JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (11/21/90)
Ok, before you flame me or fall on the floor laughing at the Subject
above, read the story below. I'm only posting this because I was
very shocked at first and then eventually convinced myself:
It all started when I noticed the cover story on a friend's MacWeek.
It said "MicroSoft ports Windows to Mac." As I laughed out loud at
the very notion, the friend and another Mac developer both quieted
my humor. Apparently they both liked the idea.
I was astounded. These were two established Mac devotees who
were openly embracing the notion of porting a windowing system to
a computer that already had windowing built in at the chip level.
Further discussion revealed the reason: They're developers. The
Mac is inherently difficult compared to Windows to program from a
GUI standpoint. The small company we all work for will spend over
one million dollars in the next few months porting our software from
PC to Mac. "Much of that expense," they said, "could be alleviated
if we didn't have to rewrite all the graphic procedures. We could
devote our time to converting the fundamental routines."
This made sense once they explained how much time they spent with
such trivial tasks as updating pointer positions, opening simple
windows, and more. But then the lightning struck:
"We'd be very surprised if MicroSoft didn't port Windows to every
major platform in the near future. That way, software for Mac,
PC, and UNIX could easily be ported from one system to another."
Being the Amiga affectionado I am, I felt a bit slighted that it
was not mentioned as one of their "major" platforms. "So what
about the Amiga?" I asked. "Well, it may come to a point where
it's Windows or die. Either MicroSoft (or Commodore if MicroSoft
isn't interested) will need to port Windows to the Amiga if it
is to survive."
I felt very funny about this notion at first, but then the idea
of more portable software really began to sink in. I had one last
objection though: "You know, mediocrity thrives on standardization.
What about each computer's special abilities? Will they be suppressed
in favor of standard methods?"
Well, apparently they both had confidence (although one more than
the other) that Microsoft would leave the hooks available for custom
abilities. There would be a vast library of calls, not all of which
would be implemented in each version of Windows. For example, an Amiga
version of Windows could have PointerColor and PointerSize calls
to implement the fact that the Amiga's pointer is a sprite with more
abilties than the graphic pointer on Mac and MS-DOS. If such calls
were made on another version of Windows, they would simply be ignored
instead of causing problems. The trick is to get developers to use
the special abilties of the platforms with them instead of just writing
generic code for all platforms. (yes, I know this would be a "sticky
wicket" as they say...)
All in all, the concept of making code much more easily portable is
enticing enough that I don't think we should throw this idea out without
at least considering it. There are two major issues to be addressed
also:
1) Trusting Microsoft or whoever does the port to do it right; include
the hooks and calls to enable each machine to strut its stuff.
2) Making sure the port gets done in the first place, assuming Windows
does indeed take off, and sell on the Mac and gets ported to UNIX.
The Amiga being left behind in such a market is a scary thought.
Please keep the flames on this one to a minimum;
I don't like Bill Gates that much either!! ;-)
Kurt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || Amigas, Macs, IBM's, C-64's, NeXTs, ||
|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || Apple ]['s.... I use 'em all. ||
|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || (and in that order too! ;-) ||
|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------||
|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) (11/21/90)
In article <90324.194527JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: > >"We'd be very surprised if MicroSoft didn't port Windows to every >major platform in the near future. That way, software for Mac, >PC, and UNIX could easily be ported from one system to another." > > ..."So what >about the Amiga?" I asked. "Well, it may come to a point where >it's Windows or die. Either MicroSoft (or Commodore if MicroSoft >isn't interested) will need to port Windows to the Amiga if it >is to survive." Boy! That's about as apocalyptic a thing as I want to deal with. Puts Patrick Henry's feeling's in perspective. :) :) >All in all, the concept of making code much more easily portable is >enticing enough that I don't think we should throw this idea out without >at least considering it. There are two major issues to be addressed >also: Only two ??!! :) > Please keep the flames on this one to a minimum; > I don't like Bill Gates that much either!! ;-) > Kurt No flames, just a somewhat awed grin :) bj ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brian Jackson Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc. GEnie: B.J. | | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com or ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj | | "Homer, I couldn't help overhear you warping Bart's mind." | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (11/22/90)
