GIGUERE@WATCSG.BITNET (Eric Giguere) (03/02/89)
That's right, pick up the latest Byte (March 89) and turn to page 110:
"The Amiga 2000 is now good enough for most things you'd like a
computer for .... the whole software base is expanding rapidly."
Then he talks about some software developed by the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Centre that he finds impressive. Apparently they use
2000's for a bunch of stuff. Anyone know exactly what software he's
talking about?
Mr. Pournelle has finally recognized us. I guess we can all sleep in
peace now.
Eric Giguere
Computer Systems Group, University of Waterloo
BITNET: GIGUERE@WATCSG Other: giguere@watcsg.UWaterloo.CA
UUNET : watcsg!giguere@uunet.UU.NETrokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) (03/02/89)
> Then he talks about some software developed by the Stanford Linear > Accelerator Centre that he finds impressive. Apparently they use > 2000's for a bunch of stuff. Anyone know exactly what software he's > talking about? The major programs SLAC uses are: VLT, redistributable terminal program by Willy Langeveld with wonderful ARexx port, Tek graphics, vt100. ARexx/WShell by William Hawes (commercial). rexxarplib/rexxmathlib, redistributable ARexx libraries that provide support for general Intuition and other ROM calls and a full set of math functions, by Willy Langeveld. TxED Plus, by Charlie Heath (commercial). AmigaTeX, by Radical Eye Software (commercial). Conman, by William Hawes (redistributable). ARexx macros and coordination by Marvin Weinstein. I hope I haven't forgotten any! It's a very impressive environment, especially with the wonderful ARexx macros by Marvin Weinstein. -tom
karl@sugar.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/02/89)
In article <8903011852.AA16426@jade.berkeley.edu>, GIGUERE@WATCSG.BITNET (Eric Giguere) writes: > Mr. Pournelle has finally recognized us. I guess we can all sleep in > peace now. No. If Mr. Pournelle has finally recognized us, it could mean we're about to become (shudder)... trendy. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl | "Everyone has a purpose in life. Perhaps yours is -- karl@sugar.uu.net | watching television." -- David Letterman -- Usenet BBS (713) 438-5018
sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) (03/03/89)
In article <7302@polya.Stanford.EDU> rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) writes: > rexxarplib/rexxmathlib, redistributable ARexx libraries > that provide support for general Intuition and > other ROM calls and a full set of math functions, > by Willy Langeveld. > ARexx macros and coordination by Marvin Weinstein. These things sound super! Where can I find out more about them? How can I obtain them? (I own ARexx v1.04.) Steven Litvintchouk MITRE Corporation Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 Fone: (617)271-7753 ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa UUCP: ...{att,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl "Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.
simon@copper.columbia.edu (Thor Simon) (03/04/89)
Flame on: In case the esteemed Mr. Pournelle hadn't noticed a bit earlier, the amiga was "Sufficient for most things you would use a computer for" several years ago. In fact, it has been and continues to be quite a bit more sufficient than an IBM... I suppose the argument goes that there just wasn't/isn't enough software availiable, though God knows I've just never seen the merit of that argument. What mundane, "Typical-user" task can you do on an IBM that you can't do on a far less expensive amiga system? And you can do _lots_ of fun stuff on an amiga (read games, creatitivity work, multitasking, Dnet, etc.) that you can't do on any IBM...
