Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!usc!hacgate!tcville!allen
From: allen@tcville.HAC.COM (Allen Farrington)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: zip vs. other archivers
Keywords: archivers stuffit zoo arc pak
Message-ID: <288@tcville.HAC.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 89 15:45:57 GMT
References: <1669@nigel.udel.EDU> <284@tcville.HAC.COM> <582@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Reply-To: allen@tcville.UUCP (Allen Farrington)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 28

from Article 22144 of comp.sys.amiga:
>Gack. No...a thousand screams no...  Graphic-type interfaces are nice, 
>without a doubt for an infrequently used program, that does a lot
>of stuff that needs complex settings.  

I guess I was just commenting on the more professional nature of
Stuffit vs. what zoo presently is on the Amiga.

Just because a program is simple to use does not preclude it from
using the Graphical User Interface (GUI).  Additionally, just because
a program is easy to run does not decrease its power.  

The appeal of the Amiga, and I assume one its strong selling points 
is the GUI.  I wonder if the availability of a graphical-based 
archiver/un-archiver like zoo would increase its usage among 
novice (read new) computer users?

Lastly, I've used IBM's professionally.  I've used and am now using
Macintoshes professionally.  I have an Amiga at home.  I really like
the mix of graphical and command-line that the Amiga offers.  I don't
want to start any kind of "my user interface is better than your
user interface" flame war.

-- 
|======================================================================|
|  Allen H. Farrington         smart:  allen@tcville.hac.com           |
|   (213) 436-0483        CompuServe:  74010,1775                      |
|======================================================================|