>In article <90324.194527JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >>"We'd be very surprised if MicroSoft didn't port Windows to every >>major platform in the near future. That way, software for Mac, >>PC, and UNIX could easily be ported from one system to another." Somehow, I doubt this will ever happen. Not just because there isn't enough of an Amiga market for Microsoft to tackle, but because of other considerations. I'm involved in a research project looking into software portability across different presentation interfaces... it's a complex topic with no easy solutions. One major problem with porting Windows to the Mac or the Amiga is that the computer wouldn't then look like a Mac or an Amiga. Maybe Microsoft wants this to happen, but I can bet that both Macintosh and Amiga users would be in an uproar (more of the former, since Apple has been very aggressive in keeping a standard "look-and-feel" on the Mac). Portability tools need to preserver native look-and-feel to be successful in today's market. Other problems: Windows is more than just a presentation interface, it's also pretty much an operating system in itself. To guarantee portability, all this extra stuff would need to ported as well. On the Mac and the Amiga the OS is mostly in ROM, and both OS's are quite different from what Windows supports. Nope, I just don't see it happening... -- Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (11/22/90)
Clarification: Windows need not LOOK like MS-DOS windows. You could
have the same calls as MS-DOS windows, but the machine-specific routines
would open Mac-looking windows on Mac and WorkBench-looking windows on
Amiga. Therefore, Windows need not sacrifice the "Look and Feel" of
any platform it is ported to.
A friend (credit to IMS103@PSUVM) suggested that the Amiga version
be in the form of a "windows.lib", similar to the arp.lib. Would
this not work?
Kurt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || Amigas, Macs, IBM's, C-64's, NeXTs, ||
|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || Apple ]['s.... I use 'em all. ||
|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || (and in that order too! ;-) ||
|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------||
|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (11/22/90)
In article <90325.214939JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >Clarification: Windows need not LOOK like MS-DOS windows. You could >have the same calls as MS-DOS windows, but the machine-specific routines >would open Mac-looking windows on Mac and WorkBench-looking windows on >Amiga. Therefore, Windows need not sacrifice the "Look and Feel" of >any platform it is ported to. Ah, but then why call it "Windows"? That would only confuse people, who would expect it to look the same. What you're talking about is writing the Windows API (application program interface) for the Amiga. Unfortunately, it's still not as simple as writing an "windows.lib". If you want to be truly Windows-compatible (i.e., take your Windows source code and compile it on the Amiga) you'll have to do more than just map the Windows GUI calls. Windows includes a lot of operating-system functionality, plus DOS stuff, plus dynamic link libraries, plus... anyhow, you get the idea. It's NOT a small system, and hence not a trivial task. If all you end up are Windows programs that look like Amiga programs but are in fact ten times the size and ten times as slow, what have you gained? Portability is good, but so is efficiency. What price do you pay for portability? In terms of flexibility, I think the Amiga is one of the better systems on the market today. It has a fast, efficient OS and a fairly reasonable GUI, especially now with gadtools and appshell for development. Its multitasking works. We've got ARexx as a standard for IPC and as a general purpose macro language. And you don't need 4 megs and 20 megs of hard drive space to take advantage of these features! Not that the Amiga isn't without its problems. But it is a nice system from a hacking point of view. User-wise things need work -- kind of the opposite to Windows, I think. -- Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening
dolson@hppad.HP.COM (David Dolson) (11/23/90)
You want a standard window system? Consider XWindows... A really powerfull standard. You can get generic C source code for the X server from MIT fairly cheap. You fill in the low-level graphics an OS routines yourself. But... It's huge. It probably takes most of a MEG to run if you include all of the features. It might run fairly slow depending on how well you can wedge in the Amiga hardware. What's the advantage? Almost all new graphics software written for Un*x uses X ( as well as being written in C). Source code compatibility is something to be valued. If you want then, you can run SoftPC (simulate a PC) under X, on which you can then run Microsoft windows. :-} A note on standards: Even if your standard doesn't allow for all the bells and whistles the Amiga has to offer, wouldn't you rather be able to run an application with "standard" graphics than not at all? Just some thoughts... D.D.
