From: hunter@phoenix.apana.org.au (James Gardiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Amiga OS weaknesses and strengths
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:38:59 +1000
Organization: Phoenix ComSystem
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.apana.org.au

barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:


>   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.  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.  (BTW, this is not without fixes.  Several freely
>distributable programs will fix this completely)
No one here USES the Mac so how can we tell you how bad it is.
A good question to ask is WHY most people here have not gone further
with there mac experiences.  Well simply, my first impressions like
many others I expect, from using a mac is that its boring and repies to
much on mouse.  Its so developed to accomidate the IDIOT user that it
gets in my way.  I know how to use a computer, I do not want all the
glossy shit in the way.

>>Load a graphic into Teachtext, THEN try to enter some text.
>>
>>Sorry.  Won't do it.  Graphics OR text.

If you ask me the amiga does need something like this.  I would like
to see online Tutorials with graphics and Hypertext.  More like
the Windows3.1 system where most apps have a help button that brings
up a tutorial.  This is helpful some times when you have forgotten
exactly how to do something and just glance over the help and your
on track.

>>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.

Sure the amiga has less polish then the Mac GUI, but then again the Amiga
GUI/OS is much younger.  And one point you seem to leave out which is
the most important factor here.  The amiga has support for many things
the Mac will NEVER be able to do due to the crap under the hood.  The
amiga is capable to be just as much an IDIOT interface as the Mac.  It
just has to be over developed like the mac.

>>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.  
Auto snapshot sounds like an interesting OPTION but I like it better as
it is. So when I turn on the machine the next day, I know where everything
is, not where I left it the day before.  This point is nothing but
some one grasping for straws and not a real argument.

>>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.
I have even with my small experience with Macs.

>>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.  
This is a very open ended statement.  Why would a Icon's size effect the
drag&drop function?  My argument here is that, if an icon is to big for you,
you can always change it.  I agree its good for commodore to encourage
icons not to be too big.

>>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.
This is amazing, you call yourself a tipical amiga User and don't even
know the amiga has exectly the same feture if you wish to use it.
Have you even used the WB menu.  In the ICONS menu there is a option.
"Empty Trashcan".  And there is a trashcan Icon in the systems draw
that could be left out if you wish.  If you have not noticed this...
What can I say.

>>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.
Not a problem yes, but a nice little feature.  Many of the plus's you
tell us about the Mac are just nice little feature.   It seems to make
a difference to you.

>>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.
Me and my brother have found arexx to be great.  We use it control the
amiga from a Unix system.  Very easy to do and very versatile.  And
ARexx compatable programs, and they are growing in number every day,
are controlable via other programs or other machines.

>>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.
Another little feature which has its moments.  PD or Commercial software
does not count.  Are we not talking about out of the box OS to OS?

>>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.  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.
a shell is a shell.  People who tend to use the shell do not want
the GUI stuff.  THATS WHY THEY ARE USING THE SHELL.  The GUI has all the
mouse crap. Why bring it to the shell too?
SAS C is suppose to have a quite good programming interface
now.  This is not OS issues anyway.
I good question to ask yourself is.  Why do people still use the shell
when we have such nice interfaces like the Macs?  My personal reason is
because GUI's are just TOO SLOW.  To do something in a shell which is
quite complex usualy takes one command that a resonable typer can
punch out quite fast.  To do the same thing in a GUI may take 2-3 times 
longer as you have to drag the mouse all over the screen a number of times.
And using a mouse takes much more concentration then a keyboard.  It tends
to distract me from what I am concentrating on.

>>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.
Do you know anything about user-computer interaction at all.  The amiga COULD
multi-task the WB more but does not. THERE ARE REASONS WHY.  Firestly, doing
it with the clock wait stopes makes Buffering mouse events impossible.
Buffering mouse Events is VERY dangerous.  I have lost work to it more then
once.  It also tends to THRASH the machine.

>>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.
I have a 640x512 WB screen and the Icons a the same proportion as any MAC
screen I have seen.  Also, if a icon does not have a set snapshot
possition it is placed niceley like it would be with a clean up.
I agree in low-res Icons are to Big but your not usuing your amiga
if your not in hi-res.  Another non-argument.

>>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.
>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.
You seem to be showing me that you never use your amiga and that the amiga
you have has been abused and is not perfoming well.
I format many disks. Old and new.  The amiga format program always errors
on crap disks when formatting.  And SLOW,  I formatted a disk on a mac
once.  It seemed to be slower then my 3000 (4000 now which is faster again).



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

All this talk is fine but I think you should understand that this means.
Well, it means very little.  Commodore may have some little man reading
all this for reasearch reasons. However, its not likely that much will
be done about it.  Commodore are busy developing NEW ideas for AmigaOS.
They are not there to implement nice fetures that other venders use.
Amiga has many areas it can grow. One for example is Networking.
Amiga is very poor in the Networking area.  I bet my amiga that great
new intergrated networking software is one of the big new features of
upcoming releases of amiga OS.
I am sure they are also working on other interesting  areas too.
Its better to strive for a better technology then to dwell on what has
already been done.


James
-- 
James Gardiner ..... hunter@phoenix.apana.org.au ..... Phone: +613 532 8030
            Co-ordinator Silicon Graphics User Group Melbourne
     Vice-President Australian Public Access Network Association (APANA)
                     mail info@apana.org.au for more info
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy