Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Why are you selling your Amiga??
Message-ID: <813@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 88 07:52:52 GMT
References: <702@oberlin.UUCP> <704@oberlin.UUCP>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 70

In article <704@oberlin.UUCP> cjs@oberlin.UUCP (chris seline) writes:
>But we still don't have bug free WP systems as good as MacWrite.

You must be joking.  I used MacWrite for some serious word processing.
It sucks big.  A minimal WP system if I've ever seen one.  WYSIWYG is
about the ONLY thing MacWrite has going for it.

>	1) Why didn't CM steal the idea of resource files -- please
>	   read the Apple Documentation before responding.

While resource files offer some things that are fairly nifty, they
also require considerable gyrations within the OS in order to work
properly.  C/A's decision not to go to a 'resource fork' type
environment isn't a bad one.  

>	2) Why didn't CM make the drives compatible?  So I could
>	   exchange disks -- and source easily. (yes, I'd have to
>	   convert it)

Compatible with what?  Mac drives?  Surely you must be joking - why
would Commodore (or anybody else who could learn a lesson from Apple)
want to design in drives that are totally non-standard, relatively
low-capacity, and expensive?

>	3) Why did CM insist on a single interface -- ever notice
>	   every program has a slightly different way of putting up file
>	   requestors?

I presume you meant to say 'didn't' up there.  This is a bit of a pain,
but not that much of an issue.  Or have you found a file requester that
was too much for you to understand?  *I* haven't had that much problem
with it.

>	4) Why didn't they insist programs use the ClipBoard?

A hit, but not that much of one.  Clipboard was poorly thought-out in
the beginning, and so hasn't had that much acceptance as yet.  I must
point out that ALL Mac programs don't let you use the Clipboard - just
most.

>	5) Why isn't their documentation as clear as APPLE's
>	   (read the apple docs before flaming)

You're joking, right?  I have, right here in front of me, the first
edition of Inside Macintosh.  While this might have been improved for
later editions, by comparison to the first edition Rom Kernel Manual
(which sits right next to it on the shelf, by the way) it is a marvel
of turgid, badly organized, and undecipherable text.  In order to 
understand much of anything in it, you had to read the entire document,
and then go back and reread the applicable parts.  Even then, the
chances that you'd get something wrong were pretty great.  And you're
holding this up as a paragon?  You crazy, mon.  If Apple's done better
in later editions, great.  Let's see how Amiga does in THEIR later
editions.

>p.s. Atari is coming out with a 68020 unix color machine for the
>American Market 1989.  Real UNIX.  CM  what have you done for me
>lately?

Would YOU buy a UNIX machine from Atari?  If you would, then any arguments
I've made above can be ignored - you're probably too dumb to understand
them :-)  At least check out Atari's record for support of their existing,
simple products.  Then let me know.  And, BTW - hadn't you seen the postings
from C/A people acknowledging the existence of their 68020 card?  And that
one, at least, is real enough that people have actually used it...

-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame