pdbeam@watserv1.waterloo.edu (T.C.) (05/26/90)
Standards
-------------------------------------------------------
I've recently purchased an Amiga 2000 and I've owned an
Atari ST for four years. I am still blown away by Amiga
hardware (wow! you mean some machines have more than ONE
expansion slot?) and Amiga graphics (except for interlace
mode which really sucks) but there are still some things I
had on my Atari that I miss on my Amiga: device-independent
output, standardized (and IBM compatible) file formats, and a
consistent user-interface across programs. I believe these
things are what have given the ST what success it has had
(God knows Atari wouldn't DREAM of actually advertising it)
and the addition of these things to the Amiga would make it
even more successful.
I'm not going to describe these things to say "look how
much better the Atari ST is" but rather to suggest that we
Amiga owners demand them (or better) for ourselves and refuse
to settle for anything less. I want high-quality hardcopy
from my Amiga and I don't want to have to pay through the
nose to get it (I did THAT to buy my A2000 in the first
place). Desktop video is nice, but I can't drag my
professors or customers to my home to see the nice Deluxe
Paint III presentation I did on my screen and I can't give
them my Amiga (or always a VHS video-tape) to take home with
them. I need high-quality hardcopy.
I know Gold Disk offers a nice, comprehensive family of
DTP products, but I hate trusting one company. If Gold Disk
is motivated to publish a good package, think how much more
motivated they'd be with competition. PageStream is a nice
package, too, but it is not a complete system (no dedicated
draw program). Furthermore, high-quality output should be a
given that we don't even have to worry about--NOT a feature
that makes us decide buy one product over another. This is
one of the Atari ST's strengths and there is no reason why it
cannot be an Amiga strength, too. All we need is device
independent output and standard file formats (established by
Commodore and not some third party). While I'm at it, user-
interface standards would be nice, too.
Device independent output means that whatever image I
create on the screen will print out in the MAXIMUM resolution
of my printer. Compare the output of any non-postscript
Amiga DTP to the output of any non-postscript Atari GEM DTP
on the same device and you'll see what I mean. (Come on, not
all of us can afford laser printers!). It also means that
the object graphics I create in Easy Draw or Calamus Draw or
CAD3D or Word-Up or WordFlair or VIP (spreadsheet) or Touch-
Up will print out in maximum resolution. What's more, all of
these programs use EXACTLY THE SAME PRINTER DRIVERS, meaning
you don't have to worry whether the software is compatible
with your XYZ printer or not because you always use the same
XYZ driver for each package. This also makes programs that
produce high-quality output easier to write on the ST. For
example, I have a high-res graphing program written in 200
lines of ST GFA Basic 3.0 that will run with any printer (and
driver) I care to hook up. The printer-output part of the
program took an less than half-an-hour to write and debug
(and it even does PostScript).
The ST also has standard file formats for raster and
object images and fonts. This means that virtually any image
(even a full 8x11 page of text) can be created in one program
and loaded into another. Because these formats also exist on
the IBM I can do stuff at home and take it in for use on the
PCs at work. I can have line-art in my word-processor files
or load high-quality word-processing fonts into my graphics
programs. Notice this also means that I have one set of
high-quality fonts I use in ALL my ST applications. Sure,
you'll tell me to go buy the Gold Disk family of software for
my Amiga, but then I want these features in Can Do, Word
Writer, and my own Amiga Basic programs, too. I don't think
it's unreasonable to expect something from the Amiga that all
of the other "big-four" systems have.
Lastly, most ST GEM applications look the same on the
surface. If you have mastered the interface of one, you can
pick up any of the others almost without thinking about it.
Not so on the Amiga (sure you gurus think its easy but I'm a
new user). I'm not just talking about all programs having
all the standard gadgets, I'm talking about all programs
having similar screen-layouts and having those gadgets look
similar and have a similar function in each application. I'm
talking about hitting ctrl-x, or selecting an icon of a pair
of scissors, in any application (even one I've not seen
before) and almost being certain of what it will do. Believe
me, you might think that consistency is boring but if it
makes programs easier to use perhaps more people will want to
use them (more users=more support=more products).
I've heard stuff in the rumours columns of magazine and
on this news file that Commodore is considering establishing
standards in DVI output and user-interface. If you like any
of the benefits these standards bring then help PUSH
Commodore into establishing these standards as soon as
possible rather than in their own sweet time. Desktop video
is nice, but adding high-quality hard-copy will let more of
us (not all of us are in marketing, you know) do more
practical things with our machines. If Commodore goes for
standards compatible with those on other machines, then we'll
probably see lots of good stuff (like Easy-Draw and Publish
It!) being ported more quickly and we'll be able to share
more with people using other systems (which can't hurt).
Otherwise I guess I'll just have to buy a Bridge Card like
everyone else and get the IBM GEM programs (what a bass-
ackwards way to do things!).
