From: roberts@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Robert Swan)
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Organization: Genasys II, Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:40:33 GMT

Hitting, for the last time in this thread, the 'F' key...

In article <1993Jan21.162740.28145@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Robert Swan (roberts@g2syd.genasys.com.au) wrote:
>: Ahem.... permit me to quote from a little discussion you were having
>: with Gregory Block:
>:
>: !Once again, Greg, you fail to grasp the meaning of the words you read.
>: !I'm not using applications to justify the OS.  I'm saying that Windows
>: !has the functionality to support applications the likes of which you
>:                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: !can't get anywhere else.  This functionality includes complete device
>:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: !independence and communications protocols such as OLE.
>:
>: If those aren't unique applications you're talking about, we must have
>: different definitions of unique.  You're trying to use these
>: applications to justify the OS.  Wriggle and squirm all you like, but
>: you did it.
>:
>
>Read it again, Robert -- the whole thing, not just the part you underlined.
>What I'm pointing out as a Windows advantage is the functionality it has for
>supporting great applications -- functionality such as device independence
>and OLE, not the great applications themselves.  If you just let the brain
>catch up with the "F" finger, perhaps we could have avoided this.

It takes two to tango, and your 'F' finger is clearly more exercised
than mine.  Just before I take a break though... (and I don't kid
myself that I'll have the last word).

I read it several times to try to work out what you might be getting at
other than application uniqueness.  It still translates as "I'm not
using applications to justify the OS, I'm using the uniqueness of the
applications to justify the OS."  Perhaps your statement was
sufficiently obscurely worded to have confused me.  Anyhow, back to what
you say was the point of discussion:

Device independent graphics is essential in the PC-Clone world, where
`standards' abound, and getting software to run on all configurations
without a standard device driver interface is a nightmare.  Having
DIG allows the PC-Cloners to get nice graphics very cheaply.

The Amiga world has had three standards - i.e. the three major releases
of the chip-set.  And the interface is supported by C=.  Device
independent graphics, beyond these standards, is not a concern to the
many people who find C='s hardware adequate.  Moreover, Amiga users get
faster graphics.  An average PC running Windows-III can't compete with an
average Amiga for animation speed

DIG is not something I'm itching for on the Amiga.  I find both
resolution and colour to be adequate for my purposes.

I assume good animation, and a minimalist, efficient OS are not what you
are itching for on your PC.  Perhaps you're after the nice WP,
spreadsheets etc.  that can be got for it.

Communications protocols, other than TCP/IP and Sun RPC, are currently
of no interest to me.  Hence, whatever OLE is, I couldn't care a fig.
One man's meat is another man's poison.

The things you tout as operating system advantages are merely design
decisions, mostly made for Microsoft by the installed base.  The benefit
of those decisions (for the users), is in compatibility with the
millions of other PC users.  There is no inherent advantage in having
DIG, OLE or Microsoft stamped on your OS.  Depending on your viewpoint
it may help, it may hinder.

Sorry, but I'm not jealous.

Now I'm off this futile roundabout.  Over to you, Jerry, for the
final word.

Have fun,

Robert.
-- 
I used to be indecisive,   | Robert Swan, roberts@g2syd.genasys.com.au
but now I'm not so sure.   | Genasys II Pty. Ltd., North Sydney.