robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.201632.1386@milton.u.washington.edu> stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) writes: >No, aliases are pointers to files, folders, or disks. For example, I can >create aliases to Word and leave them on my desktop, in an applications folder, >and under the Apple menu. No matter where the real Word application goes, >the aliases will be treated as if they were the application. One cool use >is to put an alias to a file on floppy onto a mounted volume. When the alias >is used, the system prompts for the correct volume to be mounted. This sounds like "ASSIGN" on the Amiga.
s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Luke Mewburn) (06/21/91)
robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes: >In article <1991Jun19.201632.1386@milton.u.washington.edu> stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) writes: >>No, aliases are pointers to files, folders, or disks. For example, I can >>create aliases to Word and leave them on my desktop, in an applications folder, >>and under the Apple menu. No matter where the real Word application goes, >>the aliases will be treated as if they were the application. One cool use >>is to put an alias to a file on floppy onto a mounted volume. When the alias >>is used, the system prompts for the correct volume to be mounted. > This sounds like "ASSIGN" on the Amiga. Actually, aliases are _MUCH_ more powerful. Assign can _only_ be used for folders or volumes, _not_ files. But, one good use (using ASSIGN) on the Amiga is to make assignments starting with a ".", so when listed in a file requester which handles assign-ed paths, they appear at the top. I do this on Music programs (MED3.1, ST clones, etc), to find my songs directory really fast... Getting back to the point, the mac idea of an Apple Menu in system seven is great - a bit like a 'dock', but not wasteful of desktop space. (I know that wasn't the idea in pre-sys. 7 days, but that is the Apple Menu's most powerful feature, IMHO, in sys 7)...
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun21.021339.11214@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Luke Mewburn) writes: >robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes: > >>In article <1991Jun19.201632.1386@milton.u.washington.edu> stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) writes: >>>No, aliases are pointers to files, folders, or disks. For example, I can >>>create aliases to Word and leave them on my desktop, in an applications folder, >>>and under the Apple menu. No matter where the real Word application goes, >>>the aliases will be treated as if they were the application. One cool use >>>is to put an alias to a file on floppy onto a mounted volume. When the alias >>>is used, the system prompts for the correct volume to be mounted. > > >> This sounds like "ASSIGN" on the Amiga. > > Actually, aliases are _MUCH_ more powerful. Assign can _only_ be used for >folders or volumes, _not_ files. But, one good use (using ASSIGN) on the >Amiga is to make assignments starting with a ".", so when listed in a file >requester which handles assign-ed paths, they appear at the top. I do this >on Music programs (MED3.1, ST clones, etc), to find my songs directory >really fast... > Getting back to the point, the mac idea of an Apple Menu in system seven >is great - a bit like a 'dock', but not wasteful of desktop space. (I know >that wasn't the idea in pre-sys. 7 days, but that is the Apple Menu's most >powerful feature, IMHO, in sys 7)... It is very lucky for us then that WB2.0 has the ability to make symbolic links. 8-) -- Ethan "...Know-Nothing-Bozo the Non-Wonder Dog, an animal so stupid that it had been sacked from one of Will's own commercials for being incapable of knowing which dog food it was supposed to prefer, despite the fact that the meat in all the other bowls had engine oil poured all over it."
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun21.021339.11214@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au>, s902113@minyos.xx.rmit .oz.au (Luke Mewburn) writes: > robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes: > >> This sounds like "ASSIGN" on the Amiga. > > Actually, aliases are _MUCH_ more powerful. Assign can _only_ be used for > folders or volumes, _not_ files. You're WRONG. It's a not often used feature, but the Amiga ASSIGN also does work for files! It's only not very comfortable to include that colon after the name always, using the shift key. With today's Shell, the Alias is more convenient. But you can't say it can't be done.
