Windows Debate
John,
The problem wasn't LANtastic. The problem was that whoever they called,
they said, "It's not us, it's THEM." Aldus blamed MicroSoft. MicroSoft
blamed Aldus, Artisoft (makers of LANtastic), Hewlett Packard and
Bitstream. Bitstream solved my problem, even giving me advice on problems
with the network. Aldus should have known about the potential problems
with Bitstream's fontware since they sell PageMaker with which includes a
free starter kit. What do you mean the Amiga doesn't have outline-based
scaled font support? What do you call the Compugraphic fonts in ProPage,
chopped liver? Windows doesn't offer outline-based scaled font support. It
only offers bitmapped fonts.
>>Our TSSnet installation requires you to add four lines to your
startup-sequence. Of course, the Amiga has *no* way to automate this.<<
Huh? Why can't you just write an installation program that edits the
startup-sequence? DOS programmers have been doing that for YEARS when they
edit the AUTOEXEC.BAT.
Yes, the process is cleaner on the Amiga. The startup-sequence is a script
file which performs commands. It's easy to figure out what they do.
WIN.INI is NOT. It is a configuration file which controls how other
processes run. WIN.INI is not fully documented, and I read every single
manual, the Windows Manual (not a small task), all the text files for
Windows (they fill a three-ring binder), the network notes, the Bitstream
Manuals. None of them could help.
Installing and using applications with Windows is very difficult.
Installing programs like Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and Paradox for DOS is a
tedium, but it's easier by a magnitude than Windows. Installing software
on my Amiga is about as difficult, sometimes, as installing for DOS. But
it's not as tedius.
Fourty-five minutes? Gee, I only spent 40 HOURS trying to get Windows to
work. With the Amiga, there's only the startup-sequence and occasionally,
Libraries. With Windows, there's: WIN.INI CONFIG.SYS AUTOEXEC.BAT
[ MORE ]