rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (05/28/90)
In article <20526@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: ]On 29 May 90 14:50:16 GMT you said: ]>... I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0. ]> ]>... Yet, whole parts of ]>the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all. ]> ]> I am speaking of the Shell windows. ]>... adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore ]>at most a week to do. ]> ] You are right. It would be very easy to add menu items to the shell ] window. My responce is that if you are using the CLI, then you are ] going out of your way to avoid using the GUI. Not true. I use the CLI a lot. I also use Workbench a lot. I use whichever one seems to be best suited to what I'm doing at the moment. Since I currently can't see many of the files with Workbench, I use the CLI to manipulate them. When I get 2.0, I'll probably end up using Workbench much more. I don't use the CLI to avoid Workbench. I use it when I can't use Workbench. >> Such support ... would >>greatly facilitate it's use. How so? > Having a GUI *INSIDE* your CLI is almost comical. Wow! With just windows and a menu you have a GUI!?!? I'd better call the folks at MIT, and tell them that X Windows IS a GUI! :-) So adding menus to the CLI would not make a GUI inside a CLI, and it wouldn't exactly be comical. Although I can't think of any good uses of it at the moment... > Why don't you write your own? Yeah, buddy, go ahead and write your own Shell. It'll just take a day or so. Just ask Matt Dillon. I bet he whipped his up in two minutes! :-) :-) >> I also have a beef Where's the beef?!?!? (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it!!!) >> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0. >>When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced >>that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially >>improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like. Hey! So I'm not the ONLY one who remebered hearing that! >>However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not >>detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach >>synthesis. >> > Speech synthesis is a toy. It's only a toy if you only play with it. I have a friend, who told me a couple of years ago about how he really didn't see the need of one feature of his computer. Although it was available, most IBM PC's at the time were not equipped with this feature. In fact, he ALSO called this feature a toy. What was he talking about? Color graphics. He thought of it as a toy because he didn't use it (except for games). Many people would probably think of sound (beyond a beep) on a PC as a toy. Of course, many of us remember when the consensus of computer programmers and users thought that GUI's were just toys. Although some still hold onto that opinion, GUI's generally aren't considered as toys anymore. Speech synthesis can be very useful. The CURRENT speech synthesis on the Amiga is not terribly useful, because it's not very good. If you want to talk about COMICAL, try the supposedly "female" voice on the Amiga. I have yet to hear any setting that makes the "female" voice sound anything like a female. Improved speech synthesis on the Amiga could be VERY useful. Think in terms of educational software. The computer could read to a child, as it highlights the current word it is saying. Think about foreign language instruction, where a Spanish translator/narrator combination could help with learning Spanish. I know that *I* could sure use that!!! Oh, and I guess multitasking is unnecessary, too! :-) > No system will be hindered or hailed > on respect of sheech synthesis. ... except by those who need or can use speech synthesis. I hope the final release of 2.0 has good, HIGH quality speech. I would like to be able to have the computer talk in a female voice that actually sounds like a female voice. I would like that male voice to sound much more like a male voice. If it ends up taking an unreasonable amount of memory, make the new library & device available as options on an extra's disk. I will certainly use them. As it is now, (by my definition), the Amiga's speech synthesis IS a toy to ME. > Any idea > when 2.0 will be available? From what I've heard, September. The software business being what it is, look for it around Christmas. :-) >> -MB- > F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest Rodney Ricks - Morehouse College -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson // \\ // Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (05/29/90)
In article <3246.AA3246@pnt.CAM.ORG> Martin@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes: >> I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS >>which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell -- >>would be given Intuition support. ... > >I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use >Workbench. A UI-type interface? Yes, I want a user-interface type interface!!! :-) >... Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard >shell by a new one which would support menus. Obviously another programmer with a bunch of time on his hands, here. I'm a programmer without much time on my hands. Many people don't have the time to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE something useful. Many thanks to those who support the Amiga in such a way, but I and many others just don't have the time to do it. >> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0. > > ... Please reserve these >comments for the final release. If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should have been in there. I believe the people at Commodore have heard MORE than enough whining about what should have been done. I'm sure that they would agree. > The speech is indeed much improved, That's great!!! Is it realistic? Does the female sound like a HUMAN female? >Martin Taillefer INTERNET: martin@pnt.CAM.ORG BIX: vertex >UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!pnt!martin TEL: 514/640-5734 Rodney Ricks -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson // \\ // Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/
BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (05/29/90)
This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here,
but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0.
