kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (05/08/87)
Are WE the Amiga's worst enemy? What, you ask? How could loyal amigos be the Amiga's worst enemy? Didn't we buy amigas early? Don't we provide public-domain and shareware programs that make the Amiga more desirable? Of course we did (good). Of course we do (good???). The Amiga has a high proportion of good/usable public domain programs. Is it possible that these programs take enough revenue away from software companies that they don't bother to enter the amiga market? Remember that companies starting to support a new computer probably want to ease into the market with a little product to sort of test the waters. Well, the users already have versions of all the little programs and some big ones as well. Anyone care to speculate whether this is a real problem? I guess this says that shareware is evil again. Hmmm. Do I believe this?
hadeishi@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) (05/08/87)
Summary: I think it would be wise if some of the clearly talented and well-informed Amiga shareware/PD programmers would spend some of their valuable time on well-designed, fully-debugged, highly useful commercial products. I'm not saying go out and gouge the public, (there isn't all that much of a public to gouge, and I hardly expect they'd volunteer to get gouged by you) but to spend some time producing something which would not only be useful to others and would give you the ability to continue to eat while doing so. Money is a kind of fantasy substance which makes trading easier; for someone to give you some of his "money" in return for some of your effort is just the whole point of money in the first place. That's pretty much what money is supposed to be used for (this is not, of course, the model used by most high-finance people or investment bankers; they make money the new-fashioned way, they conjure it out of nowhere.) So, why not ask people to give you some of their eating-power to you, so you can eat while providing a service? The Amiga has TONS of high-quality PD/shareware; just look at the massive tomes of Fish disks that contain almost as high as one program per disk that I actually can use regularly, which is a miracle as shareware goes. What we LACK is high-quality commercial software; software which pays attention to DESIGN. Tools people can use, ordinary non-hackers, which require a lot of design work, which means MONEY. -Mitsu
abg1@sphinx.uchicago.edu (andrew brian gross) (05/08/87)
Summary:A retailer's view Distribution:na There has been a fair amount of speculation recently, both on the net and in Amiga-orientated magazines, about the lack of Amiga software. In particular, it has just been suggested that PD/shareware may be partly responsible for commercial software companies' failure to develop for the machine. I thought that some of you may be interested in what a retailer thinks. (By way of introduction, I have worked the last few summers in various Columbus Ohio computer stores, most recently in a management type position, and yes, I do order from 'big' distributors). Many of the largest distributors that I have done business with-- some of the largest in the country, in fact-- either never carried Amiga software in the first place, or recently dropped it. Most carried games, and not a lot else. Now, having an Amiga myself, you can imagine that I am somewhat distressed by this, and have quized just about anyone I could get my hands on within these organizations. There were *consistently* three reasons given for the lack of interest in supporting the Amiga: 1) Lack of an installed base of users. The distributors who supply retailers simply cannot afford to buy Amiga software in volume. 2) Lack of reliable information/pricing policies/etc. from commodore. This mainly applies to hardware, of course, but for some reason distributors always brought it up anyway. Basically, they were afraid to get burned holding merchandise that had gotten marked down. Unfortunately, I often got the feeling that this fear extended itself to *anything* related to the Amiga. 3) ***Amiga owners do not buy software!*** Virtually every distributor would mention that C-compilers sold like hotcakes, but that he couldn't unload a home accounting package to save his life. Distributors almost universally held the opinion that Amiga owners ***do their own programming***. I tend to agree, to be honest. Last summer, I sold *over 100 ST's* (To put that in context, our store frequently had only one person working at a time-- it wasn't that big :-) ), about half were to people who new virtually nothing--and cared even less-- about computers. The few Amigas we sold (2 or 3) were sold to hackers who knew exactly what they were getting. Similarly friends who worked at other computer stores, including Earthrise (an exclusively Commodore store) commented that they very seldom sold Amigas to people who didn't know much about computers. What does this boil down to? Basically, as far as I (and my distributors) can tell, most people who own Amigas DO NOT WANT OR NEED commercial software-- at least not enough to shell out any kind of reasonable money. Is shareware or PD software a culprit? I don't know. If it is, I think that it is probably more because users want it that way than because it is 'scaring off' commercial developers. In any case, the Amiga 500 -- truly, a 'commercial' machine-- should answer these questions. Finally, I don't think that I've said anything to offend anyone, and I hope that some of you developer/programmer types have gotten a new perspective; but if i did offend anyone, I'm sorry.
