kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (05/05/89)
In article <GRIFF.89May3085059@intelob.intel.com> griff@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes: > I wonder how much it would cost to get them to seriously consider >an Amiga for Autocad ---? (No job's too tough, if the MONEY'$ >enough!) > > - griff How about GenericCAD? It's a lot cheaper than Autocad & seems to be fleshed out enough to really be usable. More so than anything else I've seen for the Amiga. ======================================================= Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu =======================================================
ltf@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) (05/07/89)
In article <15588@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.UUCP (Kent D. Polk) writes: >In article <GRIFF.89May3085059@intelob.intel.com> griff@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) writes: >> I wonder how much it would cost to get them to seriously consider >>an Amiga for Autocad ---? (No job's too tough, if the MONEY'$ >>enough!) >How about GenericCAD? It's a lot cheaper than Autocad & seems to be >fleshed out enough to really be usable. More so than anything else I've >seen for the Amiga. Funny you should mention it....AutoDesk, Inc. (maker of AutoCAD) just purchased Generic Software (maker of GenericCADD)...it'll probably be marketed as a mid-range CAD program, between AutoSketch and AutoCAD. Don't give up though...since AutoCAD has a Macintosh version, the 68000 barrier has been broken. If the Amiga gets successful enough (in AutoDesk's eyes), you might see an AutoCAD version for it...Goddess knows they're putting it on just about every other platform. Lance > >======================================================= > Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute > kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu >======================================================= -- +-------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+ | Lance T Franklin | | I never said that! It must be some kind of a | | ltf@killer.DALLAS.TX.US | | forgery...I gotta change that password again. | +-------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+
elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) (05/08/89)
in article <8032@killer.Dallas.TX.US>, ltf@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) says: > Don't give up though...since AutoCAD has a Macintosh version, the 68000 > barrier has been broken. If the Amiga gets successful enough (in AutoDesk's > eyes), you might see an AutoCAD version for it...Goddess knows they're > putting it on just about every other platform. ARGH! I'd rather eat vomitous gopher stew! AutoCAD is a BEAR of a program to learn. The user interface sux big time. If it came out on the Amiga market tomorrow, it'd flop so bad that it'd make WordPerfect's showing look good by comparison. What we need to do is convince people who write programs for real computers (i.e. that already have windowing interfaces, multitasking, and possibly even 68K-family processors) to write programs for the Amiga. Let the PC-Drones stew in their own user-hostile juices. -- | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | | // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 | | // Join the Church of HAL, and worship at the altar of all computers | |\X/ with three-letter names (e.g. IBM and DEC). White lab coats optional.|
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/09/89)
In article <8035@killer.Dallas.TX.US> elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: >ARGH! I'd rather eat vomitous gopher stew! AutoCAD is a BEAR of a >program to learn. The user interface sux big time. If it came out on >the Amiga market tomorrow, it'd flop so bad that it'd make >WordPerfect's showing look good by comparison. I disagree whole heartedly! As far as CAD programs go, AUTOCAD is the CADillac. I use it everyday, for the last 2 years. It took me 1 weekend to learn enough to start using it. I have tried many other CAD programs both on my company's microVAX and on the PC's, and AUTOCAD beat them all in usefulness, ease of use, and flexibility. Release 10 has a windowed interface, with multiple viewpoints available at once, pop down menus and a true 3D database. AutoCAD is slow unless you have at least a 286 based machine. I use a 386 at work, running unix with autocad running under DOSmerge. I have a summagraphics 12" tablet that I have programed with all my symbols that I use in my drawings. I simply pick a symbol and place it where I want in the drawings. I wrote all this custom tablet and menu stuff for AutoCAD in about 1 week. And I am NOT a programmer. I know basic. But I picked up on AutoLISP in about a week of playing around. I have played around with Aegis Draw + , IntroCAD and Homebuilders CAD on the Amiga and they all are clearly very poor compared to Autocad. If AutoCAD came to the Amiga, it would blow away any existing CAD software on the Amiga. True, you may have to have the 68020 and flicker fixer before it would be very useful. The 68000 would probably be to slow, and you would need 640 x 400 non-interlaced to do some serious work. But with the Amiga's 4096 HAM mode and hooks from AutoCAD to some of the ray-tracing packages, you would have a very powerful 3d solid modeling package. Much better than on any other micro. I read an article in a CAD magazine where someone is using an Amiga 2500 with the AT bridgecard. They run AutoCAD under the bridgecard and use the Amiga to render the drawings in HAM using Sculpt3d. The pictures of the results were very impressive. It would be much nicer and easier if AutoCAD actually ran under AmigaDOS. The only thing that would keep AutoCAD from being a success in the Amiga market would be its high price. I believe its around $2300, a bit high for the Amiga market. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 186,000 miles per second: it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) (05/11/89)
In article <607@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >If AutoCAD came >to the Amiga, it would blow away any existing CAD software on the Amiga. What about X-Cad and Ultra-cad? I've heard very good things about them, but never seen one. Are there any amiga cad programs with decent (i.e. enter in 3-view) 3D capabilities? Good autodimensioning? Good print quality? Intro-cad has nice printing, but misses out on some basic stuff, like dimensioning, or fills, or 3D, or good rotation, or ... -- Jim cthulhu@athena.mit.edu
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/12/89)
<607@corpane.UUCP> <11304@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Sender: Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc. Keywords: In article <11304@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes: >In article <607@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >>If AutoCAD came >>to the Amiga, it would blow away any existing CAD software on the Amiga. >What about X-Cad and Ultra-cad? I've heard very good things about them, >but never seen one. To be fair and honest, I haven't actually used either of these. But from the literature I have seen on X-CAD, it is only 2D. I don't know about ultracad. I would like to try X-CAD, because I have heard good thing about it, but given a choice between AutoCAD and X-CAD, ACAD would win for me. AutoCAD might seem hard to use to many people at first, but it's really nice once you get it set up the way you want it. It starts out very basic. What you get when you first install it is great for mechanical drafting, but not very good for Archetectural or Electrical. But you can buy (or write) custom overlays, menus and macros that make ACAD a breeze for both Arch and Elect. There are dozen's of books available on customizing and using ACAD, and it's not very difficult. If you can write a basic program you can figure out how to customize ACAD. The menus (pulldown, and digitizer tablet overlay) are just text files. They list macros, so when you select a certain pull-down menu option or select a particular area of the tablet, it merely invokes a chain of ACAD commands. For instance, to insert a Diode into my drawing, I have a little drawing of a diode on my tablet. When I select that square on the tablet, the tablet processor sends 'INSERT DIODE' to ACAD. I then have a ghost of a diode on my crosshairs that I drag around to where I want to insert it. It's very simple. It also has it's own programming language called AutoLISP for writing more complex ACAD functions. You can use AutoLISP to write your own commands. None of the Amiga CAD programs are this flexible. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Mixed Emotions: When you see your mother-in-law back over a cliff in your new Mercedes Benz.
tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (05/12/89)
cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes:/ 1:15 pm May 10, 1989 / >In article <607@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >>If AutoCAD came >>to the Amiga, it would blow away any existing CAD software on the Amiga. >What about X-Cad and Ultra-cad? I've heard very good things about them, >but never seen one. Are there any amiga cad programs with decent (i.e. >enter in 3-view) 3D capabilities? Good autodimensioning? Good print >quality? Intro-cad has nice printing, but misses out on some basic >stuff, like dimensioning, or fills, or 3D, or good rotation, or ... > > -- Jim > cthulhu@athena.mit.edu >---------- I'm an XCad owner/user. I find it to be very good at what it is supposed to do. That does _not_ include any 3-D at this time. It does autodimensioning, very good printing/plotting. I have lots of good things to say about its capabilities, and some bad things to say about a few areas as well. I don't want to take up a whole lot of net bandwidth on it; suffice it to say it is by far the best cad I have seen on the Amiga, available now, not at some unknown time in the future. It is _not_ a freehand drawing program; it is designed for technical 2-D drafting of all sorts. It offers very accurate control of placement of and manipulation of a variety of entities. It is (from my experience) exceptionally guru-free, and it does almost everything I've asked it to the way I expected it to (my list of features that don't work I can count on the fingers of one hand; for the number of features it has, I am quite satisfied.) There is a review of it in the latest Amiga World; I thought that review was extremely short-sighted. I had the impression that the reviewer either made up his mind early on that he wasn't going to like it, or he was trying to do something with it that it never was intended to do. I have found such CAD programs take some time to learn at all, let alone learn to use efficiently, and I don't think he gave it a chance. For example, XCad is very fast at screen redraws. The reviewer complained about how long it took to zoom out and back in at a different place (because of the number of keystrokes/mouse picks, not because of screen redraw rate). But I do that _VERY_ quickly by defining some views and having a custom screen menu to pick them. The reviewer never got that far... I do agree with the reviewer on: lack of an index in the manual and _very_ poor interface with the file system. On almost all his other points, I take mild to strong exception. Getting back toward the base note: I think that the CAD situation on the Amiga is likely to be similar to that expressed in the WordPerfect notes. Amigas have not found their place in business applications. What is the incentive for AutoCad to be ported to Amy? How many people would buy it, even at 1/2 the PC-edition price? I'd guess maybe a few dozen. If I were the manager responsible for making the decision to port it to Amy or not, and I were graded on profitability, I'd run from it, screaming! Tom Bruhns tomb%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/16/89)
Access Technologies has a program that will take a .DXF file and translate it
into sculpt-animate file format so you can now ray-trace 3D autocad drawings.