With this release of the Amiga's OS, the Amiga is supposed to be
made much easier-to-use and a lot more friendly. Yet, whole parts of
the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all.
I am speaking of the Shell windows. With both OS 1.3 and OS 2.0,
nothing happens when the right mouse button is pressed with a Shell
window active. This seems to me to be a terrible waste of a whole
section of the Amiga's OS. I had hoped that some limited Intuition
support would be added to the Shell -- such as Shell menus -- but
Commodore chose not to do this. Now let's all be honest with each
other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore
at most a week to do.
I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS
which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell --
would be given Intuition support. Such support absolutely would
not interfere at all with the normal use of the Shell, and would
greatly facilitate it's use. But I guess this was not to be.
I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.
When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced
that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially
improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like.
However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not
detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach
synthesis.
-MB-schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (05/30/90)
In article <20476@snow-white.udel.EDU> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > > This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here, >but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0. > > With this release of the Amiga's OS, the Amiga is supposed to be >made much easier-to-use and a lot more friendly. Yet, whole parts of >the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all. [much premature complaining deleted] Marc - AmigaDOS 2.0 has _not_ been released as of yet, it is still in beta test. The versions distributed with the pre-production A3000's to the dealers are beta test versions. While your comments _may_ be valid, about the version you saw, until the OS is actually released, you can't be sure that the problems you percieve are actually in the OS. From my perspective, the OS is much easier to use and more friendly. Making it so does not require wholesale changes to every part of the OS. -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
Martin@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) (05/30/90)
> I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS >which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell -- >would be given Intuition support. Such support absolutely would >not interfere at all with the normal use of the Shell, and would >greatly facilitate it's use. But I guess this was not to be. I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use Workbench. It has tons of menus. Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard shell by a new one which would support menus. > I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0. >When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced >that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially >improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like. >However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not >detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach >synthesis. I guess you forgot you were running a BETA of 2.0. Please reserve these comments for the final release. The speech is indeed much improved, but not on the betas in the store. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Taillefer INTERNET: martin@pnt.CAM.ORG BIX: vertex UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!pnt!martin TEL: 514/640-5734
wille@frith.uucp (Jeffrey Wille) (05/30/90)
I tried out the speech synthesis on an A3000 using AmigaVision at the local dealer and found it much clearer and more understandable than what I get out of my A500. -Jeff
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (05/30/90)
On 29 May 90 14:50:16 GMT you said: > > This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here, >but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0. > > With this release of the Amiga's OS, the Amiga is supposed to be >made much easier-to-use and a lot more friendly. Yet, whole parts of >the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all. > > I am speaking of the Shell windows. With both OS 1.3 and OS 2.0, >nothing happens when the right mouse button is pressed with a Shell >window active. This seems to me to be a terrible waste of a whole >section of the Amiga's OS. I had hoped that some limited Intuition >support would be added to the Shell -- such as Shell menus -- but >Commodore chose not to do this. Now let's all be honest with each >other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore >at most a week to do. > You are right. It would be very easy to add menu items to the shell window. My responce is that if you are using the CLI, then you are going out of your way to avoid using the GUI. It's a philosophical question. > I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS >which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell -- >would be given Intuition support. Such support absolutely would >not interfere at all with the normal use of the Shell, and would >greatly facilitate it's use. But I guess this was not to be. > Having a GUI *INSIDE* your CLI is almost comical. Just remember that you are not limited to Commodore's Shell. There are dozens of them available. Why don't you write your own? > I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0. >When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced >that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially >improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like. >However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not >detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach >synthesis. > Speech synthesis is a toy. No system will be hindered or hailed on respect of sheech synthesis. I intended on having many "constructive criticisms" of 2.0, but from what I've read, my complaint list may be very small. Any idea when 2.0 will be available? > > -MB- ---- F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet "He is a borderline genius that experiences peridoic phases of abject stupidity."
