Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!snorkelwacker!ira.uka.de!smurf!nadia!bcstarc!root
From: root@bcstarc.UUCP (Frank Pecher)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Complaints about Amiga OS 2.0
Message-ID: <58@bcstarc.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 90 02:22:13 GMT
References: <20476@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: root!bcstarc@nadia.UUCP (Frank Pecher)
Organization: Boeblingen ComputerScienTific ARChive
Lines: 49

In article <20476@snow-white.udel.EDU> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:

>I had hoped that some limited Intuition
>support would be added to the Shell -- such as Shell menus -- but
>Commodore chose not to do this.  Now let's all be honest with each
>other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore
>at most a week to do.

Right. It would be most easy to implement. But:
There are different manners of working with a computer:

  * If you are a user, you may prefer usage of the computer with a
    mouse. This is easy to learn, and quick -- if uncomplicated
    actions are to be done (try working with a text processor
    without keyboard:-)). In any case, to start a program, the
    workbench is sufficient.

  * There are applications that are controlled nearly entirely by
    mouse. (painting programs) This makes sense. You can't draw with
    a keyboard.

  * If you are a programmer, however, you prefer working with a shell.
    The shell is no graphical user interface. Normally, you operate it
    with your keyboard. It would be highly incomfortable then to have
    to use the mouse from time to time; programmers (at least I) prefer
    to do everything with keyboard. If you want comfort in a shell, use
    aliases, or batch files, or both. To handle windows and screens
    with your keyboard, use wKeys.

>   I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.
>When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced
>that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially
>improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like.
>However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not
>detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach
>synthesis.

Correct. Apperently, CBM didn't think about an export of Amiga computers to
other countries than the USA initially. Otherwise they would have
implemented INTERNATIONAL phonetics. To pursue your point: if all known
phonems had been implemented, the speech synthesis of the Amiga sounded
less synthetically. Of course, the translator.library would be
aproxximately four or six times that big (Just a guess).

--
\       "... and the universe will explode later for your pleasure!"       /
 \       -- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at The End of The Universe      /
  \                            ADDRESS:            root@bcstarc.UUCP     /
   \____Frank Pecher___________BANG:____...!smurf!nadia!bcstarc!root____/