alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/04/90)
In article <9191@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >... The Amiga's Intuition interface has a feature that's more >like what I'd think of as virtual monitors -- it can support any number of >separate monitor displays on a single monitor, via kind of a superwindow >called a Screen. Any number of windows live on each screen; screens don't >overlap each other, windows do. This is really useful for avoiding excessive >numbers of windows on the single screen most WIMP interfaces provide (even if >that single screen can spread across multiple physical monitors). Does the >Mac OS allow anything like this under Multifinder? It probably should. Actually, the main 'reason' for amiga screens is the fact that if you want to control the color registers or screen resolution you have to have your own area of the monitor which is vertically tiled (ie: doesn't overlap horizontally with anyone with a different color register set or screen resolution mode). This seems much more applicable to PC systems with their CGA/EGA/VGA/8514A graphics cards than the mac which concentrates on the pixel plane depth. I will grant you that separate screens can give you a certain organization and functional grouping of your windows, but amiga screens are a cludgy way to implement it. If I wanted to do something similar for the mac, I would make a type of desktop-window that contained a desktop. Clicking on the desktop-window would activate that desktop. The desktop-window would be a scrollable, sizeable window on the desktop (and thus eliminate screen-size restrictions on the desktop). You could then have as many desktops as you want, and size/place/overlap them to your heart's content. -- --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/05/90)
in article <3329@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.ibm.pc:45649 comp.sys.mac:48839 > In article <9191@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>... The Amiga's Intuition interface has a feature that's more >>like what I'd think of as virtual monitors -- it can support any number of >>separate monitor displays on a single monitor, via kind of a superwindow >>called a Screen. > I will grant you that separate screens can give you a certain organization > and functional grouping of your windows, but amiga screens are a cludgy way > to implement it. If you think screens are a kludge, you don't understand them. They're actually quite an excellent facility. Sure, the Mac hasn't had much need for them, yet, other than possibly for grouping of things. That's probably why you don't see their other uses. > If I wanted to do something similar for the mac, I would make a type of > desktop-window that contained a desktop. Clicking on the desktop-window would > activate that desktop. Additional "desktops" in windows aside, you're missing the point. Screens give you instantaneous movement between the different "desktops", or whatever else you put on them. Exactly as fast as turning your head between one of several monitors, only considerably less expensive. I use a Mac in the lab, I know how slow the thing is at reordering windows. It would very likely be worse at reordering windows within windows. Screens take practically no work to manage (in fact on the Amiga, the only time any CPU time is involved is when you're moving them; once in place, the video system manages any screen setup for free), any window shuffling on any window system takes effort, and generally gets worse as the number of windows increases. The Mac IIci is the first Apple that could really take advantage of this concept, at least to it's fullest extent, because its on-board video logic works much like a simplified Amiga video system. It can display different resolutions, and the higher resolutions can have an impact on system performance. You don't need 8 bit pixels in a VT100 emulator, so why not place that emulator on a screen display that uses 1 bit pixels. Not only will there be less hardware load when you're using that screen, but less software load actually displaying that output. Sure, you can always call up your configuration DA and cut down to 1 bit pixels when you fire up the terminal program. But what would you do when you're running several things? If one application needs all 8 bitplanes, all of them are going to suffer the overhead involved in driving that display (especially because the Mac isn't really using bitplanes, but packed pixels). > --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls > Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata > --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (01/05/90)
>>Amigas way of organizing screens/windows is kludgey, I would create >>a desktop window that... Having developed several commercial applications on both the Amiga and Mac II computers, I must say that the amigas way of doing things is MUCH more flexible and, in my opinion, preferable to setting up a desktop window as the last poster eluded too. You CAN do this on the Amiga no problem, what you cannot do on the Mac II is create custom screens with your preferred resolution (up to about 710X490). For the programmer, the amigas way of doing this is MUCH more flexible. For one it allows you to save a lot of memory on systems with less memory equipped, since you can choose a lower resolution screen in this case. Admittedly for the mac II audience, this is not much of a problem since everyone is assumed to have a lot of memory, but at least the Amiga gives the developer a choice. UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.com
