Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: De-macification of the Amiga (Re: The Amiga's Future)
Message-ID: <4788.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
Date: 25 Jun 91 09:08:16 GMT
References: <1991Jun21.134801.19644@ifi.unizh.ch> <1991Jun22.021136.315@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> <96@ryptyde.UUCP> <1991Jun23.145847.16816@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> <111@ryptyde.UUCP>
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG.
Lines: 18

Quoted from <111@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy):
 [quoting some unattributed citizen]
> "No. I suppose you could use a kludge to give the appearance of having them
> do this. Personally, I'd rather not install such a prop and force application

> Excuse me? Are you flaming Apple for being able to do something Commodore
> couldn't? That is, cause applications to open documents by double-clicking

    Not "couldn't". Wouldn't. I can believe Apple doesn't have a problem
    with this sort of hack, since they "multitask" using similar levels
    of chicanery.

> to update their code, while Apple's doesn't. What's the disadvantage?

    One approach is clean. The other is not.
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.        jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***         "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo.          ***