Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rice!bcm!uhnix2!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Open your eyes (Was about Hyper'Card)
Message-ID: <2028@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 20 May 88 02:50:05 GMT
References: <8805170742.AA28361@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <2777@tekig5.TEK.COM>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 56

In article <2777@tekig5.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes:
> Okay people, if you don't program anything other than an Amiga you don't have
> much room to talk.  When I say a ST is faster hands down, I mean it.  I have
> both machines sitting side by side, if anyone knows I should.  How many of
> you have written code for IBM pc's, Atari's (8 and 16 bit), Apples and
> Amigas.

(sticks hands up in the air. waves) "Me! Me!"

Also: 8-bit CP/M machines, more UNIX and UNIX lookalike boxes than you can
shake a stick at, 1802-based boxes, ISIS-based 8080 boxes, Trash-80s, and
lots more. Before the Amiga I had an Atari 800, an IBM-PC clone, and an Atari
ST on this desk. When I say the Amiga is faster I mean it.

> I'm not a Mac expert so I back down of some of the Mac things. (Except that
> the Mac II graphics are slow, that is just untrue.  The Mac II is the most
> responsive windowing system I've ever used, even better than the Suns around
> here.  Like it or not Apple did a good job. Not cheap though)

Suns aren't fast when it comes to windowing. I haven't owned or programmed a
Mac (when I saw what you had to do to program it I nearly puked), but I've
used it pretty much. Even on a Mac-II I can click on a window to move it and
have the mouse in a new location before it's deigned to draw that cute little
moving dotted line. And you know what? By the time it's done that it's
forgotten where I clicked it and it doesn't *bother* to draw that cute little
box. It can take up to half a second before I can move the mouse in a busy
screen. This situation is worse on either the Atari or Mac-I.

Microsoft windows on an 8088 does a better job.

> If Amiga programmers would put thier effort into writing good sound code, code
> that is well thought out instead of code that uses all kinds of gee whiz   
> hardware tricks, the Amiga would really shine.  Other than general hardware
> like bitmaps, sampled sound generator and such, I believe the code should be
> blind to special hardware.  Let the os use the hardware but don't tie the 
> general code down with stuff like copper lists.  Use the hardware to make the
> machine look more powerful to a program.  Let the program think there are 12
> bit planes, don't think HAM.  See what I mean. 

Well, buster, most Amiga programs do a pretty good job of hardware independence
at the source level. The ones that play with the copper list are usually clever
screen hacks. In fact a major complaint I hear is that programs *aren't* making
enough use of the special hardware.

> The Amiga can be a great machine, it just needs a little polishing. 

The Amiga is a great machine. It would be a better one with a little polishing.
I'm shining with all my might, personally.

But there is no way I'm going to hack all day trying to get a tight assembly
loop 1 instruction shorter. If I wanted to code in assembly language I'd have
bought an IBM-PC. I will make no bargains with terrorist hardware.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva      `-_-'      ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These may be the official opinions of Hackercorp.