I am in the process of buying the ACAD Translator, and will review it when I
have played with it for a while. In the meantime, has anyone else out there
had any experience with it (I know some guys in Holland do, they are the ones
who pointed it out to me, Thanks!)? If we can't have AutoCAD, at least
we can outdo AutoShade (AutoDesk's solid modeller)! We can even do animations
of AutoCAD drawings.
--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.dave@dms3b1.UUCP (Dave Hanna) (05/22/89)
In article <5160034@hplsla.HP.COM> tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) writes: > Amigas have not found their place in business >applications. What is the incentive for AutoCad to be ported to >Amy? How many people would buy it, even at 1/2 the PC-edition >price? I'd guess maybe a few dozen. If I were the manager responsible >for making the decision to port it to Amy or not, and I were graded ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >on profitability, I'd run from it, screaming! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Okay, possibly dumb idea here, but what if some of us whiz-bang program- ming types were to approach the product managers at some of these companies, (and I'm not just talking AutoCAD, but all the business areas that we don't have adequate representation.) with a proposal that they license their source code to us, we port to the Amiga, give it back to them to sell, we get a percentage of Amiga sales. For the product manager, it's a no-lose situation. Bingo, increase market penetration, zero upfront expenditure, all pure profit . Of course, we who believe in the Amiga and would be doing the work would be substantially at risk, but, hey, that's what free-enterprise is about. Any guesses as to what kind of a reaction we might get with such an approach? Other variants: license the code to us, we'll port it, AND sell it, AND support it, and pay them a (small) percentage of sales. That get's around the objection that "We still have to train our people to sell it and support it". >Tom Bruhns Dave Hanna -- Dave Hanna, Infotouch Systems, Inc. | "Do or do not -- There is no try" P.O. Box 584, Bedford, TX 76095 | - Yoda (214) 358-4534 (817) 540-1524 | UUCP: ...!killer!gtmvax!dave |
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (05/25/89)
In article <5160034@hplsla.HP.COM> tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) writes: >applications. What is the incentive for AutoCad to be ported to >Amy? How many people would buy it, even at 1/2 the PC-edition >price? I'd guess maybe a few dozen. If I were the manager responsible >for making the decision to port it to Amy or not, and I were graded ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >on profitability, I'd run from it, screaming! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Agreed, AutoCad is much too expensive to ever be sold on more than a few Amigas. On the other hand (as I have mentioned before) the Amiga would probably be an excellent market for GenericCad. It's cheap enough to fit well withing the Amiga market & has enough capabilities to meet most needs. I realize that Commodore doesn't seem to want the Amiga to penetrate the real hi-resolution applications markets, but I still think that there would be enough sales to justify it. I know several people who would buy an implementation of GenericCad for the Amiga and I'm not really looking, just hear such in passing. It would need to be a full implementation of course, but... Kent Polk
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/25/89)
<199@dms3b1.UUCP>
Sender:
Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To:
Distribution: na
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords: Amiga port business software
In article <199@dms3b1.UUCP> dave@dms3b1.UUCP (Dave Hanna) writes:
" Okay, possibly dumb idea here, but what if some of us whiz-bang program-
"ming types were to approach the product managers at some of these companies,
"(and I'm not just talking AutoCAD, but all the business areas that we don't
"have adequate representation.) with a proposal that they license their
"source code to us, we port to the Amiga, give it back to them to sell,
"we get a percentage of Amiga sales.
I am afraid that most of these companies would not license their software to
anyone outside of their company. From their viewpoint it would be too risky to
let some outside programmer get a copy of their source code.
If I was AutoDesk and some programmers who I never heard of approached me with
such a plan, I would politely tell them that I was sorry, but the source code
is confidential and that I couldn't consider their plan at this time.
