From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:17:55 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33

In article <1992Dec22.173928.22565@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Obviously, some people find this feature useful, and that's why there are
>several Windows utilities which allow you to do this.  However, we were

Which are not nearly as integrated into the system as the Amiga's
screens are, and therefore, quite a bit less useful.

>talking about the Amiga's hardware implementation of screens.  The only
>advantage it has over the Windows method (for the particular function of
>increasing real estate and grouping applications) is that Amiga screens
>redraw faster.  So, just like I said, they are a speed optimization; my
>first point holds.

I disagree.  It's more than just a "speed optimization".  It's a
direct result of having a copperlist, one.  Second, it's more than
"the only advantage" over the window method, due to the OS itself.  As
I mentioned before, how do those windows open on those screens?  Can
you tell your application "open on _THIS_ public screen", "use the
default public screen", can you shanghai windows to a public screen,
and do applications support them intrinsically?  As a best guess,
you'll only have support for shanghai.

>BTW, what happens when you run out of Chip RAM?  Let's face it: separate
>screens on the Amiga alleviate the screen real-estate problem in a limited
>way.  Just how many 800x600x8 screens could you open with 2MB Chip RAM?

Then again, how many do you need?  If you're grouping your
applications, you won't need many.  Work under the philosophy of
preservation and giving each application only what it needs, and the
grouping will take less.  As a matter of fact, very few applicatons
actually could make use of 800x600x8.  WP's and DTP programs.  That's
one screen, if you'r running one of each, two.  The wide variety of
other software doesn't NEED that, though.

>Please re-read these comments (your own) and tell me that you're not
>describing a speed optimization.

I'm not describing a speed optimization.  I'm describing a solution to
the lack of resolution on ALL systems, IBM, Mac, and Amiga.  Because,
in the end, not even the Mac or IBM systems has enough resolution for
doing everything on one screen.  Otherwise, you wouldn't be
iconifying/hiding windows under OS/2 / Sys7.1 / Windows.

>This is hilarious.  Your article starts with you calling my statements
>"wrong", and ends up doing everything to support them.

The grouping has more to do with memory than speed.  And thinking that
the copper is there just so you can drag your screens around is kind
of moronic, at best.

Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Our father, who art in Iowa, Hollow be thy head, Thy ideas run    :)
(:  Thy will be done, At Commodore as it is at Apple"  -Dan Barrett   :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: () :) :) :) Wubba, the Dark Angel :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy