#NoteBook
39 messages in this thread
We have posted an announcement and an IFF screen capture of our new
product, "NoteBook" in DL6 of AmigaVendor.
NoteBook is a completely new class of program for the Amiga computer;
you've never seen anything like it.
Take a look at NB_IFF.LZH for the screen capture (about 18k) and at
NB_DES.TXT for the description (about 5k).
We've been using this internally at Black Belt for months now, and there is
_no way_ I'd want to go back to being without it. My desk is much clearer,
I'm more organized, and I have a lot more FUN while I work. No better
endorsement is possible, I think.
Ben Williams
Begins so sound like what the MS-Dog world calls a PIM (Personal
Information Manager).
Question is: will it be enough to make me swear off Nag + ?
Brian
Nag+…. I have never seen it. I doubt that it is anything like NoteBook.
Take a look at the IFF and text files and see if you think it's a "PIM".
:^)
Ben
We're getting our signals crossed:
A "PIM" is not a particular program. It's an (overly) broad category of
applications…
Almost anything can qualify as a "Personal Information Manager" if looked
at right.
Anyway, Notebook looks like a neat hack…. I dropped off the intro release
with my dealer. With a little luck, I'll be able to see a live demo of the
program before I decide whether or not to get it……
Brian
Watch your flank! The latest issue of Foreign Affairs has an ad by Pro/Tem
Software of Palo Alto selling an "information database manager" under the
trademark "Notebook II". Here's hoping they don't give you trouble.
Mike
We're flexible. If some lawyer comes slithering up to us demanding we
change then name, we will, that's all. It's not worth the court battle. In
fact, almost nothing is worth a court battle.
In the meantime, we're not in the same marketplace, we're not marketing the
same type of software, and we have no interest in them at all.
Ben
Will there be a demo posted? Reviews in AW? It's looking good so far…
-SLH
Reviews, certainly. Demo, possibly. We're considering it. You should be
hearing user's impressions very shortly.
Ben
I DL'ed your files. It looks pretty nice. Does this program work under
the 1.3 operating system? Too bad you chose to have the program run with
an interlaced screen only, otherwise I'd probably buy it. It looks pretty
neat.
JH
– via Whap!
It currently works under 1.3; but that will change very shortly.
Ben
I congratulate you on your decision to support the common Amiga user who
either can't afford 2.0 or doesn't have the desire to get 2.0 at this time.
I hope you make a million, and I hope it doesn't take you 40 or 50 years.
JH
– via Whap!
"I congratulate you on your decision to support the common Amiga user who
either can't afford 2.0 or doesn't have the desire to get 2.0 at this
time."
Well, here are the facts. 2.0 is the new future for the Amiga. We can't
keep our heads stuck in yesterday, and bog down new technologies and new
ways of doing things.
Why should a developer even THINK of writing software for the people that
fit into either of the above categories? If you, as you say, can't *afford*
2.0, then you are likely NOT going to *BUY* any new software anyways. If
you have no *desire* to get 2.0, why should people like myself suffer from
your lack of desire?
2.0 has a lot of new features in it from a programming standpoint, that
simply cannot be made compatible with 1.3. I've made a good sized
investment in Commodore's newer technologies (A3000, multisync, etc) and
I'd like to start reaping the benefits of that newer technology. I'm of the
opinion that developers should plunge headlong into 2.0 ONLY software
ability (where it's merited…it's pointless to strip software of 1.3
compatibility if there is no advantage gained in doing so).
If a product can be made much better by going with 2.0 compatibility
exclusively, then they should do so. It will force people who just sit on
the fence when coming to a decision of whether to purchase 2.0 or not, to
go ahead and do it. Once they get it, they will be very glad they were
forced to do so. Anyways, 'nuff said.
Jim
GO, GO, 2.0! GO, GO, 2.0! GO, GO, 2.0!
yeah team!
🙂
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Yeah, I guess that would be a good summary of what I said. :^)
Jim
I just want to CLEARLY state that either the message that was directed to
me was seriously tounge in cheek, or the fellow didn't understand what I
said.
NoteBook currently works under 1.3; that is a fortunate circumstance,
nothing more. We make no promises that it will continue to do so. 1.3 is
obsolete, 2.0 is the OS to support, and that is what we are doing.