cameron@kirk.nmg.bu.oz (Cameron Stevenson) (11/23/90)
Not wanting to put a dampener on this discussion, but surely Unix/X is the emerging OS/GUI multi-platform choice. Think about it. On many of the machines out there, there is a Unix/X option - even if it is not the native combination. For this reason, I think Commodore have done it just right (by offering a choice that conforms to this multi-platform "standard") Perhaps a more interesting observation might be that MicroSoft are genuinely worried that the enormous development costs they have invested into Windows will not prove as profitable as they might have hoped. Apart from their applications, they are left with MS-Dos (most DOS machines can run some flavour of Unix - good alternative when DOS users 'grow' out of DOS), OS/2 (not as successful as they originally hoped - what can it really offer that Unix, and AmigaDOS can't), and Windows (speed/porting problems with 'most' DOS packages). If I were looking for winning software to invest in, these may not rate as highly as some that I could find elsewhere in the computing world. This of course is digressing into speculation - my original point is that Unix is widely available on most platforms, as is X for windowing, and OSF/Motif for the look-and-feel. Why bother with Windows? Cameron Stephenson ph. +61 75 951220 Bond University Gold Coast Australia
lron (11/24/90)
> In article <1990Nov21.170108.18455@maytag.waterloo.edu>, Eric Giguere writes: > Other problems: Windows is more than just a presentation interface, it's > also pretty much an operating system in itself. To guarantee portability, > all this extra stuff would need to ported as well. On the Mac and the Amiga > the OS is mostly in ROM, and both OS's are quite different from what Windows > supports. > > Nope, I just don't see it happening... Neither do I after all windows sits on top of a single tasking OS and can do some things that on an Amiga would probably cause quite a few problems. However something like a standard interface developer that works the same across multiple platforms and is able to generate the code for that platform. Then the only extra time would be that necessary to write the code that does the input and output for that platform. Just another Idea to throw around :-)
giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (11/25/90)
Personally, I don't think X Windows is a viable solution for the average
Amiga user. First of all, it's just too big. My X server running on an
IBM Model 70/386 with 4 megs of RAM is so slow it's painful to use... for
editing I switch over to the Amiga. Second, X was really meant to work in
a networked environment. The average home setup is NOT going to have a bunch
of computers hooked up with an Ethernet. If you don't want (need) transparent
networking, then you don't need X. Third, you still need other layers on top
of X, like Motif or Open Look, plus a file manager/desktop of some kind.
What about source compatibility? IMHO, source compatibility means shit to
the average user. The developers might appreciate it, but if the users have
to suffer with a slow environment just so the developers have an easier time
of it, then the developers have their priorities backwards. Besides, source
compatibility is never complete.
You know, both the Mac and the Amiga have fairly well-established, thin,
in-ROM presentation interfaces. Why should the average user on either system
want to use something like X Windows?