root@bcstarc.UUCP (Frank Pecher) (05/30/90)
In article <20476@snow-white.udel.EDU> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >I had hoped that some limited Intuition >support would be added to the Shell -- such as Shell menus -- but >Commodore chose not to do this. Now let's all be honest with each >other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore >at most a week to do. Right. It would be most easy to implement. But: There are different manners of working with a computer: * If you are a user, you may prefer usage of the computer with a mouse. This is easy to learn, and quick -- if uncomplicated actions are to be done (try working with a text processor without keyboard:-)). In any case, to start a program, the workbench is sufficient. * There are applications that are controlled nearly entirely by mouse. (painting programs) This makes sense. You can't draw with a keyboard. * If you are a programmer, however, you prefer working with a shell. The shell is no graphical user interface. Normally, you operate it with your keyboard. It would be highly incomfortable then to have to use the mouse from time to time; programmers (at least I) prefer to do everything with keyboard. If you want comfort in a shell, use aliases, or batch files, or both. To handle windows and screens with your keyboard, use wKeys. > I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0. >When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced >that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially >improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like. >However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not >detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach >synthesis. Correct. Apperently, CBM didn't think about an export of Amiga computers to other countries than the USA initially. Otherwise they would have implemented INTERNATIONAL phonetics. To pursue your point: if all known phonems had been implemented, the speech synthesis of the Amiga sounded less synthetically. Of course, the translator.library would be aproxximately four or six times that big (Just a guess). -- \ "... and the universe will explode later for your pleasure!" / \ -- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at The End of The Universe / \ ADDRESS: root@bcstarc.UUCP / \____Frank Pecher___________BANG:____...!smurf!nadia!bcstarc!root____/
hamilton@intersil.uucp (05/30/90)
In article <20476@snow-white.udel.EDU>, BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here, > but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0. > > <complaints deleted> > > Now let's all be honest with each > other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore > at most a week to do. Well, since we're all being honest with each other..........***SHUT UP!!!!*** > > <more complaints deleted> > -- Fred Hamilton Any views, comments, or ideas expressed here Harris Semiconductor are entirely my own. Even good ones. Santa Clara, CA
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (05/30/90)
In <32421@auc.UUCP>, rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >In article <3246.AA3246@pnt.CAM.ORG> Martin@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes: > >>> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0. >> >> ... Please reserve these >>comments for the final release. > >If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests >before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should >have been in there. I believe the people at Commodore have heard MORE than >enough whining about what should have been done. I'm sure that they >would agree. It's already too late to change a lot of things sbout 2.0, and requests for enhancements that fall into this category will not be acted upon until the release after 2.0. There is a big difference between a request for enhancement and a gripe about 'the way it is', when the 'the way it is' is taken from observation of a prerelease. What Martin is saying is that comments on 2.0 should be reserved for 2.0. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Martin@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) (05/31/90)
>In article <3246.AA3246@pnt.CAM.ORG> Martin@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes: >>I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use >>Workbench. > >A UI-type interface? Yes, I want a user-interface type interface!!! :-) How about just *trying* to figure out what I meant instead of pointing out the obvious? I meant a graphically-oriented interface. >>... Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard >>shell by a new one which would support menus. > >Obviously another programmer with a bunch of time on his hands, here. I'm >a programmer without much time on my hands. Many people don't have the time >to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE >something useful. Many thanks to those who support the Amiga in such a way, >but I and many others just don't have the time to do it. Gee, have you heard about PURCHASING? Replacing the shell doesn't mean writing your own, it means REPLACING the shell. If enough folks want menus in their shell windows, someone IS going to write such a shell. In any case, this doesn't have anything to do with the shell, it is the console handler which would need the magic. >>comments for the final release. > >If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests >before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should >have been in there. I believe the people at Commodore have heard MORE than >enough whining about what should have been done. I'm sure that they >would agree. The thing is, it IS too late! It has been too late for a long time now. Beta testing means the features have been frozen and from now on there will only be fixing of bugs and integration of all new components. So basically, complaining about the new OS at this point has no benefits. Folks do not know what the final OS release will actually be like so their complaints may often be pointless. Folks writing the OS have stopped adding features and are busy cleaning things up. What is useful at this point is a nicely documented bug report. >That's great!!! Is it realistic? Does the female sound like a HUMAN female? It does sound better, haven't played with it much though. >Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/ -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Taillefer INTERNET: martin@pnt.CAM.ORG BIX: vertex UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!pnt!martin TEL: 514/640-5734
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (06/01/90)
In a previous article, rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: > > [ Previous commentary deleted. ] > >Obviously another programmer with a bunch of time on his hands, here. I'm >a programmer without much time on my hands. Many people don't have the time >to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE >something useful. Many thanks to those who support the Amiga in such a way, >but I and many others just don't have the time to do it. I used to think that coming up to speed on programming the amiga and using Intuition is tough. Sure, it does take time. It isn't always like you think it should be, but there are reasons you will discover later. You will be frustrated by errors in documentation (I have an early set of RKMs, so this may have been corrected in later versions), the time it takes to figure how things work so you can do neat graphics, and other problems. I have found that picking a desired non-trivial program you would like to implement and then going for it is the best way. Getting support and help is quite simple, if you are reading this message. Just post a message for help or a question to comp.sys.amiga.tech, and you will get it answered. Make sure you have really tried to answer your own question as best you can first, but any and all topics are allowed. In summary, learning to drive the amiga from a programmer's point of view is not like falling off a log, but it is quite handy when you want to turn out a program. I urge any and all out there who have been thinking about learning to do some whippy graphics to 'just do it'. Learning is a life long process, and there are always excuses to be found to avoid learning. I owned an amiga and all the compilers, assemblers, and docs for about 3 years before really starting to write code. I wish I had started sooner. The amiga is supported in large part by the user community, not a few programmers working for large corporations. The benefits of this way of operation are available on fish disks (and other PD/Shareware sources) rather than on store shelves. >Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College -dave
ajk@wren.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (Alan Kent) (06/01/90)
Does anyone know if the improved speach now has tonal control? For languages such as Chinese, Thai etc., tonal control is very important. You could sort of fudge the sounds with the old synthesizer, but tonal control was (almost) impossible. By tonal control I mean rising and falling tones, not simply monotonic at a specific frequency. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Alan Kent, ACSNET: ajk@goanna.cs.rmit.OZ Key Center for Knowl. Based Sys., INTERNET: ajk@goanna.cs.rmit.OZ.AU RMIT Dept. of Comp. Sci., JANET: ajk%au.oz.goanna@uk.ac.ukc GPO BOX 2476 V, BITNET: ajk%goanna.cs.rmit.OZ.AU@relay.cs.net Melbourne, 3001, AUSTRALIA UUCP: ..!uunet!goanna.cs.rmit.OZ.AU!ajk Phone: +61 3 660 2992 Fax: +61 3 662 1617
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/01/90)
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: |Wow! With just windows and a menu you have a GUI!?!? I'd better call the |folks at MIT, and tell them that X Windows IS a GUI! :-) er, Xwindows ***IS*** a GUI, buddy. Icons, menus, the whole shmear. Plus it multi-tasks, unlike workbench (I know the programs run from workbench multi-task but WB doesn't. That's what the little sleepy cloud is for. It means workbench is busy and can't do anything else till it gets finished.) -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (06/01/90)
