Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas
From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Still no Ami businessware.
Message-ID: <12017@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 15 Mar 91 20:22:27 GMT
References: <39774@cup.portal.com> <39832@cup.portal.com> <1991Mar6.201318.11662@acd4.acd.com> <19656@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Lines: 61

In article <19656@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>In article <1991Mar6.201318.11662@acd4.acd.com> swm@acd4.acd.com ( Scott W. Manzi (ICTT)) writes:
>>Gee, why does NeXT with a trivial installed base have MAJOR software
>>vendors porting code to that machine?   because the COMPANY behind the
>>machine motivated them to do so perhaps?
>
>Yes they did.  With money.  Geeters.  Green.  Scratch.  Moula.  
>
>If you have a couple of million in pocket, Lotus would be more than happy
>to build you a port of 1-2-3, or the new spreadsheet on the NeXT.  No problem.
>No argument.

Fine, then it is Commodore's *responsiblity* to do just that.  No problem.
No argument.

>>Sorry Doug, I think it has a LOT to do with Commodore.  After all, THEY are
>>responsible for the success of their machine, not us.  
>
>"The Amiga", like any other computer system, is a complete environment.  As
>in all environments, every member of that environment is responsible for the
>success of the environment as a whole.  Commodore can certainly do its part,
>but it is no magician.

Sure, but Commodore is *not* performing its half of the dance.  WE can't
blame the engineers, they seem to be working very hard -- and if they had
twice as many, they might actually be able to get all the things they want to
get done, done in a reasonable amount of time.  That cannot be *our* 
responsiblity though, can it?

Neither can the lack of financial commitment.  If Commodore *really* wants
this machine to succeed, they take that 28million they earned last year
(or whatever), and they spend it in exactly the fashion you describe.  That is
assuming they want it to be a mainstream business machine.  Maybe all of us
don't want it.  I *do*, for the simple reason that I want to use a good
word processor for resume' work, take it to the local CopyMat and get a laser
printed version.  I might even balance my checkbook (a task I refuse to do
by hand), if there was a simple program that allowed a nifty way of doing that.

Te fact of the matter is is that shareware is great -- but salable software is
usable, and can market a machine -- something even developers can perk up to.

>It cannot perform miracles, anymore than Delaware can
>decide on its own to solve the problems that currently exist in the 
>ecopolitical environment we call the USA.

Flawed argument -- the USA is a democracy, Commodore is not.

Look, I agree with bunches of what you have to say, but the implication that
Cmdre is overstrapped does not match with reality.  In reality Commodore can
afford to pay developers to develop software, and they can afford to hire more
programmers/engineers -- that they refuse (seemingly) to do either is the
source of frustration.

I see improvements on the horizon, I just wish they'd hurry up and come my way.
I do *NOT* want to program on either the Mac *or* the IBM for a living, and I am
no graphic artist -- so what am I to do?  


David Navas                                   navas@cory.berkeley.edu
Signature erased, because it used to be something snide against the Mac. 
undergoing recnstrctn. [Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus]