lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) (08/06/87)
I guess nobody has received their new Amiga Worlds yet. Two interesting ads caught my eye. The first (and probably least important to most) was the ad for Power Windows Version 2.0. For those of you who have never heard of the product, it is a programming aid that let's you set up windows and menus graphicly, and then generates the C or Assem. source. However, the new version also generates Modula-2 as well as allowing you to set up gadgets from IFF brushes. Sounds like a killer utility to me. Made by Inovatronics Inc. $89.95 Second and probably creating the most controversy is Lattice 4.0 The ad has a little comparison chart to Manx: Lattice 4.0 | Manx 3.40 ------------------------|------------------------- Dhrystone 1294 per sec. | 1010 per sec. | Float 22.20 secs | 98.85 secs (IEEE format) 10.16 secs | 17.60 secs (FFP format) | Savage 47.67 secs | 119.6 secs (IEEE) .000000318 | .000109 (accuracy) All I could say was WOW! I could be lucky I haven't placed my order for a C compiler yet. The ad was pretty impressive. Ok, any beta tester out there of either of these two?? Any suggestions, warnings, etc. -- "Truth is false and logic lost..." - Neil Peart (who at the time didn't realize he was talking about RU) lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu <--------OR--------> {seismo|ames}!rutgers!topaz!lachac
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (08/06/87)
In article <13738@topaz.rutgers.edu> lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) writes: > Lattice 4.0 | Manx 3.40 > ------------------------|------------------------- >Dhrystone 1294 per sec. | 1010 per sec. >etc... I saw this ad too. It did not state which INT size were used, whether optimization was used, etc. I always take benchmarks with a grain of salt because there are so many compiler parameters that can be tweaked. Has anyone measured the compile speed of these compilers. I have the Aztec compiler and it seems to be faster than pcc. -- -- Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, {uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean -- sean@ms.uky.csnet, sean@UKMA.BITNET -- I am a shrubber...
page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (08/06/87)
Looks like Lattice/SAS got their global optimizer working. I wonder
if it takes 33% longer to compile now.
Power Windows 2.0 looks pretty HOT!
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet} scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (08/07/87)
In article <13738@topaz.rutgers.edu> lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) writes: > Lattice 4.0 | Manx 3.40 > ------------------------|------------------------- >Dhrystone 1294 per sec. | 1010 per sec. Is this the same issue with the Lattice ad that says: "Lattice C has long been recognized as the best C compiler." and the Manx ad that says: "The new Manx Aztec C is the most powerful and professional C development system in ... the universe." ? Yes, I saw those ads. -scott My Manx 3.4a 16bits/noregs on 68010 dhrys at 909, hmmm.
mark@unisec.usi.com (Mark Rinfret) (08/08/87)
In article <13738@topaz.rutgers.edu>, lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) writes: > > I guess nobody has received their new Amiga Worlds yet. Two interesting ads > caught my eye. > > The first (and probably least important to most) was the ad for Power Windows > Version 2.0. For those of you who have never heard of the product, it is a > programming aid that let's you set up windows and menus graphicly, and then > generates the C or Assem. source. However, the new version also generates > Modula-2 as well as allowing you to set up gadgets from IFF brushes. Sounds > like a killer utility to me. Made by Inovatronics Inc. $89.95 ...more on Lattice 4.0... > - Neil Peart I just got Power Windows 1.1 and Marauder II from Go Amigo! Now that I know version 2.0 is out, I'm pissed! Power Windows 1.1 is a great disappointment to me, though it is probably more useful than hand-coding. I have a public-domain menu editor that has a better user interface. Proportional gadgets aren't supported at all, and there's no ability to interact with your new gadgets until you write out the source and run a short test program (supplied). Also missing is an image editor. I also wish there was a numeric readout for window and gadget sizes. The documentation is a very skinny 5x7" 11 page booklet with tiny print, no