Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt
From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.033707.22847@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 5 Apr 91 03:37:07 GMT
References: <1991Mar14.013927.26548@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991Mar19.031537.17575@NCoast.ORG> <1991Mar29.215008.9634@Think.COM>
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 50

In article <1991Mar29.215008.9634@Think.COM> laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:
>You're kidding, right?  I can run the MPW shell in a window (or a couple of
>windows) on my Mac, and have access to all sorts of tools.  Most of the
>typical unix tools have been ported to MPW, and they work just fine.  But
>99% of all Mac owners never use a command line because they never have to!
>The greatest thing about WB2.0 is that it _finally_ makes WB usable to the
>point where you don't have to drop into the CLI all the time to get things
>done.
	1) Is MPW shell produced by Apple and distributed as part of the OS?
		There have been WorkBench enhancers for the Amiga for years,
		I don't include them because they don't come with every
		machine and aren't support by C=. Is MPW Shell?
>>	I would be willing to bet Apple will NEVER change the OS again in the
>>way they did to add the window shrink gadget, as every program would have to
>>be recompiled to work with it, or at least support it.
>Actually, things like that are far _more_ tweekable on the Mac than the
>Amiga.  I have all sorts of INITs and CDEV's installed that give me, for
>example, 3-D color scroll bars and windows which then appear in all my
>applications.  And if I want to, I could write my own window and scroll bar
	These can be done more easily on the Amiga, but this is not what I
was saying. None of these actually ADD a feature to all Mac applications,
just change the way that the ones that are there work. That is a big
difference.
>handlers and plug them in.  And your example of the zoom box is a bad one,
>actually, since that's supported in the OS, not the applications.  Note
	That's the point I was making! It would be virtually impossible to
add more NEW features like the zoom box without breaking/being useless
in most applications due to the way that the Mac does it's windowing. I don't
care if you can make your window to back gadget look like a grape (that can be
done on the Amiga too), I'm talking about adding a NEW gadget to the
gadget types, that will be useable by ALL applications with no code changes.
>that through all of this, it's the _user_ who has control over the scroll
>bars, windows, and so on, as opposed to the programmer.  Speaking as a user
>and a programmer, that's where the control belongs.
	So where did I say otherwise? I don't care if you make your scroll
bars look like rolling papyrus or a spreading deck of cards. I was talking
about the ability to add new classes of gadgets at the OS level without any
application code changes.
>The difference is that Apple had a vision of how they could put _users_ in
>control of the computers, and implemented everything based on that.  C= had
>a box with a lot of nifty features.  That's why the Amiga has _always_ had
>better "features" than the Mac, but the Mac has always been "better done"
>from the user's point of view.
	Until 2.0. And I disagree that the Mac has always been "better done"
from the user's point of view. *I* am a user too, you know, and I would
never settle for a computer that gave me LESS power than the wimpy and
disgusting MS-DOS world.


				Dave