how are we doing?
97 messages in this thread
AmigaWorld readers, we need your input to make sure we're producing the
magazine you want to see. We'd appreciate it if you'd answer the following
questions, and thank you in advance for your ideas.
1. Would you like to see:
A. More articles covering "vertical applications"–that is, video,
multimedia, 3-D modeling/animation, desktop publishing, etc.
B. More broad-based info about the system software and general
applications programs and hardware.
2. Do you think that, as a whole, the information presented in
AmigaWorld:
A. Assumes too much prior knowledge.
B. Is too basic.
C. Is about right.
3. Are there any particular topics you think we cover at too high
or too low a level?
4. If you could choose any feature article(s)–not product review–that
you would like to see in the next few months, what would you choose?
(Some ideas: a detailed tutorial on how to create a 3-D model
realistically resembling a human, a series on how to get the most out of
Workbench 2.0, a piece comparing different types of hard drives, an article
on how the Amiga is being used in the arts, an analysis of
video recording equipment, etc.)
5. Do you think we sould give more emphasis to tips and tutorials or
buying information? Or equal weight to both?
6. Is there an issue that stands out in your mind as being particularly
good? Which was it, and what made it appealing for you?
7. Can you think of an issue you disliked? Which one, and why?
8. To add something to the magazine, we usually need to sacrifice
something else. What would you like to see added to AW (system software
column? programming column? multimedia column?) And what would you give
up?
9. Is there any topic you think AW spends too much time with?
10. Do we pay too little attention to something else?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT!!! –Barbara Gefvert
Senior Editor, AmigaWorldt
1) A & B – these are all you do know!
2) B (or less than basic!)
3) Too high – fluff!
Too low – just about anything that deals with technical information
4) Not another 3-D article!
Workbench 2.0 – read the friggen manual! (assuming most AW readers can
read)
Hardware comparisons! Your kidding, right? 99% chance the facts would
be
wrong or inconsistantly reported, just like the last HD controller
article
for the 2000s AW did.
Why don't you give Sheldon and Lou each a copy of ImageMaster, lock them
in a room (they are allowed to phone Black Belt Systems tech support)
for a
week and see what kind of tutorials each of them can write about it,
then
print the tutorials. This would be a couple of interesting series.
5) Forget buying information – you guys give kudos based solely on
advertising
and never say anything bad about anybody who advertises.
Better stick to tips and tutorials
6) NO!, except for John's article on CD-ROM disks.
7) Just about all of them – I wasted my money buying them!
8) Sacrifice bad reviews (anything written by that williams guy), sacrifice
fluff articles (this alone would free up about 80 pages/issue), and
bring
in everything that was killed in AWTJ! We don't need a multimedia
column,
you have enough fluff articles in that area.
9) Fluff!
10) anything technical, especially when it comes to checking reviewers
creditionals or competence levels (ie. that williams guy)
Thanks for the CD-ROM compliment, Kelly. The good news is, Barbara has
asked for a follow-up, and I'm working on it now.
Remember we DO have support for the NJPL stuff now, true to your
prediction… even the Mac formatted CD-ROMS w/NJPL. :^)
–Ben
Mac-formatted CD-ROMs with NJPL? They're all ISO-9660.
No – the file system is ISO-9660; but there are two very distinct versions
of the CD-ROM _files_ (we discovered to our dismay). One version has files
like the early ones you sent us, which we call DOS-Type, they start with
the NJPL preamble and go right into the data. THen there is what we call
the Mac-type, which have about 2k of "stuff" before the NJPL preamble,
which is Macentoid data as far as I know (I didn't do the loader, so am a
bit vague on the details here). A user sent us a couple of disks full of
files, and sure enough, tons of trash ahead of the file itself on EVERY
file. We load that type and the original type now. Whatever they are.
–Ben
I had no idea! Why not send me the header from one of those, and I can
tell you how to decode it the right way. 🙂 Chances are, it's entirely
skippable. Can you tell me which disc has these Mac-ish files?
No – but I can send you some files. As I said, we were sent these on
diskette. We don't have a CD-ROM on any of the Amigas, so no way to go
directly after these things. BTW – we DO skip that header. :^)
–Ben
Oh, I think I know what this is about… The NASA sampler disc is very
poorly organized. Some directories *only* work on the PC, some directories
*only* work on the Mac. The Amiga is friendly and lets you 'cd' anywhere
you want. The PC can't handle the Mac's (or the Amiga's) flexible file and
directory names, so you can't 'cd' some places on an ISO-9660 disc when
you're reading it on the PC when the disc is meant for a Mac audience. So,
your customer probably sent you a Mac-format file from an ISO-9660 disc,
which is exactly what you said. I'm considering changing a lot of my file
I/O within InterChange so that it automatically recognizes files like this,
and doesn't choke. I had to do it for the Swivel 3D loader for TIO in the
Toaster. Again, if you can tell me which disc and files these are, or
direct me to the customer in question, I'll ask them about it. This is
probably a very important point for my article.
Tell you what… ask over in vendor (se6) – the files came from someone who
mentioned it there; I don't remember who, we just took the report (and the
files) and dealt with the issue. It'll be in the next release. Sounds like
what you're talking about is it. Now, you can say ALL directories work on
the Amiga, at least if you're using Imagemaster. :^)
–Ben
John,
Check with Xetec about possible upcoming support for 512byte/block
CDRoms. NASA Viking Orbiter discs have this format. Also BBS is working on
more complete support for NASA images. Psst. Those NASA color pics you put
in AW….how did you load them into your Amiga from the CD? They look like
they came from the Space Science Sampler but the older FITS format on these
discs is not working with IM PI module yet.
There are a couple of little progs on the Xetec BBS that will load a
FITS image and one loads an Elevation map.
I'm looking forward to your next article.
….Mark Sterling 74335,1677
Xetec was rather unhelpful when I called, and I called more than once.
I'll try again, of course. When I call a PR person and beg for info, I
usually expect them to talk my ear off. It turns out Xetec's driver works
with other hardware. I didn't expect that, they didn't volunteer it, and
they ignored my request to look over the software driver so I could write
about it. I would explicitly state that I was not looking for freebie
hardware or even a loan of a CD-ROM drive, yet they kept thinking I wanted
a drive. Frustrating. If you have their BBS number handy, I'd appreciate
it.
Yes, the NASA color pics came from the sampler disc. My method was
round-about. I think I viewed them on the PC, grabbed the screen, copied
the file to the Amiga and translated it with AD Pro, then sent it to
AmigaWorld as a Toaster framestore. I don't have the Viking discs yet. Are
you saying that the 512-byte block CDs are incompatible with the CDROM-FS
driver, or the Xetec driver, or both? I thought they handled only
2048-byte blocks…
John:
There's been an update to CDROM-FS. The upgrade charge is $10.00, but I
don't have all the details, other than that Hypermedia, and Vertical are
the 2 designated places to get the upgrades in the US. The updated version
supposedly handles the 512 byte block CD's now.
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
John,
Sorry this answer is so slow. I was out of town for a couple of days.
The Xetec software seems to work fine with other than Xetec designed drive
systems. I use it with a Toshiba drive and a 3000. Afriend of mine uses it
with a Toshiba and a GVP 33mHz combo board. The Xetec BBS # is
913-827-1974. They have been helpful to me so far.
I knew you had to have gone around the barn a few times to get those
NASA sampler images into an Amiga. P^) The current versions of CDRom-FS and
Xetec software do not work with 512 byte/block discs. This type of disc is
in the extreme minority now but more may be coming. Hopefully new versions
of driver software will fix this problem soon.
….Mark Sterling 74335,1677
Have you discovered any interesting discs lately, beyond what's mentioned
in my first article, or in your own explorations?
John,
I haven't aquired that many discs yet. I have the FF disc from
Hypermedia, Fish & More from Xetec, 12 Voyager discs, 4 Viking discs and
the NASA sampler discs. I did get a very large catalog from Educorp. I am
experiencing some information overload symptoms right now. I plan to attend
a Hamfest soon that will have many CDRoms available (sometimes for cheap
too). I tried the NASA 25th Anniversary CDTV disc but it was a
disappointment on my non-CDXL capable system. Now there's a subject! How
does CDXL work? The images look kinda low-res. The file format for the
moving pics looks weird. Will it ever work on a non-CDTV system?
….Mark Sterling 74335,1677
I don't have the Viking discs yet – I've always had a soft spot for that
spacecraft, I've been dying to get those discs. Today I found a company
who's making a CD with 2400 files from the largest Amiga-oriented Internet
archive site, as well as all of Simtel's MS-DOS archive, all of the Usenet
source archives, all of X11R5 and GNU, on CDs for about $35 each. Sounds
good? 🙂
I do plan to discuss what's compatible and what's not, when comparing CDTV
/ CDXL and regular CD-ROMs.
John,
The Viking discs should very interesting as soon as I can read them. I
don't have a cable to hook the CD-Rom to my 486 at work so I'll just wait
for the software to read 512 byte/block CD's to get finished.
The $35 discs you speak of sound very interesting! Can you give a number
or address? There's nothing like having gigabytes at your fingertips.
A discussion of compatibilities could do a lot to clear up confusion
about what works with what. I noticed that ASDG's Art Dept Pro "knows"
about CDXL files but won't load them. A call to ASDG revealed that they
have a loader but that it is for developers only at the request of C=. Of
course it would only show stills on a non-CDXL capable machine.
….Mark Sterling 74335,1677
How about starting a general purpose technical publication that could
actually benefit the machine by providing the tools and information that is
needed by people who actually write (or attempt to write) software that
increases the value of our beloved amiga. You could call it the Amiga
World Tech "Magazine" (catchy, huh?). Or, as a better idea, you could can
most of the Amiga World as it stands, say from the table of contents to the
back page, and simply insert the former AW Tech Journal into the cover.
Bill
PS. count this as a vote for more technical coverage.
– via Whap!
Barbara,
I'm not a subscriber. I do occasionally buy AW after a quick scan when I
see something interesting in it, but, lately, not a great deal has caught
my interest.
I'll just shoot you some of my opinons instead of a structured response
to your message.
AW seems to cater too much to the brand new Amiga owner. While ignoring
that segment entirely is not wise I do believe you should address more
content towards the knowlegable old hand. I don't wish to see another
'Discovering Workbench 2.04!'. I do wish to see articles on some of the
less well documented features, but not repeated in every edition.
One of AW's weak points seems to be reviews. Several have been downright
incorrect on important facts and a great many are either a litany of
superlatives or complaint from the author's personal point of view. There's
very little real information in them. Not all, mind you- some are indeed
very informative to possible customer and might even contain some nice tips
for someone who already owns the product.
With the reported demise of AW Tech, (I don't subscribe but do buy every
issue) AW should take over some of the [soon to be] sorely missed functions
of that magazine. I don't mean it should turn into a developers only
publication, but that it should address itself to informing the person
that's learned that there's more to the machine than WB. I'm of the
opinion that the publication should be aimed more at the poweruser of the
machine, with information for those who have some specialized uses for the
Amiga. Keeping informed the people who inhabit that vertical market you've
mentioned should not be _the_ primary goal, IMO, but treated as a very
important one. The primary productive uses of the machine, such as Video,
DTP, MIDI, and, yes- even Games, should be addressed but not at the expense
of _educating_ the reader as to what is out there for the machine and how
he can best decide what to buy and how to use it. Or even telling him
about something he's never even thought about before.
