the figures of business reports
with Amiga spreadsheets, and they did nothing but complain about them.

>> word "good" confused people.  I did this because the Amiga does have some
>> productivity software available, but no really good productivity software
>
>Corection: no software with label MicroSloth.

   Wrong.  I despise MicroSoft as a company overall, probably almost as much
as you do.  But I am willing to admit that MicroSoft Word for the Mac is a
damn good word processor.  I admit that I don't like the overpowering nature
of MS Word 5.0, though.  I like MS Word 4.0 better.  It has most of the
features of 5.0, without cluttering up the screen as much.

> And then there's no
>Intel inside either.

   Have I ever said anything good about Intel?  I'd like you to quote me on 
anything good I have ever said about Intel, because it would be funny to see
me quoted as sying things that I have never said.  I have programmed assembly 
language on both Intel and Motorola microprocessors, and I like Motorola
processors more by far.  The one thing I have against Motorola is that they
are not as committed to the 68000 line as Intel is to the 80x86 line, and
Motorola has let Intel jump ahead of them somewhat, when Intel used to be
several years behind them.  

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------