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (03/06/89)
In article <6193@columbia.edu> simon@copper.UUCP (Thor Simon) writes: > In case the esteemed Mr. Pournelle hadn't noticed a bit earlier, the >amiga was "Sufficient for most things you would use a computer for" >several years ago. [ ... ] >What mundane, >"Typical-user" task can you do on an IBM that you can't do on a far >less expensive amiga system? [ ... ] Spreadsheets. Word processing. Financial planning. Accounting. Stock market-type software. BBS software. Local area networks. CAD. Printed circuit layout. Circuit simulation. Lord knows it pains me to say this, but if you need to do any of those things, you'll be able to find what you want faster for the PC. And the chances are that you'll have a much better selection of software to do one of those things than you would have if you wanted to do it on the Amiga. Notice that I didn't put Desktop publishing or Desktop video or Games up there. You want Desktop publishing? You go to Apple. You want Desktop video, you come to us. You want Games? You go to Nintendo (unless you have a bit more to spend, in which case you might come to us). _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU I had to try_this at least__once. With apologies__to__Jerry Carathers. _/_\ |\/| | /_' _/_\ | (__ |\/| \ / | | |_ |_ / \ | | | (__) / \ | ___) | | | |__ | | |__
dbk@teroach.UUCP (Dave Kinzer) (03/07/89)
In article <10901@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > > Spreadsheets. Word processing. Financial planning. Accounting. >Stock market-type software. BBS software. Local area networks. CAD. >Printed circuit layout. Circuit simulation. > > Lord knows it pains me to say this, but if you need to do any of >those things, you'll be able to find what you want faster for the PC. And On the other hand... If you want to run a Spreadsheet, Word Processor, Financial Planner, Accounting Package, Stock Market Analyzer, BBS, LAN, and CAD Package while you are simulating and laying out your PC board, you know what machine can do it (and which can't.) >Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU <cute new sig, Leo> | // 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) |
yuan@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Yuan 'Hacker' Chang) (03/07/89)
In article <10901@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > > Notice that I didn't put Desktop publishing or Desktop video or >Games up there. You want Desktop publishing? You go to Apple. You want >Desktop video, you come to us. You want Games? You go to Nintendo (unless >you have a bit more to spend, in which case you might come to us). I showed Battle Chess, Hybris, and Dragon's Lair to a friend who has more than a hundred games for his Nintendo (his unit is from Japan, so he has lot neater games than what's sold in the States). You should have seen my friend drool... So for games, you come to us. Unless, of course, that you travel to Japan fairly often. In which case you go to NEC and buy their wonderful PC-Engine (that what they call it) with the CD-ROM drive... -- Yuan Chang "What can go wrong, did" UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!yuan ARPA: uhccux!yuan@nosc.MIL "Wouldn't you like to INTERNET: yuan@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu be an _A_m_i_g_o_i_d too?!?"
donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) (03/08/89)
In article <10901@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <6193@columbia.edu> simon@copper.UUCP (Thor Simon) writes: >>What mundane, >>"Typical-user" task can you do on an IBM that you can't do on a far >>less expensive amiga system? [ ... ] > Notice that I didn't put Desktop publishing or Desktop video or >Games up there. You want Desktop publishing? You go to Apple. You want >Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Leo, don't we have a solid base of desktop publishing programs available now? I seem to remember hearing about some desktop publishing progs available for the Amiga that may even be better than what the Mac has to offer. Don [no cape and therefore devoid of distinguishing features :-) ] White "I dare say, has our champion stumbled?" - Nobody in particular
simon@copper.columbia.edu (Thor Simon) (03/08/89)
Ouch! Thank you Leo for the probably well-deserved flame-out... Unfortunately the mention of Jerry P makes me see red, and especially with a statement like that which implies that the amiga was, until his decree, sufficient for _nothing_... My real point, as I see it, was that although you may not be able to do them as well, you really _can_ do most things (I DON'T count a lot of those (circuit design and analysis, LANs, etc.) as typical-user tasks) that you would use an IBM for on an Amiga, although you may not have quite as much choice how...(Who NEEDS 300 different wordprocessors?!) --Me? Know what I'm talking about? Scandalous!!
daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) (03/09/89)
> Lord knows it pains me to say this, but if you need to do any of > Notice that I didn't put Desktop publishing or Desktop video or >Games up there. You want Desktop publishing? You go to Apple. You want ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This one REALLY pains me. I really do not understand why the AMIGA has not yet been used to do decent Desktop Publishing. It seems to me as though the required hardware is there or available, but the software to do it is a joke. I'm sure there MUST be a good reason -- I just can't imagine what it is. Dave S.