<continued>
Reading an article promising detailed information covering every
aspect of 'Fimbulwinter, The Brand New Last _Cool_ Thing' and finding it to
be a badly condensed version of the user manual is not all that
informative. I could've bought the thing and read that for myself. I also
don't want to hear whingeing and disinformation about something (as 'That
Williams guy' (a fitting epitaph) seems to be almost capable of writing)
Being more cautious as to who writes what and how carefully might be in
order.
It's hard to address the entire spectrum of possible uses for the
machine. I think AW would do well to _not_ attempt it. Instead, address how
best to use the machine, with explanatory reviews of things of more
specialized interest. Aim at least some of it at the true hardcore user.
Even if it's not what the average user might be directly interested in it
may just get his creative juices flowing.
AW seems to want to imitate the IBM/Clone User magazines. "What the new
XYZ spreadsheet is all about- Counting past two!" Please- don't. My direct
experience is that the average Amiga user, other than the Games-type, is
highly computer literate or not afraid of becoming so. Most are not
single-tracked to one specific discipline, but have at least a passing
interest in everything the machine offers. I doubt that a Video intensive
person is not at all curious as to what the latest game is like, or what
neat, new music software is capapble of doing, or if the newest DTP program
supports importing EPS with preview or, better yet, how they can be best
used and tied together to do wonderful things.
Hints, tips and techniques are always welcome. But _please!_ no more
"What the Shell is it all about?" unless it's something that's _NOT_ in the
user manual. Assume a reader that has at least possesion of the WB manual
and is capable of reading it. Telling a reader where to look is perfectly
alright. Reprinting the chapter with copious annotations is a bit too
much, though; especially if it's done every three issues.
<continued>
I could go on in this aimless manner for several thousand words more.
I'll relent, and sign off now.
Doug
I have a few gripes.
1. You are doing a little better, but just remember there are still
A1000 owners out there. I have my 1000 running with a Rejuvenator,
ECS Agnus and ECS Denise and 2.04. I get tired of not reading anything
in the magazine for months about anything for the 1000. Amazing seems
to be more friendly toward the machine than you. How about a part of
the magazine where news about hardware is broken down into stuff for
different models.
2. I agree with some comments already made. No more whats in 2.0. How
about getting CBM to release some hints at what they have in the works.
In these days of hearing about VGA cards and multimedia being IBM.
It would sure make the Amiga owner have hope at what the future holds.
Richard Erickson
As a subscriber I'd like to see more technical substance in AW. A case in
point – I was sorely disappointed in Sheldon Leemon's 2 part article on
Amiga OS2.0. I found absolutely nothing helpful in the article, it sounded
more like a CBM advertisement than an article from an "independent
journal". I also think that PD and shareware gets the short end of the
stick over commercial programs – though I can understand the economic
reasons for this. A glaring example of this is an article a few months back
(the title escapes me at the moment) on directory utilities, where
Directory OPUS and DiskMaster were reviewed but not a peep about SID.
While I'm on a roll, I'd like to make a pitch for those people, like
myself, who use the Amiga for something other than video. I applaud your
article about Amigas in the scientific community. (In fact, I bought Maple
as a direct result of reading that article). I would like to see more
articles on, or at least SOME space devoted to, scientific and/or business
applications.
Thanks for this opportunity
Leslie Deck
– via Whap!
As for public domain versus commercial software, do you really think
they're comparable? With commercial software, one aim of a review should
be "is this worth the money?", while with public domain software there's
little to no support, often bad docs, and the "cost" is usually nothing.
John
Compare SID with DiskMaster or OPUS and you'll change your mind. Besides
for an "out of mainstream Computer" (i.e. not a Mac or IBM) PD software
does a marvelous job of "filling in the gaps". I use GnuPlot regularly and
it serves my needs admirably. I haven't found a commercial plotting package
that does as good a job. I also use ASpice, and you can't get Spice for the
amiga platform anywhere else. Frankly, the Amiga would not be my favorite
platform without the PD scene.
Les
– via Whap!
And sometimes, the PD offering needs no support because it's that good, or
you can get support from those that know it well. Sometimes the docs are
very good, and sometimes the cost is even lower than one might expect, when
compared with the struggle and irritation and data recovery that goes along
with a bad commercial program.
Most magazines pay lip service to PD software, but nothing more. There are
definitely times when a reviewer should be saying "Save your money and get
a superior program for nothing."
-larry
John,
There are notable acceptions and a periodical that is devoted to giving
news and reviews should not leave out programs that are shareware/PD,
especially when competeing against low priced commercial packages. The
example of SID vs OPUS is a good one. In my case, I would have reported in
the review that OPUS crashes frequently, repeated communication with the
author and publishers have gotten little more than "gee wiz, too bad".
However, the PD rival works flawlessly, has the same functionality, can be
"registered" and is supported better for 1/3 the cost. I thin that is
noteworthy and should be mentioned in a review of packages that have
highquality PD counterparts that are in wide use.
wmc
The publishers of commercial software, the buyers of advertising, often get
mad when a review states that nearly the same thing can be found for free
in the public domain. It doesn't surprise me when magazines avoid that
sort of conflict – not that I agree with that. It would be nice if that
didn't happen, but I understand where they're coming from. When commercial
company A offers a real, printed manual, updates, technical support, and PD
product B is supported whenever, whereever, maybe evenings if the docs
mention a phone number; isn't that comparing apples and oranges? I think
the commercial-quality PD program is the exception. Far too often, the
author realizes the *value* of their creation as a commercial product, and
the formerly PD program goes commercial. On the other hand, where's all
the public domain desktop publishing programs that compare with PageStream
and Pro Page?
John,
One thing that seems to happen in the case where a PD offering comes
close to or surpasses the commercial offerings, is that the commercial
offerings will start getting better. A good example, that I am quite
familiar with, is in the area of terminal programs. MaxiComm and Online!
were the first two commercial examples that I am aware of, and at the time,
they were nothing short of pitiful. Aterm surpassed them by orders of
magnitude (if for no other reason than that it actually worked).
I can remember conversations with the author of Online!, wherein he
accused me of trying to kill their effort by making Aterm too good. My
position, of course, was that it wasn't 'too good', but that his program
was buggy, unreliable, lacked features, and hogged resources. The net
result? He followed my recommendation that he improve his program.
So, while it is understandable that a magazine try not to anger their
advertisers, I cannot see that it does the industry (vendors or buyers) any
good at all.
-larry
No doubt. How many terminal programs were based around Michael Mounier's
original terminal program? Almost all of them. I'm not saying that PD
software makers should stop what they're doing. When they give out the
source code, it helps other developers a lot. 🙂
Even so, I can't come to agree that it's "fair" to compare a commercial
offering to a PD offering. If the commercial developer is truly carrying
out what it usually means to be "commercial," then it's not comparable to
what it usually means to be "public domain." One thing we can agree on is
that magazine reviewers usually don't have the incentive to do a good job,
and often don't. It's been a long time since I've reviewed a product.
John,
Well, I don't see the dichotomy you seem to. I see a wide range of
Commercial software and another wide range of PD software, and the ranges
overlap. When that overlap is apparent in a similar program, it gets real
irritating to read a rave review of the commercial product with no mention
of the PD offering.
Oh well, there ain't no perfect worlds.
-larry
>>> "Oh well, there ain't no perfect worlds." <<<
uh, have you checked with Clint on that?
Michael
….from the north coast
Hmm… I've seen a few of Clint's worlds… some of em are pretty close to
perfect. _close_. <grin>….
Today must be Sunday. I never could get the hang of Sundays.
John,
It's not comparing apples to oranges if price and functionality are about
the same as you find in the Dir util land. I also have to repeat that SID
has support far superior to OPUS. Purchasers would likely be interested
in the fact that the wame functionality is available in a PD piece that is
supported as opposed to a commercial piece where the author/sellers just
take your money and run.
wmc
I'd love to see a magazine that had the guts to take a position like
"company X takes your money and runs." I'd also like to see a gossip
magazine about the computer industry, sort of a "Spy." I wonder when that
will happen.
John, There is a magazine like that but in the aviation industry, not
computers. Its called Aviation Consumer. The way they get away with it is
by not accepting advertising. They are supported solely by subscriptions.
wmc
It sounds like you're approaching this whole issue from the standpoint of
trying to make some cash, whereas I'm approaching it as a guy trying to get
a job done.
If you publish software, then PD software is "Bad". It's software that
people can use with no money changing hands – that can't be good for the
industry, can it?
Meanwhile Joe Programmer writes a program because nobody else has written
it yet and he needs it, and he releases it. Joe User also needs that
program. Because Joe Programmer has a day job, he decided not to start a
company and sell the program commercially.
You'd have Joe User never find out that what he needs does exist. And this
does happen, fairly regularly from what I've seen.
I think Amazing Computing does a great service (do they still do it?)
printing the Fish listings in their magazines, because this gives the user
a way to see if a program exists to do what he wants, and if it does, a way
to get ahold of it without having to go buy a modem or find a "User Group".
…Steve
Once upon a time, I thought that public domain software could attain the
quality and support found in most commercial software. Just read my first
and second columns in Amazing Computing. Since then, I've changed my mind.
Empirically, I think we can see that public domain software doesn't go as
far as commercial software: the docs for commercial software are generally
better and possibly quite elegant, support exists as opposed to doesn't
exist, etc. If "using software" is a hobby, those things don't really
matter. If you're Joe or Jane Hobbyist who just wants to make the lights
blink, or shuffle files between floppies, fine, PD software might make you
happy. If you're a pro video person with eight hours to do a job, I think
you'll be upset both by the roadblocks and deficiencies in PD software.
And yes, a lot of this has been sparked by entering the world of software
development. Whenever I hear a customer or potential customer tell me
they're going to get the job done with some PD software, I cringe: I know
the limits of the PD 3D converters out there. I know they'll be back. I'm
not about to tell a customer they're wrong, but they often are.
As for Amazing Computing… When I worked there, and made all those
"AMICUS" disks, they would pay me a royalty per-disk. When I left the
magazine, I still owed them about $1000 for some hardware they bought me.
The next few months of royalty were to cover the cost of that hardware.
Since then, they continue to sell the AMICUS disks without paying me the
royalty. They've also, coincidentally, never reviewed any of Syndesis's
products. I've asked for my outstanding royalties several times, and
they've ignored me. Great guys.
Most of what you say is generalization, John.
Commercial:
Maxicomm
Anything by MSS
DPaint
Dr. T's
TDI Modula-2
MaxiPlan
AmigaBasic
…
And many more that have signficant problems with documentation,
functionality, system-friendliness, or support.
PD/shareware:
Post
ConMan
VD0:
Sectorama
many small utilities…
And many more that have similar problems to commercial offerings.
-larry
I'm not saying that there isn't junk in the commercial domain. This thread
started out with my belief that it's not generally a good thing for a
magazine to compare commercial and PD software. That's the only
generalization I'll stand by. As for your junk software list, I detect a
few patterns, and maybe you know you won't buy from those developers or
vendors in the future, regardless of company name or publisher. 🙂 As for
the "good PD" list, I'd venture that Saxon's SaxonScript is far more
friendly than Post. I think a lot of people have tried to install and use
Post and failed because it's so darn PD and nerdy when it comes to arcane
documentation and feeping creaturisms. VD0: is essentially unsupported and
exists in a half-dozen hacked versions. Which one do you mean? And ConMan
is a spin-off / co-development of a commercial software company, right?
Post doesn't need to be friendly. It's for nerdy guys. 🙂
Seriously, I have not seen SaxonScript. Is it a PS interpreter or a DTP
program?
Post requires nothing more than the ability to read, in order to
successfully set it up.
VD0: has had several hacked versions around, but then so have some
commercial programs. I don't think that differentiates much, except that
the hacked PD stuff is legal to distribute.