illustrations. I expected a lot more for the list price of $89.95 (actually paid $64). I'll be writing to Inovatronics... Right now, I have two software packages that are copy protected, both Electronic Arts (DPaint II and DMCS). EA wants $20 each for non-protected versions. Well, says I, I can get Marauder II for $30 and if it works, save $10 and have a useful addition to my toolbox as well. It works! Though I had to boot my system without my Pal Jr. in order to get it to work, it performed flawlessly on both disks. Ahhh...no more "key disk" crap from my favorite toys! There are also a couple of other utilities on the Marauder II disk which might come in handy, though I haven't tied them yet. Unfortunately, programs like this can be severely misused, but they can prove quite useful to the honest user, also. I'm quite pleased. Mark -- | Mark R. Rinfret, SofTech, Inc. mark@unisec.usi.com | | Guest of UniSecure Systems, Inc., Newport, RI | | UUCP: {gatech|mirror|cbosgd|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!rayssd!unisec!mark | | work: (401)-849-4174 home: (401)-846-7639 |
rap@dana.UUCP (Rob Peck) (08/10/87)
In article <1035@unisec.usi.com>, mark@unisec.usi.com (Mark Rinfret) writes: > > I just got Power Windows 1.1 and Marauder II from Go Amigo! Now that I know > version 2.0 is out, I'm pissed! Power Windows 1.1 is a great disappointment > to me, though it is probably more useful than hand-coding. I have a > > Mark I have spent a few hours working with version 1.3 of Power Windows. The documentation is as Mark described, which is to say, nearly non- existent. But it does indeed beat hand coding. In 1.3, there is still no support for Prop gadgets, and still no image editor and so on. In fact, from his description, I don't know that I could tell the difference between a 1.1 and a 1.3 release. I sent in the registration card about 8 weeks ago, along with a "please tell me when the upgrades become available". No response yet, so I am surprised to hear about advertising re 2.0 availability. Power Windows is, I believe, a good idea. If I had had the time, I'da put out a similar package, but of course with considerably better documentation. Basically I encourage them - we all could use a well executed tool of this kind. Hoping they respond appropriately - for $89.95 (which I paid, in full), I must say I expected more. By the way, the source that 1.3 produces had a couple of errors that made me modify my Manx include files - if I remember correctly, in some of the Intuition structures, there are now UBYTE * in place of CHAR * - sorry, its been a while. Just try to compile their output under Manx and you'll find out what I mean. Tiny nit, but you gotta fix it. Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!dana!rap
rap@dana.UUCP (Rob Peck) (08/12/87)
In article <206@dana.UUCP>, rap@dana.UUCP (Rob Peck) writes: > > I sent in the registration card about 8 weeks ago, along with a > "please tell me when the upgrades become available". No response > yet, so I am surprised to hear about advertising re 2.0 availability. Following up my own posting... I was rambling through my desk today and found that I had PREPARED the registration card for mailing but for lack of a stamp, I had apparently left it in my desk at work. So I must apologize to them for the previous remark, since they obviously don't know I own the product. So I'll just have to mail the card today. Yes, I will - thats the ticket! (Where ARE those stamps?!!!!) We'll see what kind of response I do get from them, after all. Rob Peck (sigh)
adamsd@crash.CTS.COM (Adams Douglas) (08/12/87)
Rob made me think of a point I've wondered about for awhile now. I got
PowerWindows about two months ago (1.2, I believe). I used it for
about a day then went back to my usual method of editing a standard
skeleton file every time I need to create menus, requesters, etc. With
a good macro facility, it strikes me that only an extremely
sophisticated on-screen gadget editor could replace direct coding
using a skeleton structure you're familiar with.
I also _hate_ PW's adding comments after every parameter in every menu
and gadget declaration.
Anybody else want to comment on their methods?
--
=======================================================
Adams Douglas ARPA:crash!adamsd@nosc.mil AT&T:818-354-3076 <work>
DSN/JPL/NASA UUCP:{cbosgd | hplabs!hp-sdd | sdcsvax | nosc}!crash!adamsd
Internet: adamsd@crash.CTS.COM
My opinions! Do you hear? MINE! Not JPL's.
