Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!kennels!sbeagle
From: sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0!
Message-ID: <5Juuw4w163w@kennels.actrix.gen.nz>
Date: 4 Feb 91 06:38:07 GMT
References: <1991Feb1.205738.13579@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ
Lines: 30

huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert E. Huebner) writes:

> I'd like to see more of this too.  I was pleasently suprised when installing
> Excellence 2.0.  Not only did it alter the startup-sequence, but it seems
> to have actually looked for the spot where other assigns were made to insert
> the lines (I suppose this is in case you made ASSIGN resident for that
> portion of the process).  However, I don't recall it actually asking my
> permission.  It could be further improved by putting an IF EXISTS structure
> around it in case I choose to remove it from the HD.
> 
> Overall I've noticed install procedures have been maturing rapidly in most
> software.  Developers are catching on.

You probably don't want to hear this but....

I just installed Windows 3.0 on a 386. The installation procedure
was really very easy - not only would it ask you before it changed
the autoexec/startup but it had the option of editing the changes
before they happened, or saving the changed file with a different
name so as to allow you to look at it and import only the changes
you wanted.

Now Windows 3.0's installation procedure probably had more work
put into it than Workbench 2.0 or System 7's entire OS, but it
was still something to aspire to.

--
**      Official Signature for Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer)! 
** sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz   || Disclaimers are for sick societies
** Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz ||       with too many lawyers.