ConMan was put out by a commercial venture, though it started life before
ARexx was available, much in the same way that several other programs came
into being. It had amazingly good support (admittedly, it was shareware,
and not PD).
-larry
Think of SaxonScript as a commercial version of Post. It does more, it's
got a readable manual, it's got nice set-up icons and a host of add-on
tools, and an interface for changing what needs tweaking. It also saves 24
bit files.
I've already done the comparison routine between a commercial and PD
version of postscript interpreter–I paid going-rate retail for Pixel
Script, after some research and several Amiga-mag positive reviews.
Since then I found and learned Post. For me there's no comparison;
Post works quite well, and I've learned how to debug a variety of
Postscript programs–even to print standard Mac postscript files
generated from Amax. The documentation is straightforward if a bit
technical, and Pixelscript is a joke and no longer supported. I
wouldn't even consider another Postscript interpreter purchase unless
it was a 9.5/10.0 implementation (read excellent in all aspects), and
most of the commercial Amiga programs I continue to purchase don't
even come close. Useable, yes; but not shining examples of "finished
programs."
One example–I recently upgraded to ProPage v3.0, somewhat excited
about the ARexx capabilities they call "genies"–and the first thing
I tried to do was print a page of return address labels from my laser
printer. Guess what, it doesn't work. Registration is off; whoever
made the script forgot about default margins. That's commercial
software–the script _Looks_ like it's right, but with the
competitive pressure to push the product out the door with a 3.0
sticker left the error-checking "for the next release."
It's not that I disagree with what you're saying totally. But the
commercial/PD distinction is an artificial one.
>> "many small utilities…" that in the pc world would COST…
FIND
KD_FREQ
and the NOT-SO-SMALL program…
BackTalk
come on guys, toot your own horns a little!
Michael
….from the north coast
Interesting. Because I found myself in just such a situation a few days
ago.
Specifically, we were working on an AmigaVision application, and we needed
to build some small animations to play in AmigaVision. So we got all the
frames the right size, and then tried to combine them into an animation.
DPaint wouldn't do it! It complained that you couldn't animate on a page
that isn't the same size as the screen, and wanted to force us to load in
and place each of the images individually, and then it would only generate
full-screen animations. We wanted small animations that could play in a
window.
Now, unless you know of something that I don't, the ONLY program out there
that does this is AnimTools by Cryogenic Software, which is Freely
Redistributable.
And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make – PD software often does
jobs that commercial stuff doesn't, and if the magazines don't tell the
"professionals" that it exists, they will never find out.
As another small example, I recently bought PowerPacker Pro. I bought it
because I used the PD version and it was pretty cool. Now that I have it,
I see the docs are a single sheet of paper, and the program, while slick,
doesn't compress as quickly as Imploder, generates larger files, and the
files load less quickly than Imploded files do. Just because somebody
wants to charge you for it, doesn't make it better.
…Steve
You're right, ESPECIALLY those people who make the jump from PD to
commercial software end up selling an inferior product. So what changed
your mind about it? You got a pre-printed manual and essentially the same
software, and now you don't like it? (I'm assuming you meant that you used
the PD version of PowerPacker.)
As for your anim example, keep in mind that that tool was made by a
commercial software company. They made the tool as part of what they were
doing. I think they did ship it with their product. That's a little
different than a pure PD program, in genesis and purpose.
In the case of PowerPacker – it's not that I stopped liking it when I
got the commercial one, it's that I expected the commercial version
to be better than Imploder, when the free version was not. I was
wrong. I got bit by the "Commercial stuff must be better than PD
stuff" mindset.
"…the ONLY program out there that does this is AnimTools…"
Uh, how about ImageMaster?
Michael
….from the north coast
ImageMaster won't build animations. At least, it wouldn't when I
needed this, I don't know if it does now.
hmmm… I thought I saw that on one of the recent revision lists…
it's os hard to keep up <g>
Imagemaster builds animations quite well, Steve – you're far behind the
times. It builds them, it loads frames from them, and not only can it build
them it can do so in any Amiga mode, plus HAM-E, DCTV and a few
un-announced ways. :^) Also, it can preview animations with it's built-in
filmstrip capabilities, allowing insertion, deletion, swapping and resizing
of the frames buffer… pong and loop animation… the ANIMs are OP-5, of
course.
We can also build sequences of 24-bit images for use in things like
Toasters and single frame recorders an animation output.
We work hard at improving the product, it's one of the things that makes
Imagemaster a great value.
Steve,
I see both your point of view and John's. I think I agree with yours more.
Commercial software is written to make a profit. Updating and expanding
the capabilities of commercial software is fully based upon its
profitability. PD software is written because of a need. It is much more
likely to have continued support because the motivation (need) continues.
-sja
Yes, exactly: to me, this explains why a useful tool (a DirUtil) does
better in the public domain than in the commercial realm. Or at least
that's the way it's worked in the Amiga market. On the PC, with a generally
less technical audience, the commercial DirUtil (in the form of programs
such as XTree, etc.) has done relatively well. Just because a program is
useful to an audience, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be
profitable, too.
John,
Ok, so you agree on that point. Now, expand upon that view; shouldn't a
magazine reader be told that a pd/shareware dirutil runs circles around a
similar commercial product? Isn't the magazine's function (to the
consumer) to inform and help him make sensible choices?
-sja
Stating that the commercial product isn't very strong is a good starting
point. You might as well ask, which products should be reviewed? Because
a product exists, doesn't mean it's worth reviewing. DirUtils exist on the
Amiga for the same reason they exist on DOS: the user interface (be it GUI
or CLI) is too hard to use. They're a strange class of tools that
typically migrate from the PD to the commercial realm. How many have
become give-aways, bundled with hard disks? No, I don't think it would be
out of the question to mention that. That's a different situation than a
blanket policy of comparing PD vs. commercial software.