Ben
Yep. I think that's the basic idea.
Jim
Ben, the message was tongue in cheek, seriously! :^) However, I
understood your message, that it will work under 1.3 (probably until the
first revision, right?)
JH
– via Whap!
I'd be hard put to say – but it's very likely that at some point we'll
say… gee, let's use that feature, and that will be the end of 1.3
forever.
Ben
Your points are all well taken. However, I never said that I was never
going to purchase software ever again, nor did I even say that I wasn't
going to get the 2.X operating system. I feel certain that I will get the
new software, but it may not be immediately since I have no real need for
it at this time though the recent thread about opening up a virtual screen
with PageStream intrigued me. You ask me why a developer should write
software for all Amigas. Well, let's take a for instance. I haven't DL'ed
Ben's Notebook demo yet though I did look at his text file and picture. I
really like the looks of it and will probably buy it even though I don't
have a flickerfixer. In some of his descriptions for the product Ben
mentions that of all things that a person uses on his desktop the notebook
is probably the most common. I agree with him. For that reason, I don't
believe that notebook should be written for 2.X only amiga users. I
believe that even the 12 year old kid who spends 6 hours a night in front
of the screen playing some game would have a use for a program such as
notebook. These are the people who won't be switching to 2.X immediately
and these people, as amiga users, have every right to expect software to
continue to work with their computers, at least for a couple of years. I
wouldn't expect compatability with 1.3 to be there after that period of
time, but to immediately stop programming with 1.3 compatability in mind is
tantamount to industrial blackmail. PERIOD. Besides Ben and Steve and I
and others already hashed this thread out 3 or 4 weeks ago. :^)
JH
– via Whap!
As a user of an Amiga 1000 running WB 2.04 (thanks, DKB), can I add
something? (WARNING: Soapbox Alert!)
TO ALL DEVELOPERS: PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! Please try to write your
programs so as to use as little chip memory as possible. There is still a
sizable number of Amiga 1000 and 500 users who will upgrade to WB 2 that
will still only have 512K of total chip memory. I realize that most Amigas
out there probably have 1 meg Agnuses, and 2 meg Agnuses are becoming the
standard, but if your programs support running under the old Agnus chip,
you will not only help us poor A1000 owners WHO STILL BUY SOFTWARE, but all
other Amiga owners will benefit by being able to multitask more programs
together.
Thank you. (tripping off of soapbox… 🙂
– via Whap!
That's a good point. Actually, you probably have already noticed that 2.0
unto itself, frees up more chip ram. Used to be that system libraries, etc
would get stuffed into chip ram. 2.0 puts anything that doesn't absolutely
NEED to be in chip ram, into fast ram. Which makes the best of sense.
Jim
I THOUGHT I got a bit more chip ram freed up when I upgraded to 2.04; I
just didn't pay too much attention to it because, under 1.3, the chip/total
ram wasn't split out. Thanks, C=…
OTOH, this abundance of chip ram will make more than one developer
think, "Gee, with all this chip ram available, I can do some really neat
stuff!", then go program a directory utility that needs a 2 meg Agnus to
work. If the application really needs it, then do it, and make sure
potential users know it won't work on previous generation machines. Bu
most software should be able to confortably run under a 512K Agnus-based
system.
For that reason, I see no reason why I should "trade up" my Amiga 1000
for and Amiga 500 or 2000. This unit has served me well for more than 5
years, and unless Commodore really comes out with something that truly
obsoletes this machine, I'll probably have it for another 5…
– via Whap!
Tony,
I also had a 1000 for five years and saw no reason to change as long as I
had an upgrade path. I wanted to have 2Megs of Chip ram and use 2.0 OS.
Well if you look closely at the cost of these things on a 1000 you might
feel that it's cheaper to get a 2000. At lest a used unit, at a good price.