"Do not be angry with me if I tell you the truth." -- Socrates
"Tell the Truth and run."--Yugoslav proverbandy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (08/13/87)
In article <1518@crash.CTS.COM> adamsd@crash.CTS.COM (Adams Douglas) writes: >I used it for about a day then went back to my usual method of editing >a standard skeleton file every time I need to create menus, requesters, etc. >Anybody else want to comment on their methods? This is pretty close to my current method...I use Emacs and a number of emacs macros, which I keep meaning to recode into C. (things like, make me a 10 gadget chain, etc) (Though, I haven't tried Power Windows 2.0 ...) For gadget images I design them using the icon editor (or DPaint) then use the icon2c program (by Carolyn Scheppner) to get them into image structures for inclusion in my program. -- andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
hobie@sq.UUCP (08/14/87)
Rob Peck (rap@dana.UUCP) writes: >In article <1035@unisec.usi.com>, mark@unisec.usi.com (Mark Rinfret) writes: >> >> I just got Power Windows 1.1 and Marauder II from Go Amigo! Now that I know >> version 2.0 is out, I'm pissed! Power Windows 1.1 is a great disappointment >> to me, though it is probably more useful than hand-coding. I have a > >I sent in the registration card about 8 weeks ago, along with a >"please tell me when the upgrades become available". No response >yet, so I am surprised to hear about advertising re 2.0 availability. > >Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!dana!rap I received notification of PW 2.0 from Inovatronics about 4 weeks ago including an order form to upgrade from my 1.1 to 2.0 for US $22.50. I sent it in about 2 weeks ago and am waiting for the new one to arrive. I believe that the announcement said (I sent it back with my VISA # on it) that you can now make requesters with it, which is what made me want to get it, since I put gadgets in requesters but not in windows (which is what 1.1 was useful for). Hobie Orris | There's a brain on the table, guest of SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Ont. | There's a heart in the chair, {ihnp4 | decvax | ? }!utzoo!sq!hobie | And they all live in Jesus | It's a family affair. - B.E.
csb@cullvax.UUCP (Craig Brown) (08/16/87)
I have been beta testing Power Windows V2.0 for the last couple of weeks. It really is a helpful product. As with V1.0 , Power Windows V 2.0 allows you to create windows and menus by drawing them on the screen. It then generates the source code (that you then include in your own program). As a test of my limited Midi knowledge, I built a program that controlled my Casio CZ1 synth. I used Power Windows to quickly generate a menu of 80+ items (which was over 1000 lines of source code). This saved me a tremendous amount of time. New features of V2.0 include the ability to define multiple screens and windows, Yes, You can also specify what kind of screen you would like to use and have Power Windows generate the correct structures. Another "interesting" feature is what I call "steal a window". Power Windows will present you with a list of all opened windows. You tell it which one you want and it will make an exact copy of it (including information such as menus and gadgets). You then tell it to generate source code. The final release of Power Windows will have the ability to generate Modula-2 code. I'll post more information when I have a little more time to play with the product. Craig ### Usual Disclaimer
hobie@sq.UUCP (08/18/87)
Andy Finkel (andy@cbmvax.UUCP) writes: >In article <1518@crash.CTS.COM> adamsd@crash.CTS.COM (Adams Douglas) writes: > >>I used it for about a day then went back to my usual method of editing >>a standard skeleton file every time I need to create menus, requesters, etc. > >>Anybody else want to comment on their methods? > >This is pretty close to my current method...I use Emacs and a number >of emacs macros, which I keep meaning to recode into C. Though I don't use PW a lot, I find it has its uses. Designing menus is simple-minded enough of a process for PW to automate effectively. After all who wants to calculate those little offsets for sub-menus, and figure out how many pixels wide menu bars should be? I also used it once to create a 32-colour palette. I sure would have hated to type in the specs for 32 little box gadgets when I can create one with PW and then clone it 31 times. I hope to have my PW 2.0 in a couple of weeks (mailed for it 2 weeks ago) and I will review it if anyone's interested. Hobie Orris | guest of SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Ont. |"There'll be no more giant leeches {ihnp4 | decvax | ? }!utzoo!sq!hobie | When you find the good Lord Jesus"