--
Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA
Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groeningjerry@heyman.austin.ibm.com (Jerry Heyman) (11/25/90)
In article <2220001@hppad.HP.COM> dolson@hppad.HP.COM (David Dolson) writes: > >You want a standard window system? > >Consider XWindows... A really powerfull standard. You can get generic >C source code for the X server from MIT fairly cheap. You fill in the >low-level graphics an OS routines yourself. > >But... It's huge. It probably takes most of a MEG to run if you include >all of the features. It might run fairly slow depending on how well you >can wedge in the Amiga hardware. > With the succes of Motif (based on XWindows and Presentation Manager with some others thrown in for good measure) the future of GUI's might have already been somewhat decided. There are a lot of applications that are being written with Motif interfaces. While I know of no one that has ported the Motif widget set to the Amiga, XWindows already has been running on top of AmigaDOS for at least a year thanks to Dale Luck - so running XWindows DOES NOT imply that one must run Unix(tm) also. What we wind up with is two interfaces on the Amiga, Intuition and XWindows. I fail to see why we need to add yet another interface to support? MS Windows is a veneer on top of the OS (in this case MS-DOS) that handles things that the OS can't - things that AmigaDOS already DOES handle. Do you honestly think that JUST because the Amiga supported MS Windows there would be a whole slew of new applications for the Amiga? MS Windows has been great for sales, but there still aren't too many applications writtent to take advantage of it... Just my $0.02 worth, jerry -- Jerry Heyman IBM T-R: jerry@heyman.austin.ibm.com AWD Tools Development VNET : HEYMAN at AUSVMQ AWD Austin T/L : 793-3962 *** All opinions expressed are exactly that - my opinions and NOT IBM's
cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) (12/02/90)
This isn't a flame, just an opinion: I really don't care for the idea of Windows for the amiga(or mac for that much). Why should we be the ones to succumb to another OS? I know that it sounds like I am a little biased toward the Amiga, but think about it. Computer types are like cultures; we should not punish diversity nor creativity. It can be compared to telling all countries to speak English -for if they do not they will be swallowed up and be unproductive. I think that we should just try to sell our computer for what it is, not sell out--otherwise we can never be on top. The only universal things that I know will help Commodore and the Ami are Unix and X-windows- which are already being produced. Chad
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (12/03/90)
> cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: > This isn't a flame, just an opinion: > I really don't care for the idea of Windows for the amiga(or mac for that > much). Why should we be the ones to succumb to another OS? First, I don't think there's any worry that Windows will become a universal OS. The computer world will have diversity for quite some time. But since you can already run MSDOS, MacOS, the ST OS, and Unix on the Amiga... ya might as well throw in Windows or portable OS/2 as well ;-). Just means more choices. As far as "why should we be the ones"... well, Amiga owners are 'trapped' in the same way as Apple owners: the OS and hardware are available only from one manufacturer (CBM). Because no one else _can_ "succumb" to the Amiga, any OS standardization must come _to_ the Amiga, not from it. | Kevin Darling | Internet: kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu | all | 919-872-7986 anytime | CIS: 76703,4227 Delphi:OS9ugpres | 680x(x)
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Dec2.172202.28360@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: > >As far as "why should we be the ones"... well, Amiga owners are 'trapped' >in the same way as Apple owners: the OS and hardware are available only >from one manufacturer (CBM). Because no one else _can_ "succumb" to the >Amiga, any OS standardization must come _to_ the Amiga, not from it. Of course there are different reasons for this, Mac OS is only available from Apple, because they won't let anybody else do it. Amiga OS is only available from C= because nobody could beat them in price. (Although if someone could manage an Amiga portable, It would be very nice) Rick Blewitt rblewitt@ucsd.edu
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (12/03/90)
In article <QbK=HOa00WoBQ4F4Ur@andrew.cmu.edu> cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: >This isn't a flame, just an opinion: >I really don't care for the idea of Windows for the amiga(or mac for that >much). Why should we be the ones to succumb to another OS? I know Chad, we are not talking about changing our operating system. Merely to allow other programs, written for MS Windows, to operate on the Amiga without much modification by creating a library which intercepts the calls to MS Windows to do things such as open a window or create a gadget and instead call the appropriate Amiga routines. Everything would appear just like an Amiga program, except it would probably be slow. -- Ethan Woody Allen on Los Angeles: "I mean, who would want to live in a place where the only cultural advantage is that you can turn right on a red light?"