John,
I don't believe there should be a "blanket policy" of comparing commercial
to PD, but, when the PD product is extremely strong when compared to the
commercial product, it should mentioned as an alternative to the commerical
product (ie, VLT and JRComm as compared to anything on the commercial
market). However, this is not a perfect world and is not likely to happen
on a consistant basis because editors are concerned with the bottom line —
if they recommend a PD/shareware product, or just generally pan a
commercial product, they will conceivably lose an advertiser. Personally I
don't subscribe to any of the Amiga mags (I used to buy AWTJ off the shelf)
because I can't believe what is written. Reviewers and columnists, in
general, just have too much self interest to protect, revenue to protect,
or axes to grind for me to find them believable and accurate. Or in some
cases (William's reviews for AW come to mind), just plain incompetency.
I've seen Diskmaster II and Directory Opus used around here recently. I've
also seen SID. I still prefer Utilimaster (unfortunately, it stopped
working on my 3000… have to test it out again rsn). I think if a
magazine is going to review "directory utilities" it should include any PD,
FR, or Shareware programs in that review that the reviewer finds either
worthy of merit, or to be avoided, as well as packaged programs by the same
criteria.
Today must be Tuesday. I never could get the hang of Tuesdays.
Sounds like dreamland to me. 🙂 Magazines very often squeeze a review
into too little space as it is. Asking them to include a comparison
against every other PD program in existence is impossible – if they tried
it, they'd probably take the space away from the content of the review,
bringing you even less information than before.
right.. so do a comparison of any they happen to know of. If they
don't know about a non-packaged piece of software, or even a packaged
one, they can't review it. That's life. But to not review a
non-packaged product that the reviewer is aware of for a 'theme'
review is as silly as ignoring a packaged product that the reviewer
is aware of.
Today must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I use Utilimaster on a 3000. It was 'broke' until 2.04 was available,
then it started working again. It still doesn't report the space left
on the HD accurately, but so it goes….
Since posting that message, I d/led several dirutils… one of which
was DirWorks. It's terrific, everything Utilmast was and more. It has
the 2.0 look and feel, far more reprogrammable… it's not easy to
get set up, but it really looks good.
Additionally, PD software seems to reach a 'plateau' where it is deemed to
be 'good enough', and remains the program of choice until the commercial
offerings surpass it, if indeed they ever do. In many cases, the PD stuff
will remain the only choice because it just isn't profitable to sell a
similar program.
-larry
Larry,
My wife used to say that one of the 'problems' with a commercial company
attempting to get into the Amiga market had to do with the really GOOD
PD/Shareware software that was existant. It seems that her company, at
least, figured they couldn't _add_ enough value so that people would
consider it a 'fair' investment to purchase the commercial version. We had
access to the entire local club disk 'library' so we could continually
check on the latest available stuff. It IS sort of a shame they never have
gotten into the Amiga market since they are one of the larger PC software
vendors for PC to mainframe communications programs (Yes Jim, that means
3270 emulators and all).
Absolutely! I think that's an indication that Amiga owners paid for
an inexpensive, relatively high-powered machine because they didn't
have enough money to buy a Mac or PC. In the 3D realm, programs
comparable to the $300 programs in the Amiga market go for $995 in
the Mac market. Why?
<blink, blink>… (robert deniro voice) "are you talkin' ta me? are
you talkin ta ME?"
Excuse me, John, but often I've found commercial software that was put on
the market with little to no support, often bad docs, and the "cost" is
always higher than public domain software.
Many public domain authors pour themselves into their programs – spending a
lot more time on them than commercial authors can afford to do.
GadToolsBox is the best program of it's sort, and it's free. Same with a
lot of other public domain programs.
There are many PD programs that do real jobs that no commercial program can
do. It's unfortunate that the people who need these functions can't get
them commercially since studios and places that use the machine "for real"
aren't likely to go downloading PD programs and trying them out. Now, if
the magazines would find useful programs of this sort and review them as
they would a commercial program – they would be doing everybody a service.
(Perfect example: AnimBuild, a freely redistributable program by Cryogenic
Software does something that no commercial program (that I know of) can
do).
…Steve
Steve, I just d/led GadToolsBox yesterday. I've used PowderWindows, and
from the little of GadToolsBox I've seen, I'll be using it (and the
GadTools library) a lot more than I used PW.
Today must be Friday. I never could get the hang of Fridays.
And that very same lousy commercial software, with bad docs and a high
price, still garners an overall good review by an incompetent reviewer. Or
maybe the publisher of said software thought that they could get away with
the quality of software and documentation that's *normally* found in the
public domain. Of the 600 megs of the Fish collection, how many of those
tools are "commercial quality"? How many PD utilities and how many
commercial programs have you had to give up because they caused spurious
crashes on your system?
Well, there are a lot more PD/shareware programs than there are commercial,
so I'd have to base it on a percentage, rather than on an absolute number,
and I would say that the ratio (of the programs I've tried) is not all that
different between the two categories.
Of course these are not only 'spurious' crashes, but also include such
niceties as resource hogging, outright crashes every time it's run, leaving
my system in a state different from what it was when I ran it, modifying
files that it had no business modifying, and much, much more.
One of the earliest programs for the Amiga was guilty of causing spurious
crashes right up until version IV, which is their latest version, and not
all that old. It was definitly a commercial program, and got rave reviews
the whole time, in spit of its many problems.
Larry,
I still refuse to evaluate trouble reports if the person having
difficulties has run DPaint (any version) since they've booted the machine
(they've cost me almost as much time as chasing things that turned out to
be wrong in WD chips).
Many of the tools on the Fish disks are commercial quality. Look at ToolsX
– I think it's "Commercial Quality" but it's not something I'd try to sell,
because it does a very simple job. But it does it well.
Like I said before, there are good PD programs and there are bad commercial
programs. You dumped ALL the PD programs in a lump and said they were
inferior, which I heartily disagree with.
