Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!orbit!pnet51!chucks
From: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: 2.0 Compatibility
Message-ID: <4766@orbit.cts.com>
Date: 1 May 91 04:45:01 GMT
Sender: news@orbit.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 80

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>I do like the new and powerful features that can be added to the
>Amiga, but I wonder how cost effective it is, for example, to write
>a 2.0 only application.  How possible is it to make software that is
>going to be compatible for a long time to come?  As good as 2.0 and
>the rest of the addons are, I am concerned that it will be a long time
>before we see developer support for most of it.  I know it is currently
>possible to just stick to 1.3 calls and still support 2.0, but there isn't
>much good in all the great things that have been added if they aren't used.

Well, not exactly.  I feel that most people WILL upgrade to 2.0, as a matter
of fact i AM developing 2.0 only applications as well as several other people.
 there is even a 2.0 only backup program out already called Ami-Back.  I think
2.0 is such an upgrade that people that can't afford to upgrade their roms
won't be able to afford my software.  which means that pirates won't be able
to run it :)  (well there's ways around that i know.. but just wishful
thinking)..  but anyways, Most people will be running 2.0 i feel.  it's just
so dang wonderful that people would be fools not to run it.

>
>The Macintosh family of computers has been successful because Apple has
>forced people to adhere strictly to the use of the OS for even the most
>primitive operations.  Unfortunately, the Amiga OS is designed to allow
>multiple applications to share and directly manipulate the hardware.  It
>is quite common on the Amiga for an application to bypass the graphics
>library and use the blitter (directly) or the cpu to render directly into
>bitplanes.  All these applications won't work on a radically different
>display device (such as the lowell one).

Yeah, well commodore itself is hard at work for a FULLY documented interface,
they've had general rules for years, but they're trying to iron out the
loopholes.  the big problem is still with european programmers not having
access or not being able to afford proper documentation.  The mac doesn't have
this problem since it's Euro sales are about Nil: :)  Commodore is also at
work on a Device Independant Graphics device.. great things take time..

>
>It sure looks safe to simply write CLI based applications, because they
>won't break as easily, but these kinds of programs aren't any better than
>a Unix or MS-DOS or MPW program (to a large extent).  The Amiga has a
>decent GUI in Intuition, but even its use doesn't appear as if it is going
>to keep applications compatible for a long time to come...  One of the
>first things I noticed about 2.0 is that when I run CygnusEd in a workbench
>window, the pull-down menus no longer line up correctly (thanks to 2.0's
>ability to allow me to change the default screen font).

well, again, many of the inconsistancies you see are because of people takeing
advantage of undocumented bugs (some call features) which disapear in bug
fixes.  also, it's long been known that the default fonts can and probably
will change, so that ASDG's problem.  

>
>This is not a lament, but a objective view of what looks like is going on.
>It would be ideal to be able to rely on the OS for future compatibility,
>but there are going to be a zillion gotchas that we are going to have to
>deal with from now on (for each new hardware and OS platform).  The Amiga
>is becoming like the Mac in that when the hardware/software changes, those
>who get the improvements will have to upgrade their software to gain full
>compatibility.

Well, it's not too objective IMHO.  you are reacting to hype generated by
people that don't take time to ask the proper questions (MB?).  sure, alot of
software won't work under 2.0, but these are because the developers chose to
take shortcuts rather than be thorough.  Commodore has long warned about 99%
of all the problems people are encountering now.  Apple on the other hand hs
consistantly changed it's specs.  it says do it this way or die.. so you do it
that way, then apple says, no we didn't mean THAT way.. do it this way now. 
(we have always been at war with etc... etc.. etc...,  etc.. has always benn
our ally.. very representitive of orwellian theories)  Apple makes mistakes
then tries to pawn them off on developers, commodore had the forethough to
warn people of 99% of the compatibility  problems, people just chose to ignore
them.  
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back |
| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil        | from the dead, but do  |
| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org                  | you really think he's  |
|-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?"        |
| Amiga programmer at large, employment options   | Lou Diamond Philips in |
| welcome, inquire within.                        | "The First Power".     |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'