#IconX
9 messages in this thread
Hmm… IconX… Now there's a bastard child, born of both CLI and
Workbench. Parts of both, the advantages of neither.
Actually though, IconX does (unfortunately) make some things possible from
Workbench that otherwise wouldn't be. But that is a fault of Workbench.
The fact that a bastard creation like IconX is seen as a wonderful tool
only goes to show how limiting Workbench really is.
Still, one has to work with the system as it is now. In fact, we use IconX
to help install PostScript fonts in our ProScript package (though now that
we have finished our System Mover we will probably switch over to that).
Why 'unfortunately'? You complain about the WB, and knowing it will not
significantly change until 1.4, complain about IconX being a 'bastard
child' even though it does the job (you use it yourself) it is intended to
do. One does indeed have to work with the system as it is now. lets just
hope it doesn't turn into a Mac clone.
How in the heck can it become a Mac clone when all the CLI power
users want to keep the Workbench from being a usable alternative. One of
the local banks uses Macs. I'm sure it's not because of it massive power
(sure) but rather it's almost foolproof use for the simple folks. I'm
greedy, I want the Workbench to do the things that I'm being FORCED to use
CLI for. I realize that I can load up any number of 3rd party programs to
make up for the lack of WB support but you should ( or I should say I would
like to) beable to have more DOS support under WB. I said something to
Betty once about copying a program from one disk to another. Her response
was fine as long as it is one program with one info file. I believe if I
tried to copy my Access term to another disk by dragging an icon, my
Acc!.** files would stay in my S dir and not get copied as they should.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that because I don't use the
WB, that I am trying to keep it from being a usable alternative. Given a
usable alternative to CLI, I would undoubtedly use it at least some of the
time, when I felt it was appropriate. As I have said, over and over again,
I am all for making the WB more powerful, but am definitely concerned about
how it is done, how it will affect the rest of the machine, and in
particular, how it will affect the novice user. Giving a novice user CLI
power as a default, for example, may or may not be a good thing, depending
on what said novice does with it.
I wouldn't mind your constant criticism of the Macintosh if it were not for
the fact that (as you proudly claim) that you have never used one. Sour
grapes?
Seriously though, the Mac is making tremendous inroads into corporate
America, while the Amiga is still primarily a poorly understood
"enthusiast's" machine. I would like to see the Amiga be able to take s
the Mac, but this is not going to haen unless people stop criticisizing the
Mac and instead take a good hard look at just what the Mac has that makes
it attractive to millions of people! The Amiga has the hardware and guts
(its multitasking kernel) to be a contender, but unfortunately it is sorely
lacking in any semblance of a decent user interface. And CBM continues to
work on CLI hacks.
And before you jump back on that soapbox and talk about "I don't want a Mac
clone" (even though you don't know what a Mac really is), let me remind you
again that I do not want a clone of a Mac either, I want something that is
BETTER! But you have to look at the competition before you can improve on
what they have done.
Unless of course you don't mind having the Amiga staying an "enthusiast's"
machine only. A perfectly valid desire, but don't expect to see many
software titles available (or expect the ones that are there to be of
decent quality), since it takes a long time and a lot of money to develop
and fully debug a major application. And no company is going to put that
time and money into a project unless there are sufficient numbers of users
out there that will buy the product. But then, you have always said that
you are not interested in buying software anyway, so I guess my point is
lost on you.
Fascinating message, James.
You did not answer my question about why you are so down on IconX, even
though you use it, but chose instead to respond in detail to what you
perceived as a criticism of the Mac.
I have not 'used' a Mac, though I have fiddled with one at a time I was
looking for a computer. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now,
though I admit that my feelings toward it are now based more on what I read
about it than anything else. Sour grapes? Unlikely… I _can_ afford one.
🙂
Yes, the Mac has something going for it that the Amiga would do well to pay
attention to. I just want to avoid what I see as the 'Apple syndrome' of
trying to force everyone into their mode of thinking about things. Again,
choices are the name of the game. Improving the WB is definitely A Good
Thing. I just don't see that the Mac way is the only way.
You say CBM continues to work on CLI hacks…. well, if you call FFS, the
shell, improvements and bug fixes in fundamental commands (that WB launched
programs can use), improved printer drivers, etc., CLI hacks, then I guess
we don't have much common ground for discussion. There are more areas
where improvement is needed, both in bug fixes and improvements to existing
code, and it isn't all in the WB.
I will get back on my soapbox (along with you, apparently), and say that I
don't want a Mac clone. The reasons go deeper than colours, multitasking,
and hardware help for screen and audio; they go right to the core of the
machine, to the core of why I have a computer at all.
Your point is not lost on me, but I think mine may be lost on you. After
all, I am not in a position of trying to sell as many word processors and
outline processors as posssible. I want the machine to be popular in homes,
video production houses, DTP houses, business in general, but I don't want
to see my favourite machine prostituted in the name of sales.