upl@puff.WISC.EDU (Future Unix Gurus) (05/08/87)
In article <1640@sphinx.uchicago.edu> abg1@sphinx.UUCP (andrew brian gross) writes: >3) ***Amiga owners do not buy software!*** Virtually every distributor would >mention that C-compilers sold like hotcakes, but that he couldn't unload a >home accounting package to save his life. Distributors almost universally >held the opinion that Amiga owners ***do their own programming***. > I'm not so sure doing your own programming (or "rolling your own" as my freinds and I call it) is really exclusive of buying application software. Just becuase I CAN write my own stuff doesn't mean I have the time or inclination to do so. I'm not about to write my own wordprocessor, for example, it would take me at least a year of my own recreation time to write what I want to use. Also, I am a BIG adventure and first person simulation fan. While writing 1st person simulators falls into my area of specialization, I sure as hell don't want to have to research and write, for example, a chopper simulator just for the pleasure of flying it around recreationally. In general my time is worthMUCH more than what I would pay to get someone elses effort. Also, there is certainly a market for recreational a[pplication generators. Why hasn't the pinball construction set ben ported by EA?? This kind of toy that apeals to peiple who write their own programs. I'm stillwaiting for a GOOD Amiga specific text/graphics adventure constructor (I may write THAT one myself, eventually, if seomone doesn't do it first.) In general, I think the standards set by people who program are more demanding, but they will certainly buy something they enjoy. We're all people too, after all. (Also, why haven't there been more commercial programming utilities, if they really se it as that kind of market? It would take a little imaination, but I can think of all sorts of things that still need to be written to make Amiga programming truely enjoyable!) Jeff Kesselman upl@puff.cs.wisc.edu
jow@unccvax.UUCP (Jim Wiley) (05/09/87)
abg1@sphinx.UUCP (andrew brian gross) writes > There were *consistently* three reasons given for the lack of > interest in supporting the Amiga: > > 1) Lack of an installed base of users. The distributors who supply retailers > simply cannot afford to buy Amiga software in volume. > > 2) Lack of reliable information/pricing policies/etc. from commodore. This > mainly applies to hardware, of course, but for some reason distributors always > brought it up anyway. Basically, they were afraid to get burned holding > merchandise that had gotten marked down. Unfortunately, I often got the > feeling that this fear extended itself to *anything* related to the Amiga. > > 3) ***Amiga owners do not buy software!*** Virtually every distributor would > mention that C-compilers sold like hotcakes, but that he couldn't unload a > home accounting package to save his life. Distributors almost universally > held the opinion that Amiga owners ***do their own programming***. It seems that people who buy Amigas are people who know about computers and know what they want in a home computer. I think a BIG part of the problem is not so much that "Amiga owners ***do their own programming***" but that people who do their own programming prefer the Amiga. There is a difference. And there is a reason. Lack of advertizing. The lack of advertizing for the Amiga keeps people who don't know much about computers in the dark and so they don't know that it's what they really want. And these are the same people who buy software rather than write it. People who know about computers make it their business to know what is new and hot. And these are to people likely to do their own programming. The fact that the Amiga sells to people who know what's great says a lot for the machine. With a good mass media advertizing campaign (sp?) to reach the uninformed, the Amiga could command a large portion of the market. To C-A: ***ADVERTIZE*** disclaimer: These opinions are my own. Really...they are. I thought them up all by myself. So there! Jim Wiley
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (05/10/87)
In article <1640@sphinx.uchicago.edu> abg1@sphinx.UUCP (andrew brian gross) writes: >There has been a fair amount of speculation recently, both on the net and in >Amiga-orientated magazines, about the lack of Amiga software. In particular, >it has just been suggested that PD/shareware may be partly responsible for >commercial software companies' failure to develop for the machine. Blaming shareware and the PD for the commercial sectors problems it a load of bull manure. As an Amiga software/hardware developer AND software/hardware consumer I think the following has more to do with the general apathy towards commercial software: 1. A lot of it is RUBBISH! EA is king of the rubbish pile. I WILL NOT purchase anymore EA gameware. I shelled out bux for SkyFox, and not only