--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
I despise the pleasure of pleasing people whom I despise.tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (05/26/89)
dave@dms3b1.UUCP (Dave Hanna) writes: >In article <5160034@hplsla.HP.COM> tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) writes: >> Amigas have not found their place in business >>applications. What is the incentive for AutoCad to be ported to >>Amy? How many people would buy it, even at 1/2 the PC-edition >>price? I'd guess maybe a few dozen. If I were the manager responsible >>for making the decision to port it to Amy or not, and I were graded > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>on profitability, I'd run from it, screaming! >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Okay, possibly dumb idea here, but what if some of us whiz-bang program- >ming types were to approach the product managers at some of these companies, >(and I'm not just talking AutoCAD, but all the business areas that we don't >have adequate representation.) with a proposal that they license their >source code to us, we port to the Amiga, give it back to them to sell, >we get a percentage of Amiga sales. For the product manager, it's a no-lose >situation. Bingo, increase market penetration, zero upfront expenditure, >all pure profit . Of course, we who believe in the Amiga and would be >doing the work would be substantially at risk, but, hey, that's what >free-enterprise is about. > >Any guesses as to what kind of a reaction we might get with such an approach? > >Other variants: license the code to us, we'll port it, AND sell it, AND >support it, and pay them a (small) percentage of sales. That get's around >the objection that "We still have to train our people to sell it and support >it". > >>Tom Bruhns > > Dave Hanna >-- >Dave Hanna, Infotouch Systems, Inc. | "Do or do not -- There is no try" >P.O. Box 584, Bedford, TX 76095 | - Yoda >(214) 358-4534 (817) 540-1524 | >UUCP: ...!killer!gtmvax!dave | >---------- Dave -- and others -- I think you have a good idea here. But be aware that the marketing costs can indeed be a very significant portion of the total costs. And a lot of what makes a professional program great, IMHO, is the support: making sure the bugs get fixed, making sure the customers get the fixes, making sure the customers are aware of the latest-greatest, and the list goes on and on. I recall before Excellence! was released, I was given the opportunity to buy it from MSS for a really good price because I was a Scribble! owner. I wouldn't touch it because MSS had just essentially spat in my face when I wrote a direct but non-flaming letter complaining about the problems I was having with Scribble!, which included _loosing_data_ -- an unpardonable sin in my eyes. WordPerfect, on the other hand, has my full respect for their support of their product. But it costs them a lot to do that. Now what if you take on the support of, let's say, AmigaGenericCad. How will you be able to support not only your port but all the additional things that PCGenericCad is doing? Do you give the customer two phone numbers, one for GenericGenericCad issues and one for AmigaSpecificGen- ericCad issues? Or do you try to do it all yourself? I really think it's a nice idea, but I do think you will have lots of work ahead of you to pull it off smoothly. And if I owned the rights to the base program, I would want some assurances you had both the plan and ability to do it, because I wouldn't want my product screwed up by someone I had little control over... I guess the bottom line is, why don't you pick a product to try this with and put together a proposal to actually do it? Make sure the proposal is a good one, because if the parent organization thinks it has little enough merit, you will probably be invited to not come back. There's something else to be considered: how many of the professionally- accepted programs on PCs or maybe even Macs would you be able to port into the Amiga and have them really look like Amiga programs while also retaining all the best of the originals? It seems to me WP suffered from this quite a bit; although I like WP on the Amiga, I know a lot of folk that do NOT. And I would agree that it isn't amiga-ized very heavily. Cheers, Tom Bruhns tomb%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com
tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (05/26/89)
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: > >Agreed, AutoCad is much too expensive to ever be sold on more than a few >Amigas. On the other hand (as I have mentioned before) the Amiga would >probably be an excellent market for GenericCad. It's cheap enough to fit >well withing the Amiga market & has enough capabilities to meet most needs. > >I realize that Commodore doesn't seem to want the Amiga to penetrate >the real hi-resolution applications markets, but I still think that >there would be enough sales to justify it. I know several people who >would buy an implementation of GenericCad for the Amiga and I'm not >really looking, just hear such in passing. > >It would need to be a full implementation of course, but... > >Kent Polk >---------- Have you tried XCad? I know the AmigaWorld review wasn't very complementary, but I went through it this weekend and found that I could agree with only two of the reviewer's points. I did write to AmigaWorld with a detailed complaint; hope to hear from them. I use XCad regularly and find it very good for the 2-D tasks it was intended for. I think the price won't be that different from GenericCad if you add in all the GenericCad modules you need to make it really work. I haven't personally used GenericCad, but when I compared capabilities with a colleague that owns it, I found I could do a whole lot of things he couldn't... Cheers, Tom Bruhns tomb%hplsla@hplabs.hp.com
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (05/29/89)