Yes, we sell word processors and idea processors, but if all we cared about
is what we can do to sell as many of these this month as we can then we
would be no better than CBM. Its their "monthly profits, damn the R&D,
damn the long term" mentality that has caused many of the Amiga's current
problems.
We try to take a longer view of things. In order to sell more of our
products we need a larger installed base of machines. In order to get a
larger base of machines we need to improve the machine in ways that will
make it attractive to different markets than it is in now. Markets like
businesses, or novice users. Both of these categories needs an easy to use
computer above all else. What good is the power of a machine if you need to
read a lot of computer science goobledy gook in order to use it? CLI type
interfaces are something that has a steep learning curve, while an object
oriented one is relatively easy and intuitive to grasp (at least for most
people).
It is in this area of improvements to the Amiga that we are trying to
change things. That is the reason I have been trying to spread around
ideas about easy to use interfaces, and why I talk so much about
improvements to Workbench (and put down CLI improvements–more computer
science junk that is not useful to a person who wants to turn it on and get
some productive work done).
Oh, and I thought I had explained why we used IconX even though I don't
like it. Its because the Workbench is so poorly designed that it was the
only way to do it. Its this poor Workbench design I want to change, so we
won't have to use things like IconX. Sorry you missed that point.
That your affort is exoended on long term improvements does not change
the fact that you have a more direct interest in the numbers of Amiga out
there. I merely point out that what you see as good improvements may not be
seen by others in the same way. I think my comment was clear. I want more
Amigas out there, but do not want it prostituted in order to get those
numbers.
Are you forgetting that in the early days of the Amiga, CBM had no choice
(emphasize _NO_ choice) but to pay attention to profits? Are you forgetting
that they worked on a _lot_ of bug fixes that affected WB and CLI users and
application programs alike?
The plain, simple fact of the matter is that you do NOT need to have
attended CompSci classes in order to use the CLI, that there is literally
NO learning curve in following instructions, and that an iconic interface
is not necessarily the best thing to use for all purposes. Ease of use in
business or novice (same thing, generally) environments is ideed important,
but that is provided by the WB as it now stands.
If a user only runs prepackaged, turnkey applications, it serves the
purpose well, and it would be well for you to bear this in mind when you
propose solutions to the use of the WB in lower level machine usage. You
will be doing the users no favour by cluttering the screen with icons or
text that may as well be shown in the CLI environment, unless that clutter
is actively called by the user, when the necessary skills have been
learned.
In addition, you might take a look at some of the things that have
developed because of work instigated by the CLI devotees that are of direct
benefit to the WB user. Have you ever heard a WB user tell you that the WB
is a lot more usable under FFS?
So… keep putting down improvements in other areas of the machine if you
wish. Put down the efforts of people who are developing applications in
languages like ARexx, that will, eventually, bring a whole new level of
user definable integration to the Amiga, that will benefit _everyone_, not
just programmers and hackers.
Has CBM not stated that they are pulling WB out of the ROM for 1.4 and
extensively reworking it? But don't let that stop you from bashing them
anyway. If they had listened to people like you, we would still have a
system that was unusable because of bugs no matter how you tried to use
it.
Yes, you explained why you used IconX, and no, I did not miss the point.
I do take exception to your bashing of an interim solution to the problems
of WB. Would you rather have had 1.3 delayed even more? I can guarantee
you that providing IconX took far less time than the complete rewrite of WB
would have.
Well, I can see that neither you nor I are going to be swayed in the least
by the others opinions.
Yes, I remember when CBM was struggling to make a profit, and so HAD to
concentrate on short term gains (we have been developing for the Amiga
since before it ever came out). However, those times are long past. CBM
has been showing some nice profits for quite some time, and yet still does
not spend any sizable amount in R&D, nor do they appear to have any long
term strategy. In other companies this leads to an ultimate demise of the
product, why will CBM be any different?
And I disagree strongly as to how much computer knowledge you need in order
to effectively use the CLI. I have spent many, many hours on the phone
with people who either just bought their Amiga, or have gotten to the point
where they NEED to use the CLI (even such simple things as installing
printer drivers requires CLI use). To most of these people the CLI is
anything but intuitive. Just because you happen to be able to make sense of
it does not mean that the same is true generally. In fact, just the
reverse is true. Furthermore, there are other systems (and not just the
Mac) that have shown that a fully object oriented approach to a user
interface can be done without compromising function.
All this talk is not idle rambling. I have worked with dozens of different
microcomputers and microcomputer systems, both as a programmer, a user, and
as someone helping others to use the system. Most of what I am trying to
convince you of is from experience. Unfortunately, you prefer to stick
with what you are familiar with, and shrug off all other ways of doing
things without even using these other systems. I don't see how I could
have expected to convince you. Obviously we are getting nowhere.