Thats what i did. My two daughters now have my two 1000's and the other the
500. PS I don't consider the 500 as a trade up from a 1000.
-Tom
Tom:
I saw things exactly the same way you did… I really loved my A1000… it
was really quite a remarkable computer for its time, and I used it to run
my business from 1985 up until this past July. Then, faced with WB 2.0,
power-up, ECS, etc. I decided it was time to relegate it to the task of
indoctrinating younger amigaoids. The cost of adding a Rejuvinator
($400+) + 2.0 ($100) + deinterlacer ($200-$300) + external slots
($200-$400) + accelerator w/32 bit ram ($1000) just didn't make sense…
when compared to the Amiga 3000/25 at $2349… or an A3000/16 at $1849.
I believe that Denny Atkin went through this same process.
And I still miss my keyboard garage!
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Actually, Micheal, first I bought a Rejuvenator (back when even used 2000's
were still over $1000). Then I decided I needed more slots and broke down
and got a 2000.
Michael,
I miss the desk space. I have a computer table from Target with a hutch. It
worked great with the 1000. I had to give up the center board and selves
when I added the second MicroBotics expantion, but that was not as bad as
putting the 2000 on the table. I can't put the master power control and
monitor over the cpu as I had it before. Unless I take the hutch off, and
thats were my modem, telephone and external hard drive reside. So, the
monitor sits behind the keyboard, at too low a level, and the cpu sits to
the right side with the mouse pad on top of it.
You know I just talked myself into getting a screw driver and removing the
hutch. Boy, I need that space. Well the modem and phone goes to the printer
stand and the HD goes on the table. That might work.
-Tom
Tony,
I hear you. I still have 2 completely operational 1000s (and one that I
think only needs a new 8520 or two).
Me too, in fact, I just swapped out the internal (floppy) drive in my 1000
so I could play a game on it (one that wouldn't run under 2.0), it now
resides in my living room, hooked up to my TV :).
Jim,
While I agree with you on a few points, there is the consideration of those
of us who must have 1.3 to use current software that does not support 2.0.
As I got an Amiga 3000, I can run both (actually I must use 1.3, but I LOVE
2.0)
Although most 2.0 stuff is A-3000 compatable, 1.3 stuff is not. I am
forced to run 1.3 on my A2000 at work as a lot of the software I use is
neither 2.0 or A3000 compatable. This lets me see how some people still
have needs for 1.3.
JohnB 76256,3436 – via Whap!
Care to name some of that 2.0 incompatable software? Curious.
…Dave
SURE!
GFA-BASIC! I actually bought the second copy because I was told it was 2.0
compatable (ver 3.51e). But it died on my A3000 so I called and was told
it had been found compatable before 2.04 so they were checking into it.
I came to find out that it is 2.0 compatable, when run on a 500 or 2000 but
just won't work using any utility on the A3000.
JohnB 76256,3436 – via Whap!
Thanks John, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who still sees a
need for 1.3.
– via Whap!
Ditto…what doesn't run under 2.04 ??
Vic:
see my prevoius message as to 2.0 but not A3000 compatable.
I know you real programmers figure: "If your using Basic, thats your
problem." There is no _REAL AMIGA_ application you can write in basic for
the Amiga unless you really kick off your shoes!
So, yes, I am strugling to learn C. The hardest part is learning C, the
Compiler (which thinks you already know C), and the RKM stuff all at the
same time!
JohnB 76256,3436 – via Whap!
mmm … I have several "real Amiga applications" written in Basic!
I write in C, Basic and assembler …. and feel that C is a good language,
but is one which I feel is more geared to fulfilling programmers'
ideologies. My preference is to write in Basic (I use HiSoft Basic) and to
generate linkable code into which I link my own C or assembler routines to
handle the stuff that needs the speed of assembler or C.
Mike (Whapping from the UK)
John,
I'm not likely to kick BASIC around much, but the Amiga version WAS
written my MicroSloth ('nuff said).
Vic–
AniMagic does not run correctly under 2.04. It is unstable, and crashes to
the point of being unpredictable. And this is on a 2.04 equipped 2000…
Jonathan
Jonathan,
I just got off the phone with the author, and he's unaware of any more
difficulties with 2.0 than under 1.3. He's personally used it (tho prolly
NOT with a 2000 and 2.04; he has a 3000). He said if you're having
problems he'd like to hear from you. I reached him by calling Oxxi (213)
427-1227 and asking for Gary.
Opps, that's two.
…Dave