in article <5160038@hplsla.HP.COM>, tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) says: > dave@dms3b1.UUCP (Dave Hanna) writes: >>In article <5160034@hplsla.HP.COM> tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) writes: >>> Amigas have not found their place in business >>>applications. What is the incentive for AutoCad to be ported to >>>Amy? How many people would buy it, even at 1/2 the PC-edition >>>price? I'd guess maybe a few dozen. >> Okay, possibly dumb idea here, but what if some of us whiz-bang program- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>ming types ^^^^^^^^^^^ Whiz-bang programming types generally are pretty crappy as far as running a business goes. At least, I am. Yes, I tried it. Yes, I discovered that it's harder than it looks. Manufacturing and shipping on decent schedules was a constant battle. Inventory management and, for that matter, decent accounting (needed to satisfy everybody from the local schoolboard to the IRS), were a problem for folks with no management background. Then there was selling... you open AmigaVoid and look at the glossy ads, but have you ever wondered how they get there? Who drew those garish pictures? Who laid out the text in pleasing fonts in readable sizes, in a manner that looked professional instead of as if it were done by a bunch of amateur back room hackers? How did all this mess get to the magazine? (answer: commercial artists are best bet for professional looking results). Then there's the phone calls from the customers. Usually, their questions are easily answered, e.g., "Step 9 of the configuration processon page 34 says you need to do this and this. Did you?" (usual answer: "No."). Staying cordial becomes a necessary chore. Don't count on doing any programming, in other words, if you're going to run a business. It's an 80 hour per week job. No thank you, I'll stick to programming. It don't pay as well, but it's a steady job, and I enjoy it more. You don't need to have a degree in management to run a business. In fact, a normal BS degree in management is likely to be a hinderance ;-) (most programs I've seen have Accounting in them, which is useful to know, but DON'T have production management or marketing in them, which are much more useful). But you do have to enjoy that kind of work, and have some prerequisite skills, if you wish to make your product a success. Most programmers I've seen would rather be sitting at their computer keyboard. >>were to approach the product managers at some of these companies, >>(and I'm not just talking AutoCAD, but all the business areas that we don't >>have adequate representation.) with a proposal that they license their >>source code to us, we port to the Amiga, Porting is easy, and fairly cheap. Selling it can get expensive cheap. Then there's support... I haven't priced ads in Amiga magazines. I recall, though, that a quarter-page ad in RUN Magazine costed a couple of thousand dollars (this was back in the hayday of the C-64)/. >>Any guesses as to what kind of a reaction we might get with such an approach? > I really think it's a nice idea, but I do think you will have lots of > work ahead of you to pull it off smoothly. And if I owned the rights > to the base program, I would want some assurances you had both the > plan and ability to do it, because I wouldn't want my product screwed > up by someone I had little control over... > I guess the bottom line is, why don't you pick a product to try this > with and put together a proposal to actually do it? Make sure the > proposal is a good one, because if the parent organization thinks it > has little enough merit, you will probably be invited to not come back. Point a) Get a management/marketing type to draw up explicit plans for business organization, marketing and support. There are books in bookstores to help you do it yourself. But if you do, check with a professional to make sure that you haven't committed some horribly amateurish gaffe. Point b) Find a source of financing to assure the success of those plans. This is likely to be not insignificant, probably six figures. If the company you approach is convinced that your group has both the technical and management expertise to effectively sell and support the program, and access to the funds to back up the brave words, I can see no reason they wouldn't be receptive. Except, possibly, qualms about their source code making it into a competitor's clutches... -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 "I have seen or heard "designer of the 68000" attached to so many names that I can only guess that the 68000 was produced by Cecil B. DeMile."
dbk@teroach.UUCP (Dave Kinzer) (06/03/89)
In article <8221@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: [many fine words on the importance of running a business right] >Porting is easy, and fairly cheap. Selling it can get expensive cheap. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just doing the minimum modifications and bringing the product to the Amiga market will result in having your product panned in the press. Anything less than a full rewrite of the program will have people up in arms against you. Look at Wordperfect. Heck, they even added Amiga menus to their product. I thought it was nicely done, too. Yea, I'm doing a port also. Let's just say it's a complete rewrite. Based on my expectation of sales, I am not ready to give up my "real" job. It pays a LOT better. >-- > Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 > ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 > "I have seen or heard "designer of the 68000" attached to so many >names that I can only guess that the 68000 was produced by Cecil B. DeMile." | // GOATS - Gladly Offering All Their Support Dave Kinzer (602)897-3085| | // >> In Hell you need 4Mb to Multitask! << uunet!mcdphx!teroach!dbk | | \X/ #define policy_maker(name) (name->salary > 3 * dave.salary) |