From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: Re: Advocacy? What do you want for the Amiga?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:49:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.020018.19174@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> zarthac@bradley.edu (Matthew Simmons) writes:
>Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan10.171010.18797@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> tmc@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Tim Ciceran) writes:
>: >In article <C0MEA7.MwA@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
>: >writes:
>: >
>: >>Thus, if Commodore were to write a 'works' package to be included with 
>: >>some Amiga system, the included word processing, spreadsheet, database, and
>: >>drawing software would be compared to the word processing, spreadsheet,
>: >>database, and drawing software included with Claris Works or MS Works.
>: >
>: >Given the waning popularity of Geoworks Professional in the PC market,
>: >why not simply have Berkeley develop an Amiga-specific version of Geoworks?
>: >The expense of having one of the major players develop such a package
>: >would be prohibitive, while I'd prefer CBM to commit their internal 
>: >resources to getting RTG and 3.1/4.0 out the door. Geoworks would offer
>: >a reasonable compromise, and a package which would prove to be a lot more
>: >useful than AmigaVision for the average user.
>
>:    That's a very good idea.  I don't really care who Commodore has develop the
>: package, as long as the package is done well.  And you are right that it is
>: better for Commodore to subcontract the writing of the software to a third-
>: party than to do it themselves.  I think it can be argued that one of the 
>: reasons why the first incarnation of AmigaVision was halfway good was because
>: it was done by a third-party and not by Commodore.
>Yeah, just like Apple lets Claris do theirs...  (The cluephone is ringing Marc.
>Answer it.  Claris is a subdivision of Apple)

   Duh, that's obvious.  HyperCard is developed by Claris.  That alone would
tell a person something about Claris and Apple.

>  Why do we have to make
>separate integrated packages?  With AREXX, all programs that support it are
>integrated.  Just bundle separates...  Hey wait a minute!  By Marc's reasoning,
>he couldn't bash FCII or ProWrite as being worse than Word, as long as they're
>multitasking with something else with an arexx port... Why?  Cuz they're
>'integrated' then... =)

   Get a clue.  ARexx is very nice for people who know what they are doing.
For integrating software into a 'works' package that would be sold to people
who do not wish to screw with manuals to figure out how to do something the
first time they use an Amiga and the pre-bundled 'works' software, relying
on ARexx to do the integration is not wise.  It would only make the software
more difficult to learn, causing the people you are trying to attract to
turn their new Amigas back in for Macintoshes.

   It would be far better to make the clipboard better and easier to use, and
write the software so that each uses the new features of the clipboard.  

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, I just think that a computer grafted on top of another computer
is a kludge.  It has nothing to do with the AGA chipset." -- me