roberts@NBS-VMS.arpa (ROBERTS, JOHN) (08/04/86)
> From: Steve Langdon <sjl%amdahl.uucp@BRL.ARPA> > About 9 months ago I posted an article explaining my views on the importance > of a consistent user interface on a single user micro. I still feel that > this is a critical issue, but now it is time to ask if high quality > applications for the Atari ST and Amiga are available. Both machines have > been around for a while and it is reasonable to expect good software. Please post replies to INFO-MICRO/net.micro. I think it would be useful for developers and users to see the best of what is available for their own and other machines. > To attempt to organize the discussion I will suggest some categories, and > provide a summary of what is available for the Mac. > Word Processing... > Spreadsheets... > Communications... > Database... > Development Systems... > Graphics... > Multifunction... > DeskTop Publishing... By now I think there are fine programs available for the Amiga in most or all of these categories, in both commercial and public domain form. I have only used a few of them, and would appreciate it if some knowledgable person would post a more complete summary. By category: Word Processing - yes, several. In addition, several editors, including microemacs, are available for the Amiga. Spreadsheets - yes, at least one. Communications - many, both commercial and public domain. Database - yes, at least one. Development Systems - quite a few. There are at least two C systems available. In addition, there are assemblers, Pascal, Lisp, Prolog, Modula-2, Forth, and, of course, Basic. Graphics, Animation, Sound - The Amiga has a lot of hardware to support these functions. A number of really exceptional programs are available, and even better are possible. Multifunction - yes, at least one. Desktop Publishing - not sure. There are also more advanced programs for the Amiga, including a printed circuit layout program, an advanced BBS program, etc. > ...I also do not see any indications > that application-independent text-and-graphics cut-and-paste exists except > on the Mac. Many Amiga programs store graphics in a standardized format (IFF), and images (including text) can be interchanged. >> There has been a fair amount of discussion about the relative merits >> of the Amiga, ST520, and the Mac. However, little of it has covered >> what I consider to be a fundmental issue - user interface consistency. >> >> One of the most important aspects of the Macintosh is the predictable >> nature of the user interface presented by applications. I own almost >> all follow the user interface guidelines that Apple established. This >> means that I can transfer between applications without having to learn >> a completely new set of commands or conventions. >> >> I see no sign of Atari or Commodore making a vigorous commitment to a >> uniform interface. Most programs I have seen for the Amiga can either boot when the disk is inserted or be selected in a standard manner using the Workbench. I have seen both of these approaches in Macintosh software. A third approach on the Amiga is to access programs from the Command Line Interpreter, which is pretty much like a conventional operating system interface. Once they are running, most of the programs are ultimately controlled by commands selected from a hierarchical menu structure. There are also standard techniques to implement help functions. I suspect that any program having a complex user interface is going to have certain aspects that are confusing to all but expert users, no matter what machine it was written for. Many features of programs written for the Macintosh, as well as other machines, are not really comprehensible unless you carefully study the manuals, and many users do not read the manuals if they can possibly avoid it. I think that the Amiga has an acceptably uniform user interface, and I suspect a similar claim could be made for the ST. <Standard disclaimers> John Roberts roberts@nbs-vms.ARPA ------
sjl@amdahl.UUCP (08/10/86)
I have seen a few responses to my article on this subject and have received
some mail. So far the discussion looks quite constructive, but I would like
to try and encourage replies that contain specific references to *named*
applications. I would also like concrete examples of the consistency (or
lack thereof) of the application interface on the Atari ST or Amiga.
In particular, I have seen several references to IFF as a data transfer
mechanism on the Amiga. I am somewhat familiar with IFF and it seems useful.
However, I thought it had a role like SYLK or DIF (only more general).
Therefore it would not let me do MacDraw picture to MS Word type transfers.
The ability to easily mix text and graphics is probably *the* single most
important feature of my business use of the Mac. I have 24 hour/7 day a week
access to what is arguably the best normal (ie. not big screen workstation) Unix
environment - UTS on a 5870. For many uses the sheer speed of a 5870 makes
it better than a fast workstation even though you lose the big bit-mapped
screen.
The one thing which makes me use the Mac for many documents is the ability
to easily mix text and graphics. I represent Amdahl in ANSI committees
that work on data communications standards, and the USA in the corresponding
ISO committees. The documents I write *need* mixed text and graphics.
The first version of an ISO standard I edit was done using troff, with Mac
generated graphics inserted manually. The next version was done on the Mac.
Interleaf might let me do this on Unix, but I would still have no easy way to
put graphics in a database in the way I can on the Mac.
Once again I would like to ask that people try and control their emotional
feelings about their favorite machine. I like my Mac, but if the Atari ST
or Amiga deliver more for less, I will happily recommend one of them to my
friends.
--
Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl
[ The article above is not an official statement from any organization
in the known universe. ]oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (08/11/86)
In article <3528@amdahl.UUCP> sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) writes: >Once again I would like to ask that people try and control their emotional >feelings about their favorite machine. I like my Mac, but if the Atari ST >or Amiga deliver more for less, I will happily recommend one of them to my >friends. How about showing some elementary reasoning ability? The Mac is a much more mature product than either the ST or the Amiga. It has more and (in many cases) better software and peripheral hardware (e.g. laser printers) than either of those machines. If you or your friends need or want a large selection of canned software today, buy a Mac (or a PC clone), 'cause right now those new machines are most useful to developers and hobbyists. If you want my personal opinion, all emotions aside (:-), I would need an exceptionally good reason to buy a colorless, tiny-screened, closed architecture machine like the Mac. However, I fall into the "hobbyist" classification, and don't need immediate software gratification. -- - Joel Plutchak uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster ARPA: uwvax!uwmacc!oyster@rsch.wisc.edu Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could!