Comments and challenges are welcome.
Travis Capener
c/o PDBEAM.watserv1 (University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)
-- sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/30/90)
pdbeam@watserv1.waterloo.edu (T.C.) writes: >Standards >------------------------------------------------------- > I've recently purchased an Amiga 2000 and I've owned an >Atari ST for four years. I am still blown away by Amiga >hardware (wow! you mean some machines have more than ONE >expansion slot?) and Amiga graphics (except for interlace >mode which really sucks) but there are still some things I >had on my Atari that I miss on my Amiga: device-independent >output, standardized (and IBM compatible) file formats, and a >consistent user-interface across programs. I believe these > Device independent output means that whatever image I >create on the screen will print out in the MAXIMUM resolution >of my printer. Compare the output of any non-postscript >Amiga DTP to the output of any non-postscript Atari GEM DTP >on the same device and you'll see what I mean. (Come on, not >all of us can afford laser printers!). It also means that >the object graphics I create in Easy Draw or Calamus Draw or >CAD3D or Word-Up or WordFlair or VIP (spreadsheet) or Touch- >Up will print out in maximum resolution. What's more, all of > The ST also has standard file formats for raster and >object images and fonts. This means that virtually any image >(even a full 8x11 page of text) can be created in one program >and loaded into another. Because these formats also exist on >the IBM I can do stuff at home and take it in for use on the >PCs at work. I can have line-art in my word-processor files Where have you been? The Amiga has all this and has always had it. Printer support is not dependent on the programs, they OS talks to you printer thru a device driver with a generic printer device that all programs can talk to. Like a translator. Just use preferences to tell the OS which printer you want to use, the resolution of the printer (makes it resolution independent, which is what you meant anyway, not device independent). The Amiga has very standard file formats, known as IFF (interchange file format)for animation, sound, and graphics files. Draw something in one program and load it into another, and all that. Sheesh! IBM doesn't do that. But some programs on the IBM can read in Amiga file formates, notabley Deluxe Paint on the IBM. And I can use and convert several IBM formats into GIF files which I can convert into IFF files on my Amiga. Heck I even think the ST uses IFF doesn't it? -- 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
icsu8053@ming.cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) (06/07/90)
In article <1866@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >pdbeam@watserv1.waterloo.edu (T.C.) writes: > >>Standards >>------------------------------------------------------- > >> I've recently purchased an Amiga 2000 and I've owned an >>Atari ST for four years. I am still blown away by Amiga >>hardware (wow! you mean some machines have more than ONE >>expansion slot?) and Amiga graphics (except for interlace >>mode which really sucks) but there are still some things I >>had on my Atari that I miss on my Amiga: device-independent >>output, standardized (and IBM compatible) file formats, and a >>consistent user-interface across programs. I believe these > > >> Device independent output means that whatever image I >>create on the screen will print out in the MAXIMUM resolution >>of my printer. Compare the output of any non-postscript >>Amiga DTP to the output of any non-postscript Atari GEM DTP >>on the same device and you'll see what I mean. (Come on, not >>all of us can afford laser printers!). It also means that >>the object graphics I create in Easy Draw or Calamus Draw or >>CAD3D or Word-Up or WordFlair or VIP (spreadsheet) or Touch- >>Up will print out in maximum resolution. What's more, all of > > >> The ST also has standard file formats for raster and >>object images and fonts. This means that virtually any image >>(even a full 8x11 page of text) can be created in one program >>and loaded into another. Because these formats also exist on >>the IBM I can do stuff at home and take it in for use on the >>PCs at work. I can have line-art in my word-processor files > >Where have you been? The Amiga has all this and has always had it. > >Printer support is not dependent on the programs, they OS talks to >you printer thru a device driver with a generic printer device that all >programs can talk to. Like a translator. Just use preferences to tell >the OS which printer you want to use, the resolution of the printer >(makes it resolution independent, which is what you meant anyway, not >device independent). > >The Amiga has very standard file formats, known as IFF (interchange file >format)for animation, sound, and graphics files. Draw something in one program >and load it into another, and all that. Sheesh! IBM doesn't do that. But some >programs on the IBM can read in Amiga file formates, notabley Deluxe Paint on >the IBM. And I can use and convert several IBM formats into GIF files which >I can convert into IFF files on my Amiga. Heck I even think the ST uses IFF >doesn't it? No, the ST doesn't "use" IFF, but some programs (Degas Elite) will load and save IFF, but this is not the subject. What the previous poster (T.C.) was referring to is the device-independant nature of GDOS. GDOS applications use device-independant calls to do such things as set font typeface/size/ appearance, set margins, set colors/pens, change linetype, set fill patterns, and the drawing of circles, lines, arcs etc. It is up to the device driver for the screen, printer, file, or <your-favorite-device>, to render these commands to the best of its abilities. Once a printer and screen configuration(s) are installed, any GDOS application can easily direct its output to the device. These device-independant commands can be directed to a file (GEM MetaFile). This file may then be imported into graphic