Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!tmiuv0!rick
From: rick@tmiuv0.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: An Intuition.device?
Message-ID: <344@tmiuv0.uucp>
Date: 11 Sep 90 14:32:38 GMT
References: <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: Technology Marketing Inc., Irvine, CA
Lines: 62

In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:
>    There have been messages here in which some people have complained 
> about how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and
> on IBM & clones under Windows 3.0.

Gee, I've worked with Windows, and it isn't any easier.  In fact, it's a
damned nuisance!  Maybe I'm just weird.

>                                      My question is: why wasn't this
> addressed in AmigaOS2.0?

I _like_ developing for the Amiga.  It's more fun than almost any other
system I've worked with (including Macs, PClones, Vaxen, Unix, Xerox, and
a host of others).

[...]

>    The only problem with the idea of making Intuition a device is speed.
> The device would have to receive codes from a program, and translate them
> into the proper calls to the main Intuition routines.  However, with
> the advent of the A3000, I don't think speed is much of a problem anymore.

Bingo.  Speed is the critical thing.  Intuition has to do LOTS of things,
including redrawing screens, watching the mouse and keyboard, updating
various system lists and much, much more (sound like a K-Tel commercial?).

Devices are nifty for single-threaded items like disks, tapes, etc.  They
are _not_ appropriate for multi-threaded items like screen displays and
such.  Why do you think Windows is still single threaded?  Oh, sure, they
may say it's multitasking, but it isn't (to my way of thinking at least).
This is also a complaint with X-Windows.  It is commonly implemented in
a manner similar to a device, complete with the speed penalties.

[...]

>    If Commodore will not produce this Intuition device, I wish some 
> other enterprising Amiga developer would.  This would be a great boost
> to the Amiga, and would constitute the first major addition to the Amiga's
> OS since the Amiga first came out five years ago.  (As of now, all of
> the Amiga's OS enchancements -- including 2.0 -- consist of large 
> numbers of minor changes, with no really big changes)

Which cave have you been hiding in?  2.0 does not "consist of large numbers
of minor changes".  It is a major rewrite.  BCPL is gone.  ARexx is resident.
Windows are cleaner and faster.  The libraries are more robust.  Many bugs
have been killed.  Using your criteria, it would appear that anything that
is evolutionary is a minor change.  Like going from a Model T to a Ferrari
Testarossa.  Hey, it's still just a car, no?

> 
>       
>                                  -MB-

[getting off my soapbox now]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[- O] Rick Stevens, Technology Marketing Incorporated
  ?   EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop
  V   CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet)
      (Opinions are mine.  No one listens to me here anyway.)

"Lead, follow, or get the h*ll out of the way!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------