91_bickingd@gar.union.edu (Bicking, David) (06/01/90)
>Subject: Call for Device Independant Output, file format and user-interface stan >dards on the Amiga >From: pdbeam@watserv1.waterloo.edu (T.C.) >Date: 26 May 90 06:55:25 GMT > 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. At the risk of sounding rather extremist and childishly pro-amiga (alright, I ADMIT it, I AM!), it is nice to see at least ONE ST user admit this publicly. Now to address your assertions... >... >them. I need high-quality hardcopy. Amen. I see where you are coming from here... <DTP stuff deleted> >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. I'm not entirely sure what "device independant output" is, but I believe it is described later in your letter. Standard file formats have ALWAYS been one of the strengths of the Amiga. IFF is the standard sound and picture format, backed by C=. I agree that animation file formats are in need of standardization. How about one called AFF (Animation File Format). A standard user interface is a feature in WB 2.0 if I understand correctly, mostly seen in the file reqestor. > 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 AHA. I understand now. I'd still like the option of a lower resolution output (for rough drafts) but I agree. The problem that has really bothered me is that word processing output on the MAC (plus, SE, whatever) is infinately better than on the Amiga (graphic output that is, including fonts). I am still perplexed as to why this remains true. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS ONLY THE WORD PROCESSORS' fault. I think it is the printer drivers in the amiga and the font technology we are supplied with. Someone please explain the reasons to me. > 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 This has always been true on Amiga due to IFF. I use Dpaint to make a picture or graph to load into Prowrite for a report. >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 I don't know the specifics of the IBM PIC standard, but I understand IFF is better and more flexible. >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, See above. > 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 guess I'm a guru, eh? Well, C= is stressing just this in WB 2.0, so rest easy. > 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 No push is needed. I'd much rather create a new standard that looks to future growth than "catch up to the others". If C= changes standards, they should build a new one that will better handle more attributes and flexibility than the one we have now. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=- "I don't want to start any Blasphemous Rumors, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor and when I die I expect to find him laughing" Dave Bicking Single Tasking????? Just say NO!!!! Union College Box 152 91_bickingd@union.bitnet // Schenectady, NY 12308 91_bickingd@gar.union.edu \X/ Amiga -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-