From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dan flipped through an AmigaWorld, and:
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:36:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: ra.1992Dec13.173650.21473
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science

In article <1992Dec13.061400.28016@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.025825.19202@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran) writes:
>>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!

You are as ignorant as Marc Barrett if you use screen shots as a basis
for some sort of comparison.  I have not looked at the screenshot, but
the buttons on my 704x468 Workbench are smaller than those on a 640x480
Windows screen with both machines using identical monitors.  As for your
inability to understand the interface, I'll leave that one alone.

>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 is certainly odd, all of the windows on my screen have quite a bit of
commonality.  There is a close gadget, a zoom gadget, a front/back gadget,
and resize, scrollbar, and scrollbutton gadgets on windows which require
them.  The scrollbars and buttons do not have the 3D look--for-hell that
Windows has, but at least they are consistent with the rest of the interface.
The Windows 3D buttons appear to be sitting on top of an old 2D interface
instead of being nicely integrated, obviously a last-minute change by MS
to get the attention of the boneheads who buy clones.  I'm also sure that
the people at MS could handle writing proportional scrollbars, but I don't
believe that the Windows users could handle the extra complexity.

>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.

Again, you are a complete fool if you think that every Amiga owner is using
a 4 color Workbench.  My Workbench is 64 colors now, but I could easily
change it to 256 colors should I so desire.  The 64 color mode is faster 
than 16 color Windows 3.1 and the 256 color mode is faster than 256 color
Windows 3.1.  And this is on a 486DX-50 with Tseng ET4000 HiColor SVGA,
not some whimpy little Clone as used by the masses...

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

If you were truly certain that Windows on a Clone is so superior, you 
wouldn't be posting such ignorant statements...

>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  

Skip Sauls, Amiga Advocate
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu