werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (08/24/86)
THEME: 68000 MACHINES (p.163) 68000 Trips and Traps (by Mike Morton) Programming in assembly language will help you exploit the 68000 to the fullest. (p.179) UNIX and the MC68000 (by Andrew L. Rood, Robert C. Cline, Jon Brewster) The powerful yet simple programmer's model offered by the 68000's architecture makes UNIX implementation easy. (p.205) A Comparison of MC68000 Family Processors (by Thomas Johnson) High levels of hardware and software compatibility distinguish the five members of this family. (p.223) Atari ST Software Development (by Michael Rothman) A programmer surveys TOS operating system and how the 68000 influences it. (p.241) Amiga Animation (by Elaine A. Ditton and Richard A. Ditton) An exploration of the exciting possibilities of animation on the Amiga. (p.249) Amiga vs. Macintosh (by Adam Brook Webber) A comparison of the system calls on two 68000-based machines reveal one as the clear winner. [the Amiga, if you don't want to wait]
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (08/27/86)
I am very annoyed by this issue of BYTE. First of all, remember the issue they had earlier this year that was ALL Intel/PC stuff? They said that a later issue would cover 68k stuff. I expected to see an entire issue of 68k stuff. Instead we get a regular issue whose theme is 68k. Arrggghh!! Unless we get a full 68k issue to restore the balance of the universe, it will wobble off its axis and destroy us all!!!! :-) Next, many of the articles are badly done. For example, the Mac vs Amiga article is full of errors ( e.g., nearly everything it says about DAs, and much of what it says about memory allocation ). -- "I *DO* believe in Mary Worth" Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi || GEnie: mnementh
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (08/30/86)
In article <3374@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >I am very annoyed by this issue of BYTE. First of all, remember >the issue they had earlier this year that was ALL Intel/PC >stuff? They said that a later issue would cover 68k stuff. I >expected to see an entire issue of 68k stuff. Instead we get a >regular issue whose theme is 68k. Arrggghh!! Unless we get a >full 68k issue to restore the balance of the universe, it will >wobble off its axis and destroy us all!!!! :-) > Actually, I prefer to see increased 68K coverage on a monthly basis, which I feel *has* been happening, rather than a Byte Special Issue and the same old "mainly IBM-PC, CP/M and Apple II" we saw in the past. Also, I've been *very* glad to see the variety of 68K coverage we've seen so far. Note that the DSI coverage and VME-10 coverage have been in recent issues. I am also glad that the Atari ST and Amiga have been very strongly backed by Byte right from the beginnings of both machines. The support which I've received by BIX in the 'os.9' conference has been very gratifying *even though* OS-9'ers have *not* by and large shown up. The only regret I have is that from what I've heard (and I have not seen the Sept. Byte yet), OS-9 was not covered in this issue. On the otherhand, a lot of the OS-9 stuff just didn't happen over the summer as I expected it would, so I can't really blame Byte for not publishing much on it. >Next, many of the articles are badly done. For example, the Mac vs >Amiga article is full of errors ( e.g., nearly everything it says about >DAs, and much of what it says about memory allocation ). > I can't comment on this because I don't have the September issue yet. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
wert@titan.UUCP (09/04/86)
Also, somewhere in this issue is a box detailing all the things that one must do to resize a window (on a Macintosh and on an Amiga). This is presented as a comparison, supposedly demonstrating that the Amiga is better than the Macintosh because you have to do less to resize a window. The operation was expressed as one step for the Amiga, seven (more or less, I don't have it in front of me) for the Macintosh. This is misleading, because in any application that I have ever written, that code appeared once and only once. Ignored is the possibility that the Macintosh method allows greater flexibility, etc. A casual, uninformed reader would conclude that the Amiga was better, and that was the intent of the demonstration. This is yellow journalism to the max, and certainly worthy of The National Inquirer. All in the guise of objectivity. I quit buying BYTE years ago... scott
cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (09/08/86)
In Article <213@dione.rice.EDU>, wert@titan.UUCP (Scott Comer) writes : > Also, somewhere in this issue is a box detailing all the things that one > must do to resize a window (on a Macintosh and on an Amiga). This is > presented as a comparison, supposedly demonstrating that the Amiga is > better than the Macintosh because you have to do less to resize a window. > The operation was expressed as one step for the Amiga, seven (more or > less, I don't have it in front of me) for the Macintosh. > > This is misleading, because in any application that I have ever written, > that code appeared once and only once. Ignored is the possibility that the > Macintosh method allows greater flexibility, etc. A casual, uninformed > reader would conclude that the Amiga was better, and that was the intent > of the demonstration. > > This is yellow journalism to the max, and certainly worthy of The National > Inquirer. All in the guise of objectivity. > > I quit buying BYTE years ago... > scott Why is this misleading? To give my windows on the Amiga the ability to change size dynamically I include the WINDOWSIZING flag and a max.x and max.y size. Everything else is essentially transparent. (I get a message if Intuition thinks I need to refresh my window and when it arrives I just call the routine that redisplays the current state of the window) As for the fact that the MAC way might be more flexible I doubt it. Since with a similar amount of effort I can size my windows in any way I want. I don't know if the point was that the Amiga was "better" because of all this stuff, but it is easier to program window applications and multiple window applications for. I suggest if you gave two equally competent programmerss the task of vreating an application from scratch on both machines and they had both not had any previous experience with the machine they were working with the Amiga programmer would be finished first. Of course with dedicated hackers programming in their "home" environment it would probably be a tie. -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
kearns@garfield.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) (09/09/86)
I have programmed many different window systems and I found the byte article very accurate. The only reason the Macintosh is programmable at all is thanks to "skeleton" programs laboriously created by some people. In the near future the problem will be nicely solved by MacApp; the use of object oriented programming enables new code to go outside of the skeleton program. -steve
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/09/86)
> Xref: cbmvax net.micro.68k:253 net.micro.mac:2584 net.micro.amiga:2500 > > Also, somewhere in this issue is a box detailing all the things that one > must do to resize a window (on a Macintosh and on an Amiga). This is > presented as a comparison, supposedly demonstrating that the Amiga is > better than the Macintosh because you have to do less to resize a window. > The operation was expressed as one step for the Amiga, seven (more or > less, I don't have it in front of me) for the Macintosh. > > This is misleading, because in any application that I have ever written, > that code appeared once and only once. Ignored is the possibility that the > Macintosh method allows greater flexibility, etc. A casual, uninformed > reader would conclude that the Amiga was better, and that was the intent > of the demonstration. > > This is yellow journalism to the max, and certainly worthy of The National > Inquirer. All in the guise of objectivity. > > I quit buying BYTE years ago... > scott -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
DMB@PSUVMA.BITNET (09/12/86)
Macintosh Problems,
What's all this whining about the difficulty of MacPrograms. I find
Lines: 9
Xref: cbatt net.micro.68k:114 net.micro.mac:910 net.micro.amiga:886
the standard interface easy to program, straightforward, and intelligent.
The power of it all is being able to redesign stuff (WDEF's, etc) and
that is the stuff that gives me fits, but then again you deserve some
trouble if you want the power of flexibility.
dave
-
- This morning I was...., oh no, that wasn't me.
munson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Ethan Munson) (09/12/86)
I only scanned the coverage, but I did give a quick scan to the Amiga vs. Mac article. It endorsed the Amiga. The author apparently wrote True Basic for the Mac and from what I could tell disliked the Mac because its interface with the _programmer_ was more awkward or time consuming or something. This article is only one man's opinion but I think it may reflect something real. The Amiga has a lot of nifty hardware features that the Mac does not (I'm not sure I care about them myself, but some people do) and I know that the Mac is not particularly easy to program. I think the Mac's strength lies at the user's level rather than the developer's level. Does anyone, particularly someone with experience with both, have any comments on my rambblings? Ethan Munson ARPANET: munson@ernie.berkeley.edu
c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (Christian Wiedmann) (09/12/86)
The whole point of the Mac is its User Interface. The strategy is to make all the hardships of using a computer disappear. Naturally, this also forces the programmer to do a lot more. This means that the most accepted way of writing programs will be to use a skeleton such as MacApp. Hopefully there will be enough programmers willing to put up with this hassle, because the market sure needs a computer that's easy to use. Christian Wiedmann (Insert cute signature here)
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (09/14/86)
In article <158@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>, c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (Christian Wiedmann) writes: > The whole point of the Mac is its User Interface. The strategy is to make > all the hardships of using a computer disappear. Naturally, this also forces > the programmer to do a lot more. This means that the most accepted way of > writing programs will be to use a skeleton such as MacApp. Hopefully there > will be enough programmers willing to put up with this hassle, because the > market sure needs a computer that's easy to use. > > Christian Wiedmann > > (Insert cute signature here) But wouldn't good software be easier to write if the programmer didn't have to do so much work? One reason the old Altari 800 became so popular was because the hardware chips made software development so much easier. -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken *** WARNING: NOT ken@bellcore.uucp *** !psuvax1!cmcl2!ciap!andromeda!argus!ken bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet --- Please resend any mail between 10 Aug and 16 Aug: --- the mailer broke and we had billions and billions of --- bits scattered on the floor.
