Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bionet!apple!oliveb!amiga!jimm
From: jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: My AmigaDOS 1.4 wishlist
Message-ID: <4472@amiga.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 89 17:56:38 GMT
References: <12878@well.UUCP> <Jul.29.22.17.09.1989.11881@pilot.njin.net> <16025@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1989Aug8.220028.13827@nc386.uucp> < <64360@linus.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimm@cloyd.UUCP (Jim Mackraz)
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Inc, Los Gatos CA
Lines: 79

In article <64360@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes:
)
)In article <16163@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> johnhlee@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Vince Lee) writes:
)
)> What I want to see is auto-shrinking of icons in interlace so I don't have
)> to edit EVERY GODDAMN ICON on EVERY DISK that I get!
)
)I agree.  Workbench 1.4 should incorporate this feature.

I also like it.  There are some other icon manipulations that I can see
happening, either at run-time or batch, such as dithering down the icons
to work on a 1 bitplane WB or swapping colors around to change the
"color scheme" (see below).

)> ....the Amiga is a great machine, [but] what most people see is the
)> incredibly cheezy-looking workbench with its C64-looking icons.
)> When they compare this with the sleek, professional-looking Mac with
)> its sharp, crisp text and icons....
)
)It's not just the text and icons, it's also the appearance of the
)*windows*.  Workbench's windows (featureless white borders on a blue
)background, with no drop shadows) are the worst looking of any modern
)window system I've seen.  (Yes, of course you can change the colors,
)but not the design of the window borders.)

I agree.  They're not as bad as in V1.1, though (stripes were even thinner).

)Compare the Amiga's windows with those on the NeXT user interface, for
)example.  NeXT also has a 2-bitplane desktop, but the windows use
)colors so as to give the window borders a pleasing, two-dimensional
)appearance.  

You know what the big problem with trying to do that is?  Lack of a palette
"color scheme."  The NeXT has four grays.  Other modern systems let you
pick a subtle general "hue" and dictate four shadings of that.

If people are free to pick any colors at all, it's pretty hard to get
reliable 3D effects.

Also, if we pick a color scheme to try to standardize, it would have
to be one with dark text on light background, for several compelling
reasons (which I won't list, for fear of discussing them yet again).

This would make what little 3D that there is (in icons) inverted.

Hence the need for an icon color swizzler.  This program might be represented
by an icon.  You drop your application/drawer icons on it, and they get swizzled
and spit back out.

)At the very least, Workbench 1.4 should provide a dropshadow feature
)comparable to the PD "Dropshadow 2.0" program.

There are some technical problems with that: the extra bitplane sucks up some
performance.  I wrote DS, and I have some nice ideas as enhancements (fade away
during recalculations, and hotkey pop up for the control window, as well
as the "sundial" mode), and I wish that it could be used without speed penalty.
It will probably be part of some standard release, as a demo for Commodities
Exchange.

In V1.4, you can specify a 1 bitplane WB (your icons will need swizzling), and
use the shadows on that, with no penalty.  I'd probably prefer the shadows to 
the colors, myself ;^)

)If there ever is a "Workbench 2.0," I hope it will offer windows that
)look like those on OSF/Motif, for example.

Let's just say we have both short and long term plans to improve the
appearance of things.

The highest levels of Commodore management have publicly stated that the
appearance of the screen has very high priority for improvement.

	jimm

-- 
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing	   	"... the signs are very ominous,
{cbmvax,well,oliveb}!amiga!jimm          and a chill wind blows."
							- Justice Blackmun
Opinions are my own.  Comments are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.