In-Reply-To: message from GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu You're right on this one Marc... Pulldown menus, inside a shell? Isn't it the purpose of the shell to get around menus, icons, etc...and get down-and-dirty right into the DOS, with a few niceties like command-history, etc.??? If you're going to have menus and gadgets in the shell, it might as well not be the shell at all, but some sort of utility program like DiskMaster, or Utilimaster...or SID. I'm not worried about the speech either...when I want realistic sounding speech, I sample it. What other computer has built in text to speech like the Amiga? Not clones...not macs...remember"it's not how well a waltzing bear waltzes...but that it waltzes at all." Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (06/02/90)
In article <3266.AA3266@pnt.CAM.ORG> Martin@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes: >>In article <3246.AA3246@pnt.CAM.ORG> Martin@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes: >>>I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use >>>Workbench. >> >>A UI-type interface? Yes, I want a user-interface type interface!!! :-) ^^^ ||| >How about just *trying* to figure out what I meant instead of pointing out the >obvious? I meant a graphically-oriented interface. You missed my smiley face; I was just kidding! >>>... Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard >>>shell by a new one which would support menus. >> >> ... Many people don't have the time >>to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE >>something useful. ... WARNING, WARNING: A non-serious and (hopefully) humorous reply is coming!!!! >Gee, have you heard about PURCHASING? Purchasing? No, what's that?!?!?! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) >>>comments for the final release. >> >>If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests >>before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should >>have been in there. ... > >The thing is, it IS too late! It has been too late for a long time now. Beta >testing means the features have been frozen and from now on there will only be >fixing of bugs and integration of all new components. >What is useful at this point is a nicely documented bug report. Well, this may not be nicely documented, but here's a bug report. System setup: Display model A3000 with 1084 monitor 2 Mb RAM (I think the HD was 40 Mb, and it may have had some kind of large drawing tablet connect to it) While running Commoditites Exchange and IHelp, with nothing else running (except maybe the standard CLI), I was flipping through the windows using the F1 key. I held it down (or just tapped it very quickly, I forget which). For about five seconds. The system froze up completely. No system error message. I ended up rebooting. >>Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College >Martin Taillefer INTERNET: martin@pnt.CAM.ORG BIX: vertex Rodney (again) -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson // \\ // Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (06/11/90)
In article <1886@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: |rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: ||Wow! With just windows and a menu you have a GUI!?!? I'd better call the ||folks at MIT, and tell them that X Windows IS a GUI! :-) | |er, Xwindows ***IS*** a GUI, buddy. Icons, menus, the whole shmear. That's what I thought at first, until I kept hearing (and hearing and hearing) that X Windows is not a GUI, but something on which a GUI can be based. That's why we have such things like Motif, DECwindows, etc. |Plus it multi-tasks, unlike workbench I think a better comparison would be to compare XWindows to Intuition. DECwindows, for example, is an interface that sits on top of Xwindows, just as Workbench is an interface that sits on top of Intuition. |Plus it multi-tasks, unlike workbench (I know the programs run from |workbench multi-task but WB doesn't. That's what the little sleepy cloud is |for. It means workbench is busy and can't do anything else till it gets |finished.) Yes, I've even complained about that many times. That will be fixed in 2.0. |John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) |sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK |A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash I'm temporarily losing access to the net, so send any personal replies to /dev/null. Hopefully, when I come back (in August), I'll be hearing people criticizing the Amiga 3500! :-) You know, the new model with the 25MHz 68040 board in the CPU slot... :-) -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson // \\ // Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/
Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com (06/16/90)
MB> Speech synthesis is a toy.
Poorly implemented speech synthesis might be a toy, though I would even
argue that.
Speech synthesis is essential to many applications:
* Programs for blind people
* Security software which needs to notify someone who can't
always be in visual range of the computer
* Educational programs--thousands of important applications here
Point made, no additional bandwidth needed ...
Julie (LadyHawke)