…Steve
No, I think I tried to qualify my generalization: One, it's not fair to
compare commercial and PD software. Even if we accept your argument that
the *software* itself is the same power and quality as commercial software,
it's usually true that commercial software comes with docs and support,
while the PD software doesn't. If we're trying to turn magazines into
better entities, I don't think it's good to encourage users into thinking
that docs and support are, essentially, irrelevant. It puts commercial
developers on the defensive and gives more credit to PD software than it
deserves.
As for what's saleable and what's not, that's another question. Yes, some
products have such limited appeal that they couldn't be profitable as
commercial products, even though they may be bug-free, well-documented and
useful PD software.
John…
When you say it's not fair to compare commercial and PD software, I
agree.
Reason being, there are far too many examples of commercial programs trying
to enter the market when there are PD programs that *DO* the job better,
and cost either nothing, or significantly less. Further, the very nature of
PD software makes it more accessible than the retail sales method.
There are several examples. I saw a commercial program a few months ago
(tool manager, or something like that) that effectively duplicates what
programs like ToolsX and that sort of thing do. I know there are several PD
incarnations of the same type of thing. As Steve pointed out, no point
going commercial with it, but someone did and is likely making money from
it.
There are several other examples I could site, such as that wonderful virus
protection program put out by the guys who did Arkanoid for the Amiga. The
program saw little in the way of updates, and people invested in it as a
solid virus protector/eliminator. The product is now several years dead.
You can't generalize in this instance, I think. There are obviously some
awesome commercial packages that you won't find PD equivalents for. On the
other hand, as I pointed out, there are several PD 'ripoffs' that try and
exploit the market that the PD guys have already taken care of. A lot of
people will look at the commercial package and buy it, knowing there are PD
equivalents, thinking that if it's worth going commercial, it must be
better. Many times that has proven to be the wrong assumption to make.
Support for PD? Well, what is support anyways? Is it a program that is
written right the first or second time, and becomes a reliable part of your
environment, or is it something that takes years to get the bugs out of
(did someone say PageStream?)
I bought PageStream when it first came out. The program was a crashaholic,
documentation was not great, support was…%$*^. I paid a good price for
it, and I misplaced it in a move two years ago. I have no idea where it is,
and don't miss it. Mostly because I have two friends who use it, and
complain constantly about the bugs. Go figure.
Jim
I think we both agree that computer consumers need better built-in,
shockproof BS-detectors. I choose my tools very carefully. I wait, and
then wait longer before adopting anything. (I just switched to 2.0 about a
week ago.) I'll let the bleeding edge fanatics find the bugs for me.
There's plenty of interesting technology out there, and no one is forcing
you to buy any particular piece of software.
As for PD softwre being more accessible – well, that's debatable. Joe User
does not necessarily have the same sources that you do. Joe User is not
blowing $300 a month on Compuserve. When Joe goes searching for PD product
X, he has no way to know if it's really X, or a hacked version, or the
latest version. Hopefully, with a commercial product the developer can
assure him of that much.
Why did you buy PageStream so impulsively? Didn't you have a method to
determine if it was buggy? Had you no patience? Or were you simply willing
to risk the cash?
I had no problem blowing the money on PageStream because the product looked
very good, specification wise. One *expects* that a product, even the first
release of said product, should have some bugs, but not so many as to
render the product useless.
You can't turn this around to be a 'buyer beware' kind of debate, because
software is something that can be trouble-shot until it's releasable, and
for a company to NOT do this is simply irresponsible. Thus, my dealings
with Soft Logik over the next few upgrades, and seeing the program progress
feature-wise and increase its bug list, was frustrating. How they managed
to surivive this long I guess is simply because their feature list
outshines ProPage. However, it's reputation forces people who have 'must
get done' type work to use ProPage instead.
On PD software, I understand that people without modems don't have the
accessibility to software that I do, but the potential for access to anyone
with the computer and phone line exists. It is simply a matter of someone
without a modem grabbing the bull by the horns and getting one.
I realize that many people out there are scared of modems, they have no
idea where to start, how to use one, or where to call. Maybe it's time for
the major mags to do a serious writeup about getting online again.
You just switched to 2.0 only a week ago? Hmm. Interesting. I've had it
ever since I got my first 3000 (months before the machine was released) and
I've never had any software problems that I can recall that were 2.0
related. It's been pretty solid in that sense since beta.
Jim
John,
"I have here a 'modest' example…." Would you care to Enumerate ANY
commercial term programs(s) that are as 'good' as the PD one(s) available?
I dunno, I use a PD terminal program on the Amiga. I do most of my telecom
on the PC, and use the commercial 'Pro YAM', which remains untouched on any
platform. It's insane. Every time I look for a certain feature, it's
already in there. Terminal programs are a special category – they are the
first step that the public domain takes.
I haven't seen a lot of PD software come without docs. I've seen PD
programs come with MORE docs in many cases. I don't understand why you are
being so "down" on PD software.
…Steve
I'm not "down" on it. I use it often. I don't think it's good for a
magazine to adopt a policy of comparing it to commercial software. That's
where this thread got started.
It is a fine line, and I agree with you John. Magazines are themselves
commercial ventures… I don't know of many Amiga related commercial
enterprises that don't live hand to mouth. Why should a magazine 'bite the
hand that feeds'? Yes, it's a shame that more information isn't more
widely available to tJoe User regarding the fine PD software that's
available, but that's what User's Groups and BBS's, and Commercial Online
Services are for, not the magazines. The Mags's have a responsibility,
IMHO, to treat their knowledge of PD programs as NEWS, but not the
responsibility to compare PD products with their commercial counterparts.
If such a policy were adopted industry wide, eventually there would be
little incentive to bring any commercial software products out, or to
advertise them in magazines…. WE, the Amiga Community, (PD & COMMERCIAL)
would lose in the long run.
