Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!husc7!hadeishi From: hadeishi@husc7.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Workbench improvements Message-ID: <1816@husc6.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-May-87 03:41:18 EDT Article-I.D.: husc6.1816 Posted: Fri May 1 03:41:18 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 2-May-87 03:37:32 EDT Sender: news@husc6.UUCP Reply-To: hadeishi@husc7.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center Lines: 116 Keywords: compatibility versus radical improvements Re: Workbench improvements, compatibility, and computer revolutions Although it is clear the Workbench must be improved, it is also clear that the Amiga will improve in sales the more it is perceived as a useful tool with many applications. That is, any strategy for positioning the Amiga in the consumer market has got to eventually rest on the utility of the machine itself. The theory that Rattigan was delaying the Amiga 2000 to hurt Commodore so stock values would go down is as plausible as any other I've heard. The thing should be viewed as a kind of magic box which does what it does elegantly and inexpensively. This is the way the Apple II was perceived for many years, and this gave the machine a kind of supernatural capacity which allowed it to survive many years of apparent obsolescence while remaining extremely USEFUL and, yes, even fun to use. This comes from a painstaking dedication on the part of software designers to create things which are not full of rough edges. Most techies like us can handle the rough edges with no problem; we just think of it as a minor, though irritating, annoyance. For a typical user, however, these rough edges can mean the difference between the machine sitting in the attic or in the living room or office. The typical user, furthermore, doesn't really know WHY s/he's not using the thing, it's just not "useful" or it's not "fun." This is not a function of hardware capacity alone; it is a function of the enthusiasm and dedication of an entire community of users and developers. It is NOT helped by a corporate policy to hold development back in the interests of compatibility; certainly this is an issue, but I feel if an operating system upgrade is done properly (as in Kickstart 1.2) it can be a source of renewed enthusiasm for the machine. Users are enchanted by the idea that just by changing a disk in the machine it goes three times faster. So-called naive users may not be aware of WHY they like using the machine more, but they can FEEL it, just as a nonmusician may not be able to understand all of the technical reasons why a great musician or performance moves them so much. There is a real perceived quality of using a machine which is directly related to these little things such as the time it takes to open a drawer, the slowness of icons appearing on the screen, and so forth. There has been some discussion about the "right" and the "wrong" way to do certain things; it is certainly true that to give up some features for the sake of perceived performance or simplicity of design is an important issue; but of even greater importance is the integrity and consistency of the design and its implementation, which translates into: a lot of time and effort. I admit the Commodore brass may not feel that hard work is so necessary to create something worthwhile; the whole illusion of Wall Street is that one can make money just by playing a game (the market). All such games must eventually falter (stock prices fall again.) (Of course, we love you, CATS, but we don't always love your bosses.) But I think there must be those up there who are sympathetic to this message: produce a good product, help the user community make it better, and don't get bogged down in amorphous issues such as "compatibility." Apple changed it's operating system TOTALLY (TOTALLY) in at least two rather major revolutions; first, to DOS 3.3 (more disk space), then to ProDOS (heiarchical file system, MUCH faster disk I/O). In each case users tended to embrace the changes, especially when it came with such revolutionary programs as AppleWorks (a wonderful example of a program which doesn't know that it's too powerful and easy to use to be running on a 6502- based 8- (yes, EIGHT!) bit computer.) (At one point AppleWorks was OUTSELLING Lotus 1-2-3; in fact, it had sold more at one point in TOTAL than 1-2-3. And, of course, AW is a MUCH nicer program to use; although it lacks features, it is a beautiful, simple design, I don't think it has been outdone by any other 8-bit program.) If the new OS is presented properly, (and one IMPORTANT criterion is that it not be over-designed, like UNIX and OS/2 with it's horrible hacks to preserve compatibility such as TWO sets of BIOS calls, etc.) it could easily catch on and become THE operating system for the Amiga line. It must be well designed!!! Simple, elegant, to the point. Look, if people want to use the old OS, they can use old ROMs or old Kickstart disks. Perhaps they can even load Kickstart into normal RAM, and since RAM is going to be ultra-cheap anyway (despite the machinations of Congress) it won't be too big of a cost. Compatibility cripples new OSs. A new OS is not a new OS if it tries too hard to be "compatible." If there are horrible, ugly problems, solve them at a minor cost to the user: just replace the whole software system. (This means, at worst, new ROMs; some way to bring up the old environment could be provided, perhaps, with ROMtags in RAM or some such.) This may sound radical, and, in fact, I just thought of it right this minute. I used to think there were good arguments for incremental OS improvements; now I think machines should be able to support multiple environments (the beauty of Kickstart.) Why not? There is NO user confusion; it is quite clear, the two operating systems are totally incompatible (well, they might both use Exec and most of Intuition, but you can't exchange disks, and software in one "universe" breaks in the other.) It is much more confusing to have constant incremental OS upgrades which don't really make it incompatible, but, oh yeah, you'll have to rev all of your software. Having simply two incompatible environments makes the situation crystal-clear; I doubt people expressed much anguish that their old DOS 3.3 stuff didn't work under ProDOS. They simply kept two sets of software; and everybody was happy (as long as there was file transfer and conversion software around.) The Amiga operating system, furthermore, makes the development of alternative environments rather easy; you don't have to replace everything, you can take out subsystems and munge around, cleaning things up, and you don't have to rewrite the entire thing from the ground up. The opportunties a truly clean DOS would open up for application developers and people putting systems together would be vast; in fact, the Amiga would probably ending up having a lifetime long beyond mere hardware obsolescence. (And, anyway, you can stick in 68020 cards, etc., just like the old Apple II owners could stick in 3x accelerators, 512K RAM expansions, and the like. Magic, that's what people enjoy, and that's what they perceive underneath all of the technical mumbo jumbo. And that's our job---to provide it.) Go all the way, guys. Compatibility is a Trojan horse. -Mitsu P.S. This does not mean I think the entire Amiga software system is bad; just DOS, basically. Even Workbench would be tolerable if not a joy to use if only DOS worked right. Workbench could use some work, too, however; now that the user community has had it for a couple of years, we could all use a good replacement. In fact, Intuition is very well done and so is the library system. JUST GET RID OF DOS!