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (03/09/89)
In article <794@zehntel.UUCP> donw@zehntel.UUCP (Don White) writes: >In article <10901@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >> Notice that I didn't put Desktop publishing or Desktop video or >>Games up there. You want Desktop publishing? You go to Apple. [ ... ] > > Leo, don't we have a solid base of desktop publishing programs > available now? [ ... ] Not as far as I'm concerned. We may have a few neat parlor tricks, but the Mac is already entrenched. The Mac was a paper-generator since Day One. As such, the desktop publishing technology and software is more mature on the Mac. Realize, of course, that this is merely my perception; I don't have hard evidence to back this up. However, I don't think I have yet seen a document processor that puts MacWrite to shame (although Brown-Wagh's PenPal looks darned impressive). _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
griff@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) (03/11/89)
did you guys miss his little blurb in January? something about "the
Amiga will do things a PC will never do" !?!? Someone mentioned to
me that ol' JP is really hung on his Kaypro... Maybe his "stamp of
approval" isn't something to be delighted with?
- griff
--
* Richard E. Griffith * "...The game never ends when your whole *
* "griff" * world depends on the turn of a friendly *
* BiiN, Hillsboro Ore. * card." - Alan Parsons *
**************************************************************************
* ARPA: <@intel-iwarp.arpa:griff@intelob> *
* UUCP: ...[!uunet]!tektronix!biin!griff *
* These opinions are mine only, `cuz nobody'd pay for drivel like this! *raw@mcnc.org (Russell Williams) (03/11/89)
In article <10901@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > In article <6193@columbia.edu> simon@copper.UUCP (Thor Simon) writes: > >"Typical-user" task can you do on an IBM that you can't do on a far > >less expensive amiga system? [ ... ] > > Spreadsheets. Word processing. Financial planning. Accounting. > Lord knows it pains me to say this, but if you need to do any of > those things, you'll be able to find what you want faster for the PC. And > the chances are that you'll have a much better selection of software to do > one of those things than you would have if you wanted to do it on the Amiga. Word processing? I have to agree with the other things you mentioned, (some that were listed were deleted), but word processing? What about Word Perfect? I defy you to show me a better word processor on the IBM than Word Perfect. I thought Word Perfect on the IBM was the best wp for it, but the Amiga version is definitely better through the inclusion of the menus. This is not the software's fault, it's the hardware the software has to work with. I used to tease a friend of mine about using MicroSoft Word on the Mac. I talked about how bad it was, and he would just say, "I don't think it's that bad." Well, I finally tried out Word on the Mac, and it didn't even resemble Word on the PC. The difference was just astonishing. I used to hate Word, but that was when it was on the PC. To sum up, I don't believe the IBM has any claim to wordprocessing poweragainst the Amiga or the Mac. The superior graphics with the menu interface combine to form a better piece of hardware on which to run wordprocessors. Russell Williams
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (03/11/89)
In article <10923@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >> Leo, don't we have a solid base of desktop publishing programs >> available now? [ ... ] > > Not as far as I'm concerned. We may have a few neat parlor tricks, >but the Mac is already entrenched. The Mac was a paper-generator since Day >One. As such, the desktop publishing technology and software is more mature >on the Mac. > > Realize, of course, that this is merely my perception; I don't have >hard evidence to back this up. However, I don't think I have yet seen a >document processor that puts MacWrite to shame (although Brown-Wagh's PenPal >looks darned impressive). Part of this is the Mac's clipboard. This makes integration of artwork and text, and import of text, very easy. We in theory have the same ability, but few people support the clipboard device (bad developers, bad! :-) (That's just a joke!)). Another thing that helps them is a more widespread use of fonts in programs. We should be making it easier on people to integrate font support in 1.4. Their textedit stuff is part of this too, and lastly quickdraw and the PICT standard - drawing commands can be done in max resolution, as opposed to IFF ILBM bitmaps. Of course, Apple making a postscript laser printer doesn't hurt them, either. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (03/11/89)
In article <6206@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
) Of course, Apple making a postscript laser printer doesn't hurt them,
)either.
In fact, I think it's the main reason. Also, providing font substitution
support in the system helps. Perhaps another big reason is focusing on
black-and-white.
Also, having QuickDraw made draw programs a lot easier to support, and provided
a structured draw interchange format that makes for lots nicer illustrations
than ILBM IFF images. I believe that many of the QD constructs convert
to PS in a hi-res way, unlike ILBM.