Michael
….from the north coast
It's not so much that I'm arguing that it's not in a magazine's best
interest to avoid the PD vs. commercial comparison. I think it's defensible
from the standpoint of harming commercial developers, and diluting the
difference between PD and commercial software.
Bushwah! 🙂
Magazines that report 'what's available' in any given arena have a
responsibility to cover all the reasonable bases.
If any major Amiga mag were doing an article on telecommunications, to
not mention Backtalk, Access, Term and others in the same breath as
BaudBandit and other *commercial* programs, would be a crime.
Not only a crime, but it would be a total waste of time. To exclude
PD software simply based on the idea that it would be biting the hand
that feeds them is ludicrous. The hand that feeds the magazine
publishers in large part, is the hand of the reader. Therefore, the
reader being the customer, should get the best service possible. To
exclude PD software that is clearly the best or one of the best
solutions available for any given application is simply negligence.
I'm not suggesting that when a new product comes out (say, xyz paint
program) that a complete listing of PD equivalents be included with
the review. I am speaking mainly of when magazines decide to showcase
or feature a specific area of application, and then fail to mention
PD or Shareware contenders.
> I don't think it's good for a magazine to adopt a policy of comparing it
to commercial software <
Hmm.
I think a magazine should review freely redistributable software
(whether it be PD, FR, or Shareware). In _most_ cases I think reviews of
FR stuff should be separate from 'commercial' (packaged) stuff. There
_are_ occassions however, when I do think FR ware should be at least
mentioned in global reviews of a particular _type_ of software.
Today must be Tuesday. I never could get the hang of Tuesdays.
Steve:
I think you have to remember that while you have a LONG list of PD or
shareware software that you've spent lots of time developing, and debuging,
and then made available to the Amiga community at large (I assume for the
benefit of the Amiga community, open systems, etc) John while being a real
nice guy, probably wouldn't release any software for any system unless he
had a fairly accurate idea of how much money it was going to make for him.
I'm not putting anyone down, surely a program is the property of it's
author, and they can do whatever they want to with it, but I do think that
there are definitly 2 different schools of thought at work here. I don't
think that John said that ALL PD stuff is BAD, but rather that it doesn't
really need magazine reviews (as much as commercial stuff does), because
users can usually get a copy of the PD program and try it before it costs
them any money, whereas with a commercial program a user SHOULN'T have a
copy of it before they pay for it (usually), and therefore would depend
more on a magazine review then they might with a PD utility.
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Estimating a market and profitability is very, very difficult. If it were
easy, software development would be much more profitable than it is.
Successful software developers make the right choices: an appealing program
in the right market at the right price, based on the costs of development
and support and capital resources. Unsuccessful developers make the wrong
decisions: too low a price for the costs, an appealing product in too small
a market, etc.
If John had said that some PD stuff is bad, I wouldn't be pursuing this.
John keeps saying that "ALL" PD software comes with no docs, no support,
and is inferior. As an author of public domain software, I can take that
personally – John has said that my software comes with no docs and no
support, and is inferior.
Now, I don't generally compete with any commercial software out there –
except maybe ScreenX and Grabbit! 😎 but I do try and write quality stuff.
And support it. I often put my home phone number in the docs, and give
many network addresses where people can get ahold of me. People do call
me, and I try to help them. Being able to talk to the author of the
program usually proves more useful than talking to a tech support person
who is trained to never admit that there might be a bug in their program.
…Steve
Steve:
I agree that PD stuff MANY times is better than it's equivelent commerical
program. I use several of your programs, and so far I find them well
documented, and basically not in need of tech support. What I was basically
saying is that I'm not sure John would even turn on his computer unless
there's $$$ involved.
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Of course computers can be fun and not necessarily implements of
profit. If you're trying to make a living at something, I'd recommend
shooting for profitability instead of altruism. To be honest, I think
I goof around *far too much* on projects that aren't profitable – and
I don't have a single "game" on my machine.
Slow down – I didn't say anything particular about your programs, or
anyone's PD programs. I'm sure that if we were somehow able to measure
quality and robustness of PD programs, they'd follow a bell curve. Same
thing for commercial programs, except I'd venture the bell curve would be
shifted towards higher quality. Do you understand?
I, personally, admire those who do PD work! -Jonathan
Mike, PD programs shouldn't cost any money anyway.. they're public domain.
Shareware, on the other hand (which should be considered commercial, IMAO)
is copyrighted, but freely redistributable. I'm sure you already know
this, but there may be one or two folken reading this thread that don't.
Today must be Tuesday. I never could get the hang of Tuesdays.
"As for public domain versus commercial software, do you really think
they're comparable? With commercial software, one aim of a review should
be "is this worth the money?", while with public domain software there's
little to no support, often bad docs, and the "cost" is usually nothing. "
But that's not the case with SID 2.01 however. Timm Martin offers good
support from his BBS, upgrades come out one hell of a lot fast than
commercial programs put them out and all docs are available online as well
as a full printable manual thats due soon.
I don't blame Amiga World for not mentioning SID 2 however since it wasn't
available at the time the article was being done.
Nick
But, SID is commercial, not public domain. However, your point is still
valid, as I don't think the magazines (except maybe .info) cover shareware
well enough, either.
And .info is out of business – which makes the point quite well, I think.
Barbara –
I want to see AWTJ…
Frankly could care less what's in AW. You couldn't make it tecnical,
and less glitzy, enough to catch my attention without making it AWTJ.
– Nelson Ingersoll
If anything, I think that AW is too nice. there seem to be a lot of
programs tha are reviewed too leniently – if there is a problem I think it
serves both the user and the developer to get it out in to the open. Since
product reviews are the only way we get to test-drive software we depend on
an informed, critcal author. Perhaps to balance an unfair opinion, more
reviews could be coauthored. then if one writer has a particular bias or
is in-experienced in the vertical field of the product, the second writer
could even things out. JL -RCC systems, Madison, WI