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (01/05/90)
In article <1086@crash.cts.com> uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes: > your preferred resolution (up to about 710X490). For the programmer, the > amigas way of doing this is MUCH more flexible. For one it allows you to save >a lot of memory on systems with less memory equipped, since you can choose a >lower resolution screen in this case. Admittedly for the mac II audience, It turns out that the Macintosh architecture doesn't really waste any RAM (except on the Mac IIci). That's because the video RAM is on the graphics card, and isn't used for program storage. The Mac IIci is the first machine which can use program RAM for video, and if a user is using the builtin video then s/he can save RAM by using a smaller screen depth. Also, your statement implies that the program chooses the display mode for its windows, while the Macintosh puts that capability under the user's control. (Where it belongs IMHO.) For the most part applications don't have to worry about what screen depth the user has, because Color QuickDraw automatically handles it. To me, that seems easier for the programmer. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (01/06/90)
>> Larry Rosenstein writes: >> Also your statement implies the program chooses the display mode for >> its windows... Well in a way tha is true, but programs allow the user to pick the resoltion and screen depth when applicable. But basically you are correct, in some ways it is better to have the OS arbitrate the screen for you and all programs work in the resolution that the OS has chosen. The disadvantage is some loss in performance (seen any 60 Frame per second, INTERACTIVE, arcade animation on a mac ii?) and some lack of control by thr programmer. For many applications, having the OS choose the resolution is a good idea. for others it is not. -Roger / UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.com
mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) (01/09/90)
In article <1093@crash.cts.com> uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes: >>> Larry Rosenstein writes: >>> Also your statement implies the program chooses the display mode for >>> its windows... >Well in a way tha is true, but programs allow the user to pick the resoltion >and screen depth when applicable. >But basically you are correct, in some ways it is better to have the OS >arbitrate the screen for you and all programs work in the resolution >that the OS has chosen. Once again, on the Amiga, you have the CHOICE of letting your application run from its own custom screen, or the Workbench. And remember that the screens co-exist. That is, the custom screen appears in front of, or behind, or overlaps the other screens and the workbench. This is a hard concept to grasp for Mac- and IBM- only people to fully grasp until you have seen it! (There is no equivalent mode for the Mac & IBM Machines, unfortunatly.) >-Roger -Mitchell
6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) (01/10/90)
> Once again, on the Amiga, you have the CHOICE of letting your application > run from its own custom screen, or the Workbench. And remember that the > screens co-exist. That is, the custom screen appears in front of, or behind, > or overlaps the other screens and the workbench. This is a hard concept to > grasp for Mac- and IBM- only people to fully grasp until you have seen it! > (There is no equivalent mode for the Mac & IBM Machines, unfortunatly.) Is this anything like the confusing OS/2 "screen groups"? Why would you want this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) (01/19/90)
In article <3511@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) writes: >> Once again, on the Amiga, you have the CHOICE of letting your application >> run from its own custom screen, or the Workbench. And remember that the >> screens co-exist. That is, the custom screen appears in front of, or behind, >> or overlaps the other screens and the workbench. This is a hard concept to >> grasp for Mac- and IBM- only people to fully grasp until you have seen it! >> (There is no equivalent mode for the Mac & IBM Machines, unfortunatly.) > >Is this anything like the confusing OS/2 "screen groups"? > >Why would you want this? I don't know anything about OS/2. But I'm sure OS/2 has nothing in common with this, because Amiga's Screens are partly hardware-controlled. You would want them for the following reasons: 1) To keep your Workbench from becomming cluttered- If every application opened up its 'work area' on Workbench (Desktop to you Mac types), you would wind up with alot of unnecessary clutter (remember, this is a multitasking machine, and you could potentially have lots of programs running! 2) To allow the application to take on its own color palette and resolution modes and number of bit-planes, so as to not interfere with other programs. 3) To allow direct writes to the bitmap for extra speed- somthing you CANNOT do in a single-screen environment without taking over the machine. Since I've been working in the Amiga environment, this seems totally natural and I have come to expect this of other computers as well. I always feel cramped when I do anything on a PC, and odd on the Mac. Ah yes, I know- I've been spoiled. Can you blame me? :-) Like I said, drop in your local Amiga dealer and check it out. Seeing is believing! >Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Mitchell mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP "More power than a steaming locomotive!"
