joseph@garfield.MUN.EDU (Joseph Dawson) (12/14/88)
Duplicate your EMPTY folder/directory. Open the EMPTY folder and place the COPY OF EMPTY in the EMPTY folder. Then open up the COPY OF EMPTY folder. Place EMPTY in the COPY OF EMPTY folder. Now close all windows. You have just lost your EMPTY and COPY OF EMPTY folders for ever. I am not 100% sure but I think if you had a 100K file in the folder when you tried this that you would have 100K that you could not use again until you did a FORMAT. Other things that should be in 1.4 LOADWB. When you are in 640X400 make my ICONS LONGER! Also let me use any font I want in WorkBench. With a pull down menu or something that you can set in the LOADWB command. Also put a stop button in the Duplicate command, and a % done in the Duplicate command. Joseph. I wish the people who make WorkBench used it! But they use the CLI, all the time. I want a WorkBench that is so good Programmers will want to use it over the CLI.
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (12/16/88)
From article <5031@garfield.MUN.EDU>, by joseph@garfield.MUN.EDU (Joseph Dawson): > Other things that should be in 1.4 LOADWB. When you are in 640X400 > make my ICONS LONGER! Nah, don't make the icons longer. I like being able to get twice as many icons on the side of the screen as I can in non-interlace mode. Besides, once you get used to an interlace Workbench screen those long skinny icons look funny. --Fabbian Dufoe 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 813-823-2350 UUCP: ...codas!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3 ...uunet!pdn!jc3b21!fgd3
disd@hubcap.UUCP (Gary Heffelfinger) (12/17/88)
From article <521@jc3b21.UUCP>, by fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe): > From article <5031@garfield.MUN.EDU>, by joseph@garfield.MUN.EDU (Joseph Dawson): >> Other things that should be in 1.4 LOADWB. When you are in 640X400 >> make my ICONS LONGER! > > Nah, don't make the icons longer. I like being able to get twice as > many icons on the side of the screen as I can in non-interlace mode. > Besides, once you get used to an interlace Workbench screen those long > skinny icons look funny. Okay, so how about leaving the interlaced icons as tall as they are now, but making them a little skinnier, so that they don't look so squat. Gary -- Gary R Heffelfinger - Not speaking for Clemson University disd@hubcap.clemson.edu -- FIX the Holodeck --
me128-aw@kepler.Berkeley.EDU (me128 student) (12/19/88)
In article <521@jc3b21.UUCP> fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) writes: >From article <5031@garfield.MUN.EDU>, by joseph@garfield.MUN.EDU (Joseph Dawson): >> Other things that should be in 1.4 LOADWB. When you are in 640X400 >> make my ICONS LONGER! > > Nah, don't make the icons longer. I like being able to get twice as >many icons on the side of the screen as I can in non-interlace mode. >Besides, once you get used to an interlace Workbench screen those long >skinny icons look funny. > >--Fabbian Dufoe Naw! don't stretch the icons, make them thinner! Stretching them negates any benefit from the interlaced workbench in the first place. If you stretch them, then all your disks have to be re-organized. Instead, squeeze them horizontally. I have found that this works well in WARPbench, especially since amiga icons tend to be large and gaudy anyway. Of course, the crunching must be intelligent, with some kind of color precedence, so icons with vertical lines maintain their symmetry. Crunched icons really make the Workbench "Professional" looking, even better than some certain Fruity computer we know; REALLY! -Vincent H. Lee
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (12/19/88)
In article <27171@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> me128-aw@kepler.Berkeley.EDU (me128 student) writes: >In article <521@jc3b21.UUCP> fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) writes: >>From article <5031@garfield.MUN.EDU>, by joseph@garfield.MUN.EDU (Joseph Dawson): >>> Other things that should be in 1.4 LOADWB. When you are in 640X400 >>> make my ICONS LONGER! >> >better than some certain Fruity computer we know; REALLY! > >-Vincent H. Lee In the New and IMproved WBench due in the next release of the OS, make it possible to have two sets of ICONS, one set for 200 lines and another for 400 lines; perhaps options for squeezing one way or the other instead of two pictures. *Assuming* that the New WBench will have some way of haveing a single .info file (picture file at least) for many files, then this won't eat up gobs of diskspace.
blgardne@esunix.UUCP (Blaine Gardner) (12/19/88)
From article <521@jc3b21.UUCP>, by fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe): > From article <5031@garfield.MUN.EDU>, by joseph@garfield.MUN.EDU (Joseph Dawson): >> Other things that should be in 1.4 LOADWB. When you are in 640X400 >> make my ICONS LONGER! > > Nah, don't make the icons longer. I like being able to get twice as > many icons on the side of the screen as I can in non-interlace mode. > Besides, once you get used to an interlace Workbench screen those long > skinny icons look funny. I agree, more space is why I like interlace and my flickerFixer. So how about a compromise? Instead of automagically doubling the length of the icons when in interlace, cut their width in half. You get "proper" proportions for your icon images, and you get twice the number of icons on the screen. But as Fabbian said, you get used to the way it looks (though I was surprised to see that our user group disk icon is a square, not a rectangle! :-), so it's not worth "fixing". How about a _real_ serious bug in the 1.3 Workbench? In 1.2 it says "Workbench release 1.2." in the Workbench title bar. In 1.3 it says "Workbench release." in the title bar. I'm glad that I've got a "released" Workbench, but which one have I got? Does my Workbench have an identity crisis? Was it really released, or did it escape from West Chester while nobody was looking? Perhaps I've got an undercover copy of Workbench 1.4 that's trying to conceal its identity? "The Unknown Workbench"? But most importantly of all, when is Commodore going to issue a bug fix for this terrible deficiency? PS, just in case anyone else is suffering from a lack of sleep: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 Here: utah-cs!esunix!blgardne {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!esunix!blgardne There: uunet!iconsys!caeco!pedro!worsel!blaine "Nobody will ever need more than 64K." "Nobody needs multitasking on a PC."
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (12/20/88)
In article <521@jc3b21.UUCP> fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) writes: > Nah, don't make the icons longer. I like being able to get twice as >many icons on the side of the screen as I can in non-interlace mode. >Besides, once you get used to an interlace Workbench screen those long >skinny icons look funny. One problem we do have with our resolution flexibility; ever try to implement Mac-like radio buttons? They end up looking like squashed eggs in a hi-res Workbench. I wonder if it would make any sense to add a screen-aspect-ratio-compensating circle generator linked into image structures so gadgets can use them. Nah! That'd make things too easy. Keith Doyle # mail path under construction
edwin@hcr.UUCP (Edwin Hoogerbeets) (01/15/89)
In article <1165@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP writes: >How about a _real_ serious bug in the 1.3 Workbench? > >In 1.2 it says "Workbench release 1.2." in the Workbench title bar. > >In 1.3 it says "Workbench release." in the title bar. > >But most importantly of all, when is Commodore going to issue a bug fix >for this terrible deficiency? > >-- >Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 >Here: utah-cs!esunix!blgardne {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!esunix!blgardne >There: uunet!iconsys!caeco!pedro!worsel!blaine >"Nobody will ever need more than 64K." "Nobody needs multitasking on a PC." Well.. as it turns out, this same little annoyance also caused me lots of lack of sleep. As we keep hearing, the only difference between 1.2 and 1.3 Kickstart is the autoboot stuff. This means that Kickstart still has '1.2' embedded within it as the text for the workbench title bar. The 1.3 loadwb program actually contains code to search for the string 'Workbench Release 1.2.' and clobber the 1.2 part. If you NewZap loadwb and change the string in question to anything else, it won't find what it's looking for in Kickstart and you'll have a workbench proudly claiming to be 1.2. Or... I played around with my Kickstart disk and changed the text to advertise 1.3. While there, I also changed the 'free memory' text to read 'bytes free'. Just because I like it better that way. Should anyone still be reading this, this is the method I used: 1) Use a program called Kick_snatch, part of a set of KickToys to read Kickstart (from disk or from RAM) and write it to a file (RAM:KS.BIN) I found KickToys in the CIS AmigaTech forum. 2) Use NewZap to search for the offending text. When found, all we're interested in is the offset. 3) Use Sectorama to actually edit the appropriate sector on kickstart, found by taking offset and dividing by blocksize. If I read my scribblings correctly, the offending text is around offset 0x2cd5e, and so is in sector 0x167. Unfortunately, it seems that Sectorama won't let you update the block on disk unless the checksum is correct. But since Kickstart is not a standard File System disk, we don't want to correct the checksum. So... 4) Dig up DiskEd. Docs for it are in the AmigaDOS manual. Modify the offending sector and write it out. DiskEd also warns about invalid checksums, but will oblige and write the sector anyway. Since DiskEd is a line-oriented thing, I found that the best way to see what one is doing is to run sectorama to view the sector, and make the mods using DiskEd running at the same time. Bit of a pain flipping back and forth between screens, but it works. 5) Run SumKick on the newly fixed Kickstart disk, so that when you warm boot after cold booting with the new Kickstart, you don't get sent all the way back to the Kickstart prompt anyway. 6) Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway :-) if you own a 500 or 2000, you needn't do any of this, but may instead kick yourself for not owning a real Amiga :-) :-) :-) 7) While doing this sort of thing, I found other goodies to fix: The invisible Debug menu on Workbench is no longer invisible, The initial CLI window has different dimensions, and since I don't keep format and diskcopy in the system drawer (I don't *have* a system drawer anymore, everything there is in C: where is really belongs) I changed all occurrances of SYS:System/[Format|Diskcopy] to C:[Format|Diskcopy] with no ill effects. This means that the Initialize and Duplicate menu items (as well as dragging disk icons over each other) works! 8) There is no number eight. Stephan Mueller stephler(); I'm not the dude in the header, but I'll get any comments/complaints/flames/sushi sent here.
jdow@gryphon.COM (J. Dow) (01/21/89)
In article <4584@hcr.UUCP> edwin@hcrvx2.UUCP (Edwin Hoogerbeets) writes: >In article <1165@esunix.UUCP> blgardne@esunix.UUCP writes: >>How about a _real_ serious bug in the 1.3 Workbench? >> >>In 1.2 it says "Workbench release 1.2." in the Workbench title bar. >> >>In 1.3 it says "Workbench release." in the title bar. >> >>But most importantly of all, when is Commodore going to issue a bug fix >>for this terrible deficiency? >> >>-- >>Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 >>Here: utah-cs!esunix!blgardne {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!esunix!blgardne >>There: uunet!iconsys!caeco!pedro!worsel!blaine >>"Nobody will ever need more than 64K." "Nobody needs multitasking on a PC." > > >Well.. > >as it turns out, this same little annoyance also caused me lots of lack >of sleep. Teehee - thanks for the best laugh I have had in a LONG time. The LoadWB file patches out the release number if it finds 1.2 there. I simply fixed it to display "Workbench release 1.4!" since I am alphaing that. (I also made the file smaller while I was at it. - the Wizardess is also a somewhat demented disassembler when she gets motivated...) -- Sometimes a bird in the hand leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it were best it remain there in the bush with the other one. {@_@} jdow@bix (where else?) Sometimes the dragon wins. Sometimes jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM the knight. Does the fair maiden ever {backbone}!gryphon!jdow win? Surely both the knight and dragon stink. Maybe the maiden should suicide? Better yet - she should get an Amiga and quit playing with dragons and knights.