editors, desktop publishers or whatever and scaled, rotated and modified without loss of resolution because the objects are not mapped to a raster image until display/print time. From what I understand of IFF graphic images, thay are pure raster images. If they allow for vector graphics, it's news to me and it must be news to all the Amiga developers out there. Any AmigaDOS application which wishes to print high-quality hard copy is on its own; the printer device driver, as it currently exists, will be of little help. Each application has to know how to render its graphics onto the display as well as the many printer types that may be used with the program. This limits the flexability of the program to adapt to different displays and printers. In many ways, this is the same problem you face in MS-DOS world except you also have to support many different displays AND pointing devices. Talk about a serious nightmare! A good example of the benefits of device-independant graphics are illustated in QuickDraw on the Macintosh. Nowadays, a Mac program can be run on everything from a lowly Mac SE with a monochrome 320x200 display to a MacIIfx with a 24-bit color 720x640 monitor. It supports 32-bit color and can support almost every resolution. The next version of QuickDraw is going to support outline fonts as well. Although, the number of printers that QuickDraw currently supports seems rather limited. I have only seen LaserWriters and ImageWriters used with Macs. Of course, the best example of a device-independant environment would have to be X-windows but I believe that the limit of a news article is around 45k, so I digress. :^> The point of all this rambling is that it's pretty silly/stupid to believe that all is hunky-dorey (sp?) in Amiga land. I would only hope that Commadore is working to resolve the hard copy situation. I would assume that the above-mentioned features are a requirement for a media station. And for you overly-defensive computer worshippers out there: DO NOT restart The Wars, alright? I'm not going to be here to see it if they do. I'm just attempting to pound a few of the kinks out of the facts. > > >-- >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 Craig -- / Craig Pratt / Montana State University, Bozeman MT/ / Craig.Pratt@msu3.oscs.montana.edu / " Practically odor-free! " / /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ / "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan, 1988 Republican Convention /
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (06/08/90)
In a previous article, icsu8053@ming.cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) writes: >From what I understand of IFF graphic images, thay are pure raster images. >If they allow for vector graphics, it's news to me and it must be news to all >the Amiga developers out there. I know that IFF files support sound, and I believe that there is a 'text' type of object that is in the IFF docs. I just FTP'ed the info (if you want the address, let me know) from Fish disk #64. This disk is rather old, but there is conversation about being able to handle text in the IFF format. Not that many printers or programs out there can handle such blocks, but the standard is available. I need to read all the info more carefully, but it looks like the basic mechanisms are there. One just needs to find some software that can properly use it. Does anybody out there know of a FTP-able source for the latest IFF docs? I'd love to hear about something more current than what I have. > / Craig Pratt / Montana State University, Bozeman MT/ -dave
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/08/90)
In article <12911@netcom.UUCP> mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: > In a previous article, icsu8053@ming.cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) writes: >>From what I understand of IFF graphic images, thay are pure raster images. >I know that IFF files support sound, and I believe that there is a 'text' type Just to clarify, IFF stands for "Interchange File Format" and is the standard for ALL multiprogram file formats, including sound, text, raster graphics, vector graphics, animations, and things yet to be invented. "ILBM" is a kind of "FORM" which holds interlaced bitmaps. "ILBM" is one of the things that can be in an IFF file. IFF is like saying "directory format" and an IFF FORM roughly corresponds to a file type. For example, an IFF FORM for animation may be a series of ILBM forms and a 8SVX (8-bit sound effect) and a "(c) " (copyright) FORM. Inside FORMs there are "chunks" like colormap chunks, header chunks, font chunks, and so on. IFF is designed that a paint program (say) can get the ILBM forms out of an animation without knowing the ANIM FORM format. A sampler could get the 8SVX form out of the same IFF file. Hence, to say "IFF graphic images are pure raster images" is only half-true. Correctly, it would be "IFF ILBM only defines raster images and there are few programs that use a different form type for storing their data." Actually, there was a discussion a while back about a form type called (I think) D2DR (2-D drawing) or something similar. I don't know if it is a standard yet. So the answer is "IFF supports vector graphics. You just need a program that supports vector graphics." -- Darren
bli@castor.usc.edu (@usc.edu) (06/09/90)
In article <12911@netcom.UUCP> mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: > > In a previous article, icsu8053@ming.cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) writes: >>From what I understand of IFF graphic images, thay are pure raster images. >>If they allow for vector graphics, it's news to me and it must be news to all >>the Amiga developers out there. > >I know that IFF files support sound, and I believe that there is a 'text' type >of object that is in the IFF docs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ProWrite file format an IFF format? They seem to have an IFF header chunk, and all that song and dance. ( ...if this is what you mean by "a 'text' type of object" )