Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!yale!husc6!think!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!kdd
From: kdd@well.UUCP (Keith David Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Workbench vs DOS mods
Message-ID: <1903@well.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 14:06:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.1903
Posted: Thu Oct  9 14:06:30 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Oct-86 01:26:50 EDT
Reply-To: kdd@well.UUCP (Keith David Doyle)
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito CA
Lines: 78

References:


[...............]
From Matt:
>Solution:
>    In this case, it is obvious that the WorkBench ICON structure should
>    be modified.  Specifically, it is obvious that the ICON's should all
>    be stored in a single file for each folder because this is what
>    DOS is best at... finding a known file and reading its contents.
>    The results:

>        (A) No directory searches need be done
>        (B) Window openning becomes an order of magnitude faster
>        (C) The directory/folder structure is retained
>        (D) The fix can be propogated without invalidating any software
            to date by the simple distribution of a new workbench and a
            utility to convert from the old (multiple files) to the new.

>    It does not make sense to modify DOS:

>        (A) Directory searches for most applications are now almost completely
>            eliminated so modifing DOS may become superfluous.
>        (B) Applications now have a new way of finding specific information
>            (like DPAINT files) by having that information be represented
>            by N ICONS (all of which can be accessed almost instantaniously).
>        (C) Changing DOS would break everything in existance that does funny
>            things with the disks, and probably more.

>                                -Matt


I hate to open up a can of worms here, but there ARE a few other reasons
to consider modifying DOS:

	(A) Directory searches for CLI based programs will also be enhanced.
	    I came up through the CPM days, and DIR could fill the screen with
            file names in a couple of seconds (from a floppy).  Not so with
            the Amiga.  I find myself doing a Ctrl-C to directory lists often
            enough, because I don't want to wait for the entire search through
            the whole directory.

        (B) Applications that DON'T USE the workbench, and don't need disk
            space being gobbled up with redundant directory information,
            may still be slow if they have to do complete directory
            searches when they put up filename requesters.  At least unless
            ALL FILES have associated icons.  I have noticed
            a few smarter utilities lately (notably SoundScape) that read
            the directory once the first time you invoke such a requester, and
            keeps the list around in memory so it dosen't have to re-search
            if you go back to the requester a second time.  Changing the
            drive selection will still bite you though.

	(C) Either the programs, or via some modification of DOS are going to
            need to keep the icon/info file updated as programs write files.
            Not all programs create icons for everything that is written out.

	(D) And, remember that the Mac will re-use the same bit image for
	    a particular icon, though the Amiga has a seperate copy of the
	    bit image for various icons.  THis is a *feature* of the Amiga
	    you'd kind of like to keep, as you would like to have the ability
            to make every icon look different possibly, though a disk full
	    of identical DPaint brush icons is not particularly attractive.
	    It's a tradeoff.

Not that I'm particularly arguing for modifying DOS.  But since I very
RARELY use the workbench over the CLI, I kinda hate to see a lot of effort
put into speeding up the icon display while leaving CLI directory searches
the way they are.  Granted, one of the reasons I may not be using the 
Workbench much may be BECAUSE it is a bit slow, I'd just like to get
a speed increase for BOTH mechanisms if possible.

Either way or neither way, I'm probably going to go with the flow, as I can't
really see myself hacking on DOS or the Workbench much, I'd rather be working on
applications.  Just had a few more points to throw into the hat.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
#  cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
"TOO MUCH is better than NOT ENOUGH"