dtiberio@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (12/04/90)
We all know how messy Windows can be on even the greatest PC but... No one seems to have mentioned that BerkSoft has been working on GEOS for the IB*. It is supposed to multitask, besides the fact that it looks beautiful. Second, it is already on a variety of platforms (3 - Apple II, C64, C128). Third, it is about 100K! All in last month's AmigaResource (I think). Any comments? :) David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3605 AMIGA DToto Productions DDD Men
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec3.175951.3703@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: > >No one seems to have mentioned that BerkSoft has been working on GEOS for the >IB*. It is supposed to multitask, besides the fact that it looks beautiful. >Second, it is already on a variety of platforms (3 - Apple II, C64, C128). Yes, I also read some articles about that PC GEOS (it's called something different, can't remember, perhaps Ensemble). But I fear BerkSoft is a little late with this development. MS with its windows has already captured the market. Perhaps they may gain a niche like DR-DOS, but I don't think they can really overcome Windows. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
a499@mindlink.UUCP (Robert Salesas) (12/05/90)
Their goal is NOT to overcome Windows. They want to be used with low end machines, especially notebook types. It is clear that the software is aimed at 8088 and 286 machines... Rob
tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) (12/05/90)
>Resp: 4 of 4 About: Re: Windows for Amiga?? Maybe!! ><1990Dec3.175951.3703@sbcs.sunysb.edu> [David Tiberio] >(*Masked*@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu) >No one seems to have mentioned that BerkSoft has been working on GEOS for the >IB*. It is supposed to multitask, besides the fact that it looks beautiful. >Second, it is already on a variety of platforms (3 - Apple II, C64, C128). >Third, it is about 100K! Well, the one for MS-DOS is actually compliant with the OS/MOTIF style guidline from what I can see in the magazine, and yes, it does look good! ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]======= = The belief that by forcing one to be "Politically Correct" in speech = = you can change what one thinks or feels, and so *CONTROL* the thoughts = = and bend them to the patterns *YOU* wish is one that George Orwell = = would have enjoyed seeing sweep the nation as it has, as predicted. = =========== Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 =================== = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either = = Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. = === The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====
ambush@kk4fs.UUCP (Ambush Bug) (12/08/90)
RegardingKurt Tappe's post regarding Windows being ported to the Mac (and possibly the Amiga, and any other major computer.) No one who advocates such insanity could have possibly ever actually USED Windows. It's like "porting" a Geo Sprint's 3 cylinder Suzuki motor to a Corvette. Windows is a poor substitute for the Mac's Finder/Multifinder environment. Especially as it's implimented on the PC. (There's no lost love for Microsoft here, as I just spent 3 days trying to get Windows installed on My PC/XT, after spending 30 minutes installing Mac System 6.0.7 on a new classic, and most of that was spent talking to the secretary in the office the Mac was in... Only 3 of Microsoft's video drivers actually worked (CGA, EGA and mono VGA.) One Paradise driver worked, 640x480x256, talk about S-L-O-W.) Microsoft can hug a root for all I care, portability be damned. As a side not, interestingly enough, Windows was to be the environment of the Atari ST, but Microsoft didn't get it in time, and Atari went with GEM (there's a real mistake. That's like taking a skateboard instead of the Geo Spring or the Corvette...) Erik Stiegler. No Signiture file, it's allin the header anyway. Windows := a very slow 5 megabyte, multi-tasking game of Solitaire. With Fish.
ifarqhar@sunc.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec3.175951.3703@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: >No one seems to have mentioned that BerkSoft has been working on GEOS for the >IB*. It is supposed to multitask, besides the fact that it looks beautiful. >Second, it is already on a variety of platforms (3 - Apple II, C64, C128). >Third, it is about 100K! Have you actually looked at the way GEOS runs, especially under the C64 (I doubt that the other versions vary). One: GEOS may appear to have windows, but it really doesn't. All GEOS does is provide graphical primatives (line draw, bit-blit) and a bitmap. It is the application's task to manage drawing something that looks like a window, but it is nothing more than a graphical box on the screen, with no overlaying or capability to resize or move without the application doing the work. GEOS *does* manage buttons, dialog boxes and menus, but the way in which it manages them is rather limited. The GEOS for the PC will have to be GEOS in name only. The current GEOS on 6502 machines is entirely unsuited for multitasking (in fact, thr 6502 is entirely unsuited for multitasking), so we can assume that major changes will have to be made. I wish Berkeley luck breaking the MicroSoft fetish so beloved by those people who feel the need to purchase an MS-DOS box, sad souls that they are :-) -- Ian Farquhar Phone : 61 2 805-9404 Office of Computing Services Fax : 61 2 805-7433 Macquarie University NSW 2109 Also : 61 2 805-7205 Australia EMail : ifarqhar@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au