can I not load it onto my winnie it doesn't work with my expanded memory and 1.2!!! Their non-gameware stuff I just barely tolerate. I own both DeluxePaint and DeluxePaint II. I found DeluxePaint next to useless and DeluxePaint II is VERY prone to crashing on my system. As for DMCS, I've worked with the Amiga sound system, I know what it can do. DMCS doesn't even come close to making it work it's heart out. DMCS seems to be more of a MIDI tool than anything else. 2. Pricing is wild. I really love paying $120 for a paint program. Or $50 for a game. Makes me want to run out everyday and snap up these bargains <snicker>. Don't get me wrong, I'm not impoverished, you should see my CD collection! I just will not buy something when I know I'm being shafted on the price. But I can and WILL pay top dollar for top dollar programs. I've shelled out over $100 to MetaComCo for their toolkit and shell and I don't regret it for a second. I've shelled out $400 for Dynamic CAD and gotten the worst pile of bugs next to EA-ware. My shelves are lined with commercial software, with the exception of the MetaComCo products I find myself using very little of it from day to day. Which depresses me when I think about it, I've got $$$ tied up in that bookcase pile of rubbish! 3. C-A. With good ol' "Crazy" Commodore as a reason what more reason could a company want for avoiding the Amiga market? C-A has failed to let all of us in on where they are going with this machine. One day they're headed one way, next month the SideCar is all but scrap and we have the A2000. Such instability at the top makes companies nervous and for damn good reasons! 4. Lack of distribution. Due to C-A's miss-handling of the Amiga there aren't that many dealers out there selling the machines. Being an Amiga dealer is a true nightmare thanks to Commodore. Without piles of dealers to buy from distributors the distributors can't keep their volumes up. In short the commercial sector has piles of troubles without anyone trying to peg it on PD/shareware. If anything it's been the PD/shareware that has kept the Amiga alive. Which C-A is now attempting to rectify with their new developer program :-). Yep, squash the people that keep the Amiga on top and hand it to the likes of EA, works for me. :) Scott Turner -- L5 Computing, the home of Merlin, Arthur, Excalibur and the CRAM. GEnie: JST | UUCP: stride!l5comp!scotty | 12311 Maplewood Ave; Edmonds WA 98020 If Motorola had wanted us to use BPTR's they'd have built in shifts on A regs [ BCPL? Just say *NO*! ] (I don't smoke, send flames to /dev/null)
john13@garfield.UUCP (05/13/87)
In article <119@l5comp.UUCP>, scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: > > I own both DeluxePaint and > DeluxePaint II. I found DeluxePaint next to useless and DeluxePaint II is VERY > prone to crashing on my system. ... > But I > can and WILL pay top dollar for top dollar programs. I've shelled out over > $100 to MetaComCo for their toolkit and shell and I don't regret it for a > second. The toolkit and shell from MetaComCo don't do anything you can't do just as well or better for free. Both Matt Dillon's shell and ConMan appeal to me more as CLI improvements than the MetaComCo shell, and the toolkit consists (if my memory serves correctly) of a tiny fraction of a disk-full of programs, including - compress/uncompress type programs. There are more of these in the PD than you can shake a stick at. - Alib, a PD program (I may have the name wrong) - a browser/more type of thing, very limited in scope - file encryption utility. I don't have one, but I believe there is at least 1 on the Fish disks. - aux-cli, a serial based CLI. I downloaded a PD program for this last night, and you can also do it with DTerm. - pipe device, of which there is also a PD version I'm sure there were more, but the overall usefulness of these programs didn't strike me as greater than, say, Shell, Conman, Arc, compress/uncompress, Alib, Blitz, DME, DTerm, Pipe:, and the PD aux device. And for most of these I can get the source if I really want. On the other hand, DPaint I & II I consider top-notch. I have only seen 1 demonstrated _bug_, the crash that occurs if you resize a square pen past the top left corner where you began resizing. I have experienced crashes with DPaint II based on the copy-protection not liking the ram-disk, and the Amega memory board glitching due to a poor fit against the side, but all of these are easily avoided. There have been a couple of others unexplained, but all most likely related to unforeseeable trashing of copper lists or such, of the same sort as the VSprite scattering when you have your screen dragged over to the left in Preferences. It also locked up once when lassoing a brush, because I wanted to see how complex the polygon could be and just kept clicking without finishing the lasso until something happened - I would never have any need for a lasso of that complexity in order to create a picture. John