Also, making it clear that the target audience of the system was the
office user rather than the home user might help encourage a major developer
to have a wack at it. Our current DTP is probably about as good as the
first releases of Mac DTP was. That is to say, it takes time, people,
experience, and money to do the hard stuff right. Release 1 of someone's
first DTP program is like using release 1 of a compiler (or an OS, for that
matter): not too satisfying.
The VP of CBM Marketing, as well as Max Toy, president CBM, said that
the business market will not be attacked in a general way in a "shotgun" approach,
rather, some (unspecified) "pinpoint" niches will be attacked. That means
no focus on DTP by the vendor, as I read it. Of course, that VP is gone now ...
In summary, I think DTP, like most other areas, is something that the
vendor must target and develop a strategy for, including the technical
pieces such as a suitable text processing model, and it hasn't happened.
Putting together a bundle with Gold Disk doesn't seem to cut the nut.
It will be interesting to see if Atari has any success with their "complete
solution" which includes a printer and PS interpreter.
jimm
Note the disclaimer well, please.
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing "Like you said when we crawled down
{cbmvax,well,oliveb}!amiga!jimm from the trees: We're in transition."
- Gang of Four
Opinions are my own. Comments are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (03/11/89)
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: > Another thing that helps them is a more widespread use of fonts in > programs. We should be making it easier on people to integrate font support > in 1.4. Their textedit stuff is part of this too, and lastly quickdraw and the > PICT standard - drawing commands can be done in max resolution, as opposed to > IFF ILBM bitmaps. Why haven't the companies who make DTP products for the Amiga get together and develop a similar structured drawing format for the Amiga? Surely they realize that standardizing around IFF ILBM didn't hurt the graphics/video people. The Amiga also needs a "text.library", which provides high-level support for managing fonts and text handling besides console devices (essentially terminal emulation) and Text() (very low-level). A toolbox.library, containing some standardized high-level user interface widgets for Intuition wouldn't hurt either. -- Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University INET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu / BITNET: mp1u+@andrew UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ "You just don't get off a spaceship and run." --Avon
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (03/12/89)
In article <3606@amiga.UUCP>, jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes:
$
$ Also, making it clear that the target audience of the system was the
$ office user rather than the home user might help encourage a major developer
$ to have a wack at it. Our current DTP is probably about as good as the
$ first releases of Mac DTP was. That is to say, it takes time, people,
$ experience, and money to do the hard stuff right. Release 1 of someone's
$ first DTP program is like using release 1 of a compiler (or an OS, for that
$ matter): not too satisfying.
$
$ The VP of CBM Marketing, as well as Max Toy, president CBM, said that
$ the business market will not be attacked in a general way in a "shotgun" approach,
$ rather, some (unspecified) "pinpoint" niches will be attacked. That means
$ no focus on DTP by the vendor, as I read it. Of course, that VP is gone now ...
$
$ In summary, I think DTP, like most other areas, is something that the
$ vendor must target and develop a strategy for, including the technical
$ pieces such as a suitable text processing model, and it hasn't happened.
$
$ Note the disclaimers well!
$
$ Opinions are my own. Comments are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.
Perhaps by some it may be taken as bad form, but let me recall to you
and other csa readers that back about a year or perhaps a little more
ago, C= was making noises about how it had targeted the DTP market
and was about to release a full featured high end turnkey DTP system.