datta@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Slarti) (01/21/90)
In article <9383@cbmvax.commodore.com> mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) writes: >1) To keep your Workbench from becomming cluttered- If every application > opened up its 'work area' on Workbench (Desktop to you Mac types), > you would wind up with alot of unnecessary clutter (remember, this is a > multitasking machine, and you could potentially have lots of programs > running! > There are two versions of MultiFinder. The developers version adds the "put away" option that hides all windows belonging to an application and puts it in the background, yielding a similar effect. Hopefully, newer versions of the standard MultiFinder (or Sys 7) will have this feature. >2) To allow the application to take on its own color palette and resolution > modes and number of bit-planes, so as to not interfere with other programs. > The palette manager and color manager take care of this in a far better fashion. Each window can have it's own palette. The palette of the foreground window is active, and the OS automaticially renders the background windows as well as possible with the current palette. Macs only work in HIGH resolution mode. >3) To allow direct writes to the bitmap for extra speed- somthing you CANNOT > do in a single-screen environment without taking over the machine. > Macs are already fast, this isn't necessary :-). Actually, there are safe ways to write directly to the screen, since you can easily get the location in memory of a window's bitmap. It seems many people don't know how to do this, however. All an application has to do to more or less emulate the Amiga's screen environment is open up a full screen sized window and hide it when sent into the background.
mitchell@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) (01/23/90)
In article <2377@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> datta@cs-sun-fsb.UUCP (Slarti) writes: >In article <9383@cbmvax.commodore.com> mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) writes: >>1) To keep your Workbench from becomming cluttered- If every application >> opened up its 'work area' on Workbench (Desktop to you Mac types), >> you would wind up with alot of unnecessary clutter (remember, this is a >> multitasking machine, and you could potentially have lots of programs >> running! >> >There are two versions of MultiFinder. The developers version adds the >"put away" option that hides all windows belonging to an application and puts >it in the background, yielding a similar effect. Hopefully, newer versions >of the standard MultiFinder (or Sys 7) will have this feature. > >>2) To allow the application to take on its own color palette and resolution >> modes and number of bit-planes, so as to not interfere with other programs. >> >The palette manager and color manager take care of this in a far better >fashion. Each window can have it's own palette. The palette of the >foreground window is active, and the OS automaticially renders the background >windows as well as possible with the current palette. Macs only work in >HIGH resolution mode. I fail to see how this is 'far better'. On the Amiga, I can drag a screen down mid-way to see the one behind it, so that both are visible simultaneously, AND USING THEIR OWN COLOR PALETTE SIMULTANEOUSLY!!! Also, since moving a screen to front is extremely fast, I can do double- buffering of screens, by rendering to the hidden screen, poping it to front during the vertical retrace (WaitTOF()), render on the now out-of-sight screen, pop that to front, etc. to acheive full-screen smooth animation. Now I KNOW you can't do that with windows! TOO SLOW! :-) >All an application has to do to more or less emulate the Amiga's screen >environment is open up a full screen sized window and hide it when sent into >the background. It's not the same, not by a long shot. And you forget- I can have multiple windows within one screen! Can you have windows within windows on the Mac? Oh yes, I forgot- The Amiga can even emulate a Mac if I ever want it to! (As well as IBM) I like having the best of 3 worlds. 3 in 1, that is! Mitchell mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP Having you cake and...