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (05/16/87)
In article <857@sputnik.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >Are WE the Amiga's worst enemy? > >The Amiga has a high proportion of good/usable public domain programs. >Is it possible that these programs take enough revenue away from >software companies that they don't bother to enter the amiga market? >Remember that companies starting to support a new computer probably >want to ease into the market with a little product to sort of test the >waters. Well, the users already have versions of all the little >programs and some big ones as well. Anyone care to speculate whether >this is a real problem? > A real interesting point. As many of you know (those who also read comp.sys.atari.st, I've taken some heat (which I asked for) for my stand of "quality Amiga PD software" vs. "Rather poor (on the whole) ST PD software". Given a rather small Amiga market ( <200,000 units????), does DME(nice job!!) or uGNUmacs take business away from, say, MicroSmith's? Just an example..... Further, do officials (whoever 'they' are) at CBM regret this? For example "If those darn hackers would 'sell' their wares in the stores, instead of 'giving' it away, there would be more buyer incentive to purchase an Amiga, because there would be more commercial software." An interesting thought. Who at CBM-Amiga would have guessed that such a talented group of programmers (you gals and guys) would adopt their brain child, and then 'give' away (for free!) their labors? Certainly there 'might' be a point to be made. I'm in no way suggesting that you stop. Simply, could the excellence of your work have discouraged an equally excellent work that would have been commercial? Guess I've asked the question as the poster, huh? -- Jeff Gortatowsky {seismo,allegra}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a simple and complete disclaimer?
gore@nucsrl.UUCP (Jacob Gore) (05/18/87)
/ nucsrl:comp.sys.amiga / jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) / >[...] do officials [...] at CBM regret [lots of free software]? For >example "If those darn hackers would 'sell' their wares in the stores, >instead of 'giving' it away, there would be more buyer incentive to >purchase an Amiga, because there would be more commercial software." Well, if that's the case, it seems that a solution would be to find a way for "those darn hackers" to 'give' their stuff away -- "in the stores"! Jacob Gore Northwestern University, Computer Science Research Lab {gargoyle,ihnp4,chinet}!nucsrl!gore gore@EECS.NWU.Edu (for now, only from ARPA)
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (05/19/87)
In article <3644@garfield.UUCP> john13@garfield.UUCP writes: >The toolkit and shell from MetaComCo don't do anything you can't do just as >well or better for free. Both Matt Dillon's shell and ConMan appeal to me more >as CLI improvements than the MetaComCo shell, and the toolkit consists (if my >memory serves correctly) of a tiny fraction of a disk-full of programs, >including The toolkit also comes with a top notch disassembler. This item by itself was worth the price of the toolkit. As for your list of PD/shareware tools that compete with MCC Toolkit. The toolkit was available before half the items you list were available. :) I have also NEVER had any trouble with the MetaComCo Shell, I can't say the same for the various PD/shareware shell's I've tried. Even the ConMan had (or should I say 'has'?) his problems. The MCC stuff worked OUT OF THE BOX, and came with PRINTED, BOUND documentation. I also get a company I can yell at if anything does go bump. Yell at a PD author and ya either get A. A list of his/her priorities with yours near the bottom. B. "What did ya expect for free?" Source code is a 'luke warm' support at best, when the chips are down and you have 2 hours to burn a set of EPROMs for delivery on a $100,000 contract THE LAST THING you need is to be forced to dig through the source code to find the problem with a PD linker. And actually in that case I didn't have source to BLink so I had to whip out the "vapor" Modula 2 and write a quick hack to massage the file for the EPROM programmer. And I had been contacting the authors via their BBS before that fateful last two hour period and kept getting answer # A. When I had a nasty problem with the Amiga Macro Assembler I called C-A tech support. I got ZILCH except they took my bug report. :) I called MCC and got instant attention and was told that the problem had been fixed, but sadly they couldn't sell me the new assembler or update me or anything because of some deal with C-A. Well today, 7 months later, I have that assembler that person was talking about. Cost me $27. The bug is indeed gone, it's nearly twice as fast, and carries a date stamp nearly a month in advance of when I called