Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!burdvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Intuition's "dont mess with these" fields... Message-ID: <1846@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Nov-87 05:13:48 EST Article-I.D.: cadovax.1846 Posted: Fri Nov 6 05:13:48 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 19:56:49 EST References: <1961@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <1825@cadovax.UUCP> <2631@cbmvax.UUCP> <1831@cadovax.UUCP> <663@mitsumi.UUCP> Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Organization: Contel Business Systems, Torrance, CA Lines: 115 Keywords: Intuition verboten nopokenzefields In article <663@mitsumi.UUCP> jimm@mitsumi.UUCP (James Mackraz) writes: >In article <1831@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >>All I'm saying is "ok, I don't want to do what I'm not supposed to do, >>but HOW DO I DO WHAT I NEED TO DO?". So far, the C= answer has been >>"you can't". I'm sorry, but that's the WRONG ANSWER. > >This is not all you have been saying. You have been implying that >CBM is thwarting your attempts to develop software, and that the >position that CBM takes leads to buggy applications. You have been >taking a position that if your program breaks on v1.3 CBM will >have noone to thank but themselves. Alright, so my first message may have been a little high in the flamage department. I wouldn't say CBM is "thwarting" here, but I wouldn't say they were "supportive" either. If developers have to resort to unauthorized hacks because of deaf ears at CBM, I would say that CBM *can* thank itself to some degree. Look at the PC. Everyone bypassed the BIOS to do screen I/O because as soon as one developer did it, everyone expected all the packages to have faster screen I/O. Was it WordStar's fault (or whoever started perpetuating it)? Or might IBM have nipped it in the bud by proposing some way to do screen I/O that wouldn't box them all in (including IBM) to the same hardware. But I guess they would have had to think a little bit on their feet, and IBM doesn't move very fast. >Unfortunately, the correct answer *should have been*, "You Can't, PERIOD," >rather than to support people who were trying to figure out a way to make >it work with 1.2, Try telling that to someone in marketing. >because there are people out there (you, Keith) who >think that any hack they see in some product is all at once supported for >all time. You seem to miss the point that this is simply not so. Why do you think I tried to bounce it off of you guys? So you could protect yourself against unauthorized hacks by suggesting a way that might not screw up on future OS versions. Instead, you apparently would rather protect yourselves by reserving the right to say "I told you so" if customers complain. Once a product exists that supports a feature that was produced by a hack, it becomes the status-quo, as the competition and any compatible programs then MUST support these same features to survive. This is expected by the CUSTOMERs, and we all know "The customer is always right". We have such a situation right now: 1. DeluxePaint II and VideoScape 3D both support overscan screens. 2. There is no Commodore-Approved mechanism for moving the mouse over the full surface area of overscan screens, when the boot disk itself does not boot up overscan (if it is even then). 3. A program that propends full DPaint II and VideoScape 3D compatibility, and provides mouse interaction, is about to be released. 4. Most end-user customers have no understanding of any technical difficulties caused by any of these issues (which are all self- imposed software limitations) and will expect such features. >Unfortunately, as I said, the fact that some people found a way to make >it work with 1.2 (the officially suggested way was to use one's own personal >View for *displaying* large pictures, but not to try to >get Intuition to support them as screens), seems to mean to some people >(you, Keith) that Commodore is being difficult. >You really piss me off Keith. It is people like you, Keith, that >make it impossible to distribute source to Intuition and the like. >If the private fields of IntuitionBase were not made available for your >reference, you would never have figured this hack out and been such a >jerk, right? Right, Keith, huh? Well, I suppose I could just have told everyone that it's an Intuition "bug" that when you go to 364x220 (or whatever) that you're still stuck with a 320x200 mouse area. But that wouldn't be very supportive of my customer, me passing the buck like that now would it? >Your crack that CBM not pledging to support the overscan hacks >is one reason that the Amiga has a reputation for buggy applications >ranks as one of the most bass-ackward comments I have heard from >anyone not Jerry Pournelle (who thought that all processor exceptions >were caused by the OS because they result in an alert). I think you >lose a lot of currency with people closely involved with the system >when you pull that sh*t. When CBM is not responsive to the demands of the customer, they lose a lot of currency with the customers. Personally, I think it's more important to keep currency with customers than anyone else. I could have just kept my mouth shut, but I had the mistaken idea that you guys might be helpful with a situation which I have no control (ok, I guess I have the "control" to decide to give up and go home, or to strip my package of significant features, or blame limitations on Intuition "bugs" or see if I can move to the MAC II or something, but that's not quite what I had in mind). >If I knew how to do overscan using supported data structures (I have >some ideas) I wouldn't be too inclined to share them with you. See above. I am responding to customer demands, and I have no choice but to do whatever it takes. I think your attitude is *exactly* why developers have been boxed into producing applications which break under new OS releases and has given the Amiga a reputation for buggy software. It has nothing to do with whether overscan hacks are supported or not, but everything to do with whether or not CBM is helpful and supportive to developers who are trying to meet customers needs and expectations. What say the rest of you, gang? Should I be postponing the release of such a product till 1.3? Till I can port to the Mac II? Should I just tell everyone "Hey, I had a great idea for this fantastic product on the Amiga, was 2 weeks to release on the product, but then I found out it can't be done on that machine" ? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170