They supposedly even showed off a prototype at some west coast
exhibition. It was about the same time as Atari announced their Laser
printer. I remember it was written up in an article in Computer Shopper
and possibly (Byte?). Of course as with many promises in this industry,
they haven't delivered.karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/12/89)
I have flamed Jerry P. a few times in this forum, but I just got done reading his remarks that the 2000 is "the most improved computer" and he's got some valid points (although he did give "Most Useful Computer" to yet another stupid PC clone.) For one thing, FFS came out in '88. I got about 10X better performance... that's a major improvment to say the least. For another thing, if you have a 2090A controller as Jerry does, you can autoboot from your hard drive. This was new in '88. Granted, it's not that big a deal, but it was an omission, and it was something about every other machine could do, so it gave ammunition to anyone wanting to take potshots at Our Beloved. Finally, he mentions that software is coming around, that Word Perfect is available for the Ami, and the the Stanford Linear Accelerator people are doing supercool things with their Amis. It's about the fourth column in a row from him that says entirely good things about the Amiga, whereas before he always included some major bashing. Congrats and thanks to Commodore for giving him a hot machine and Joanne Dow, et al, for holding his hand. He *is* a loose cannon, but you guys have at least got him pointed in the right general direction. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl | "Everyone has a purpose in life. Perhaps yours is -- | watching television." -- David Letterman -- Usenet BBS (713) 438-5018
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (03/13/89)
In article <4166@alvin.mcnc.org> raw@mcnc.org (Russell Williams) writes: >In article <10901@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >> In article <6193@columbia.edu> simon@copper.UUCP (Thor Simon) writes: >> >"Typical-user" task can you do on an IBM that you can't do on a far >> >less expensive amiga system? [ ... ] >> >> Spreadsheets. Word processing. Financial planning. Accounting. > > Word processing? I have to agree with the other things you mentioned, >(some that were listed were deleted), but word processing? What about Word >Perfect? What if you don't *like* WordPerfetc? What else can you get for the Amiga? Excellence? Ok, what else? Scribble?... Now, what can you get for the IBM? WordPerfetc. But you don't like that, so what else is there? Microsoft Word, WordStar, Write, Perfect Word (Perfect Write?), ... and probably a zillion others I can't remember. The point is that there's a much broader spectrum of stuff to choose from on the PeeCee than there is on the Amiga. And while WordPerfetc is good, you can't please all the people, and those who aren't pleased will want alternatives. The Amiga doesn't have as many. Yet. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) (03/14/89)
>My real point, as I see it, was that although you may not be able to >do them as well, you really _can_ do most things (I DON'T count a lot However -- as with Desk Top Publishing if you can't do it well enough to produce professional quality documents then it's just as good as not being able to do it at all. Case and point - the output from Pagesetter. Dave S.
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (03/14/89)
In article <3616@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: [...lots of reasonable stuff deleted...] >It's about the fourth column in a row from him that says entirely good things >about the Amiga, whereas before he always included some major bashing. Just for the record, the Mac got just about the same treatment from Jerry. He bashed it for months--he liked the idea, but hated the implimentation. Drew a lot of flames from the "MacTribesmen", as he called them. Then Apple made some improvements and MicroSoft came out with Excel, and Jerry got religion. Now he'll tolertate all sorts of atrocities from the beige toaster. >Congrats and thanks to Commodore for giving him a hot machine and Joanne Dow, >et al, for holding his hand. He *is* a loose cannon, but you guys have at >least got him pointed in the right general direction. Yes--good job, folks. Once Jerry decides something is worthwhile, he usually sticks to it fairly stubbornly. So, hopefully we'll be seeing more praise for the Amiga from JP from now on. -Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley)
dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (03/15/89)
In article <2030163@hpcilzb.HP.COM>, daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) writes: > >Games up there. You want Desktop publishing? You go to Apple. You want > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This one REALLY pains me. I really do not understand why the AMIGA has not > yet been used to do decent Desktop Publishing. It seems to me as though the > required hardware is there or available, but the software to do it is a joke. > > I'm sure there MUST be a good reason -- I just can't imagine what it is. > > Dave S. Well, I picked up a copy of AmigoTimes this past weekend and it says was created on Commodore Amiga with the aid of the following tools ... I'm far from a DTP nut, in fact I generally am totally disinterested in the subject. However, the mag looked pretty damn nice to me. I'd be interested in what you consider 'decent' DTP. For that matter even if the Amiga software was on par with the Apple environment due to Apple's established rep in document processing and DTP most people would still go with them. David Albrecht
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (03/17/89)
In article <6206@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: >in 1.4. Their textedit stuff is part of this too, and lastly quickdraw and the >PICT standard - drawing commands can be done in max resolution, as opposed to ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ >IFF ILBM bitmaps. which does bring up the obvious question: why did this never happen on the amiga? inertia? opposition somewhere? Will it ever happen on the amiga? Just curious ... ron