them. (ie the guy wasn't lying to me) The stuff works. I have a hard time trying to figure out how a bunch that can make such solid performers could also be the same outfit that gave us the 'dog' but what would life be without puzzles? As for EA and the Paint series... DP was great for doodling but if you had serious work for it, like making illustrations to be printed on a laser printer, it just couldn't handle it. And before the DP loyalists scream WHAT?!? lasers print at 300 dpi. At that resolution even the largest screen DP can handle is VERY tiny, so they have to be blown up by the printer. When this is done those nice small dots become big fat squares... DP is also missing alot of those "small" features that make MacPaint more useful (like hold down shift to move in straight lines as a single example of what I mean). DPII excited me, here was a MacPaint class drawing program! It's still doesn't leave me with a comfy feeling to use it. I could work with MacPaint without fear that something I was going to do would crash the machine and steal my work. The comments made above about the lasso do nothing to make me feel better, why should it crash AT ALL? As an Amiga programmer I've had my fill of an environment where the ROM likes to stick it's guru out and say "ya shouldn't have done that". I want my tools to KEEP me out of harms way. Not stand there and let me get run down and then laugh about it! Sounds pretty silly to go into the boss and say "The copper ate my illustration". And people like Jerry Pournelle get TONS of mileage out of stuff like this! To summarize, I eat or starve by the quality of my tools. It's also not enough for them to show up any ol' day, they have to be there when I need them. I don't care WHERE the tool comes from but it has to be quality and be there when I need it. I use both PD/shareware and commercial. I tend to find most commercial stuff to be useless trash which makes my praise of MCC's tools all the higher. Scott Turner -- L5 Computing, the home of Merlin, Arthur, Excalibur and the CRAM. GEnie: JST | UUCP: stride!l5comp!scotty | 12311 Maplewood Ave; Edmonds WA 98020 If Motorola had wanted us to use BPTR's they'd have built in shifts on A regs [ BCPL? Just say *NO*! ] (I don't smoke, send flames to /dev/null)
ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller) (05/22/87)
Seems to me that Metacomco came through in the clinch with AmigaDos and Basic. To this day on the few occasions I do use basic I use Metacomco's. Something about the Microsoft version bothers me. Like working at 300 baud. Given the fact that they had very little time to do what they did I think their efforts at Amiga software have succeded. I did try the shell for a bit, and I found that it did not deal well with some programs. Unfortunantly I cannot remember what since it was so long ago. I think it might have been one of the various Emacses that are floating around. Ross -- csnet: ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu uucp: ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu || ...wanginst!ulowell!ross Trust the computer. The computer is your friend.
jea@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Joanne Albano) (05/22/87)
In article <136@l5comp.UUCP>, scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: > The toolkit also comes with a top notch disassembler. This item by itself was > worth the price of the toolkit... > :) I have also NEVER had any trouble with the MetaComCo > Shell, I can't say the same for the various PD/shareware shell's I've tried. > Even the ConMan had (or should I say 'has'?) his problems. The MCC stuff worked > OUT OF THE BOX, and came with PRINTED, BOUND documentation. I also get a company > I can yell at if anything does go bump. > ... > To summarize, I eat or starve by the quality of my tools. It's also not enough > for them to show up any ol' day, they have to be there when I need them. I don't > care WHERE the tool comes from but it has to be quality and be there when I need > it. I use both PD/shareware and commercial. I tend to find most commercial stuff > to be useless trash which makes my praise of MCC's tools all the higher. I know that more than enough has been said about the alleged damage that PD S/W is/has effected upon AMIGA ADVANCEMENT, but I think Scott's comments make clear the fact that PD and Commercial software should fill two entirely separate NICHES. Public Domain is really a "swim-at-your-own-risk" proposition. Running such software typically means that you accept the fact that it may not come with adequate documentation, may not perform as advertised, and may require an investment of your time to get it "working" in your environment. On the other hand, for your BUCK$ you should expect that the Commercially-available product be fully tested and that hand-holding be available either through extensive clear documentation and/or free telephone support. I think the problem lies not with the Public Domain S/W that is available but with the Commercial Software. If it cannot compete when there are these two separate NICHES then maybe the Commercial Product does not have a market or asks it customers to "Swim- at-their-own-risk". rochester!ur-cvsvax!jea (Joanne Albano)