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (09/14/86)
> > > I don't know if the point was that the Amiga was "better" because of > all this stuff, but it is easier to program window applications and > multiple window applications for. > > I suggest if you gave two equally competent programmerss the task of > vreating an application from scratch on both machines and they had > both not had any previous experience with the machine they were > working with the Amiga programmer would be finished first. Of course > with dedicated hackers programming in their "home" environment it > would probably be a tie. > -- > --Chuck McManis Hmm...amusing thought. But, then, does anybody really create a Macintosh Application from scratch anymore? With things like Skel and such around, when would I ever be writing the code to do that. I did it, just to learn it. After that, I never wrote one again. The only difference is that Apple seems to have put this stuff up out of the ROM and made you write the code. Commodore didn't. Curiousity: Doesn't MPW have code to allow you to do just what was written in the Byte article (ie, "A window was resized. Great.") -- "I'm a shot in the dark without you Peter Merchant A rebel without a clue."
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/15/86)
> Summary: User Interface Rules! > Xref: cbmvax net.micro.68k:272 net.micro.mac:2631 net.micro.amiga:2556 > > The whole point of the Mac is its User Interface. The strategy is to make > all the hardships of using a computer disappear. Naturally, this also forces > the programmer to do a lot more. This means that the most accepted way of > writing programs will be to use a skeleton such as MacApp. Hopefully there > will be enough programmers willing to put up with this hassle, because the > market sure needs a computer that's easy to use. > > Christian Wiedmann > > (Insert cute signature here) The whole point of the article was that the Amiga and MAC user interfaces were performing exactly the same functions, but that the MAC forces the programmer to explicitly call functions to do what the Intuition task on th Amiga does for him automatically. The ease of use here is identical. -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) (09/17/86)
In article <158@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>, c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (Christian Wiedmann) writes: > The whole point of the Mac is its User Interface. The strategy is to make > all the hardships of using a computer disappear. Naturally, this also forces > the programmer to do a lot more. Yes, but that is NOT the point here. The User Interfaces are basically the same here - window oriented, mouse driven, etc. How does it make the user interface better to force the programmer to work harder? The example cited in the article shows a series of about 8 or 9 steps required on the Mac to resize a window. On the Amiga, it was one step - the system did all the resizing, and just informed you about it. The Amiga method is much better than the Mac method on two counts - 1. it is less work for the programmer, and 2. it encourages a more consistent user interface, since most people will use the system-supplied way rather than go to all the trouble of doing it like the Mac. I agree that it is better to force the programmer to do all that than to be lazy and use a DOS-type interface, but I think that if it can be done the easy way rather than forcing programmers to do that much, so much the better.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (09/18/86)
In an article daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: > >The whole point of the article was that the Amiga and MAC user interfaces >were performing exactly the same functions But they were performing those functions in isolation ( I assume we are still talking about changing window size. If not, forget the rest of this posting ). A Mac program is event driven. It consists of a loop that asks the system for events, and then processes them. If all your program is doing is sticking up a window ( i.e., no menus, no dialogs, etc ), then there is extra work because you have to write the event loop. If your program is doing real stuff, then dealing with windows is just one more case statement in the event loop and is no big deal. Besides, most programmers don't have to write this extra stuff more than once or twice. For example, whenever I start to write something on the Mac, I start with my most similar previous program, and change it. -- scum scum scum scum scum scum scum scum SCUM! Wonderful scum scum scum scum Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi or GEnie: mnementh
hadeishi@h-sc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) (09/22/86)
The important point made by the author of the Amiga-Mac article in the September 86 BYTE issue was that it was a lot easier for the programmer to implement a friendly user interface on the Amiga than on the Mac. The example given, that of resizing a window with a scroll bar, is indicative of the different level of support the operating system gives the programmer. In the case of the Mac, it is a very complex and lengthy process to resize such a window, whereas on the Amiga the operation is simple, from the programmer's point of view. From the user's point of view the two machine appear identical; however if it is easier for the programmer then A) the programmer is free to concentrate on details of the program's operation, thereby enhancing the product the user is using, and B) programs can be written much more quickly and with less debugging. These two points can potentially make a great deal of difference for the\ average user. It is also true that lazy programmers can write programs with crummy user interfaces; but this can also be done on the Mac (although it typically is not done.) -Mitsu (hadeishi@h-sc4.UUCP)