CompuServe Messages

Just be sure to tell your partner that IBM uses Scala on the Amiga to create presentations to sell some of its non-Amiga multimedia systems. They're no dummies; they use the best tool for the job. Platform compatibility is going to become less of an issue as time goes on, in any event. I gather the ScriptX system will be multiplatform, but then, that's what I heard about Desqview/X. Check out this month's Desktop Video World for comparisons of multimedia authoring packages on Macs, PCs and Amigas. The roundup covers AmigaVision and CanDo. There's a separate review of Helm elsewhere in the magazine, for some reason. also note that there's a fairly busy topic over on GEnie regarding Helm, and the author seems very responsive; he's already delivered one upgrade and says a major upgrade with new database capabilities is in the works. The singular feature of the Amiga stuff that stands out in the magazine roundup is how cheap it is considering the array of tools. You want this kind of functionality on PCs, prepare to shell out a few grand for the software. I suppose you could always write in "C". The Amiga's BASIC implementations are robust and largely compatible with those on other systems. BASIC is more universal than you would expect. Port over the code and compile it. With careful planning for multiplatform compatibility (i.e., avoiding system-specific calls), that should do the trick. In fact, I vaguely recall someone telling me that one of the Amiga BASICs was directly useable in Microsoft Visual BASIC, but don't hold me to that. Quicktime actually would be an under-achievement on the Amiga. The only advantage it has on the Mac is that it exists at the system level. It wouldn't on the Amiga, in all likelihood, anymore than Quicktime for Windows is at the root of MS-DOS. There are already converters to let Windows .FLI animations work in an Amiga environment (and maybe the other way around); a QT utility for the Amiga would best do the same. Meanwhile, an Amiga system library that could integrate, say, IFF-ANIM8 or CDXL with SMUS or IFF-8SVX may very well be superior to QT in performance terms. If only C= would get cracking. MPEG hardware may make Quicktime (or Video for Windows, or Indeo, or whatever) a requirement on future desktops computers, or it may obsolete same. There's still a lot of shaking out to come in this field. In any case, I'm sure Apple would demand heavy licensing fees for a QT port. Just like Philips is stonewalling C= on PhotoCD support. Not that such roadblocks can't be gotten around. But the point is, this is war, and the enemy will do all it can to maintain a strategic advantage. — Ron Legro from Milwaukee via AUTOPILOT (The only way to fly)