farren@hoptoad.UUCP (05/22/87)
In article <1303@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller) writes: >Seems to me that Metacomco came through in the clinch with AmigaDos and >Basic. To this day on the few occasions I do use basic I use >Metacomco's. Something about the Microsoft version bothers me. Like >working at 300 baud. Given the fact that they had very little time >to do what they did I think their efforts at Amiga software have >succeded. Well, they DID have very little time. I don't think that means they succeeded, though! -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
john13@garfield.UUCP (05/23/87)
In article <136@l5comp.UUCP>, scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >I can yell at if anything does go bump. Yell at a PD author and ya either get A. >A list of his/her priorities with yours near the bottom. B. "What did ya expect >for free?" I've found the exact opposite to be the case where I could reach the authors on the net...I'm glad they saw my messages right after the ol' "You have mail" message instead of hearing me at 3 AM on the phone, though :-)! >As for EA and the Paint series... DP was great for doodling but if you had >serious work for it, like making illustrations to be printed on a laser printer, >it just couldn't handle it. And before the DP loyalists scream WHAT?!? lasers >print at 300 dpi. At that resolution even the largest screen DP can handle is >VERY tiny, so they have to be blown up by the printer. When this is done those >nice small dots become big fat squares... Who wants to write a program to take a DPaint file and print it at 300 DPI, using some fantastic dithering algorithm to get the colours to come out as light as they should? Doesn't sound too hard, if I had a Laserprinter I'd do it myself. (Hint - if anyone actually does this, allow saving of output to a FILE so I can at least upload it and print it out on a remote printer). > DP is also missing alot of those > "small" features that make MacPaint more useful (like hold down shift to move > in straight lines as a single example of what I mean). DPII excited me, here I see from your other postings that you are a "creator" moreso than a "user". I consider myself about 75-25 in favour of using software as opposed to writing it, even more unbalanced when I'm in a doodling mood, or have a paper due, etc. Your favourite software will thus be different than mine...but I have to point out that mine (DPaint I & II) _does_ use shift for constraining drawing to a straight line, and control for drawing "rays", and lots of other little features that make it easy and fun to work with. Also, WRT when the MCC products were released, they weren't available in this neck of the woods until *well* after their PD equivalents were in common use (for most, pipe: and aux: excepted), which was my biggest disappointment with them. I thought the guys who wrote a lot of this stuff would be first on the bandwagon. It may be that they weren't released or were scarce in Canada for a while after they were available in the States. John
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (05/24/87)
In article <1303@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller) writes: > I did try the shell for a bit, and I found that it did not >deal well with some programs. Unfortunantly I cannot remember what >since it was so long ago. I think it might have been one of >the various Emacses that are floating around. I've been using the shell since Dec 1986 and have NEVER had any trouble with it's dealings with software. I had all sorts of trouble with the PD shells though which is what drove me to shell out for the MCC shell. I've used several of the microEmacs editors floating around with no trouble from the shell. One major feature I like, that keeps it out of trouble, is that it doesn't try to expand wild cards. I had no END of trouble using PD shells that expanded wildcards. Seems there is alot of software out there that only eats one argument and expects it to have wild cards in it for use on multiple files. Other software eats ONLY one filename and then another param, like this prpage program I use alot. It's syntax is 'prpage infile outfile'. Feed that a PD shell wildcard expansion and you loose one of your files!!! Yeah, ICK! Scott Turner -- L5 Computing, the home of Merlin, Arthur, Excalibur and the CRAM. GEnie: JST | UUCP: stride!l5comp!scotty | 12311 Maplewood Ave; Edmonds WA 98020 If Motorola had wanted us to use BPTR's they'd have built in shifts on A regs [ BCPL? Just say *NO*! ] (I don't smoke, send flames to /dev/null)