morris-ng@cup.portal.com (Yuklung Morris Ng) (06/25/91)
In Amiga shell, ALIAS is the command similar to the Mac alias which is only capable of doing stuff in GUI. For Amiga GUI, we have something call "IconX" which, may be less straight forward than the Mac's alias, it will effectively do the same thing, plus more for document specific scripts. Oh, Amiga DOES NOT need a lot of desktop space compared to Mac, as we have screens, which a lot of Mac users still not quite understand... - Morris
chuck@brain.UUCP (Chuck Shotton) (06/25/91)
In article <43643@cup.portal.com>, morris-ng@cup.portal.com (Yuklung Morris Ng) writes: > Oh, Amiga DOES NOT need a lot of desktop space compared to Mac, as we have > screens, which a lot of Mac users still not quite understand... > Well, that shows what a wonderfully intuitve box the Amiga is, doesn't it? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Shotton Internet: cshotton@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu BIAP Systems UUCP: ...!buster!brain!chuck "Your silly quote here." AppleLink: D1683 MacNet: shotton
rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/25/91)
In article <D2150025.izm3tm@brain.UUCP> chuck@brain.uucp writes: > >In article <43643@cup.portal.com>, morris-ng@cup.portal.com (Yuklung Morris Ng) writes: >> Oh, Amiga DOES NOT need a lot of desktop space compared to Mac, as we have >> screens, which a lot of Mac users still not quite understand... >> > >Well, that shows what a wonderfully intuitve box the Amiga is, doesn't it? No, I think it show the kind of intelligence the average Mac user has, and the kind of people the machine is targeted at. :) But, as an explanation. The Amiga has Windows (which the Mac user will recognize.) and in addition to windows, the Amiga has a notion of "viewports" (the user need not know about this) Viewports allow the Amiga programmer to open multiple resolutions on the same monitor all at once. So if he wanted, the top of the screen could be a hires control panel and the bottom part of the display could be a lores, but higher amount of color area. Viewports also allow the Amiga programmer to reuse sprites. Intuition, the Amiga GUI manager, uses ViewPorts to build Screens. Screens are sort of multiple desktop areas. For instance, I could have a 640x480 4 color "Workbench" screen (analogous to Finder) and on another Screen I could have a HAM mode paint program. I can switch between these screens as easily as windows and I can drag them around. The advantage is, I can run my desktop in a 4 color 3d type screen (fast) and run the paint program on a slower screen more colorful screen. It also results in faster rendering since there would be no overlapping windows if the application used its own screen. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Chuck Shotton Internet: cshotton@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu >BIAP Systems UUCP: ...!buster!brain!chuck >"Your silly quote here." AppleLink: D1683 MacNet: shotton -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (06/26/91)
From article <D2150025.izm3tm@brain.UUCP>, by chuck@brain.UUCP (Chuck Shotton): > > In article <43643@cup.portal.com>, morris-ng@cup.portal.com (Yuklung Morris Ng) writes: >> Oh, Amiga DOES NOT need a lot of desktop space compared to Mac, as we have >> screens, which a lot of Mac users still not quite understand... >> > > Well, that shows what a wonderfully intuitve box the Amiga is, doesn't it? Actually, yes. Either that, or it shows that MultiFinder is counterintuitive, because it is quite similar... Greg -- Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.160016.10433@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <D2150025.izm3tm@brain.UUCP> chuck@brain.uucp writes: >>In article <43643@cup.portal.com>, morris-ng@cup.portal.com (Yuklung Morris Ng) writes: >>> >>> Oh, Amiga DOES NOT need a lot of desktop space compared to Mac, as we have >>> screens, which a lot of Mac users still not quite understand... >> >>Well, that shows what a wonderfully intuitve box the Amiga is, doesn't it? > > No, I think it show the kind of intelligence the average Mac >user has, and the kind of people the machine is targeted at. :) [explanation of Amiga "screens" deleted...] Well, I won't argue Amiga vs. Mac. I have an SE/30, my fiancee has an A500. I've been spending more time on the A500 for the past few days, since we bought Lemmings over the weekend. 8-D (How does one make an insane smiley?) But I don't think that the "screens" are very intuitive. Once you figure them out, they're great - it's nice to have three layered screens, 2 dedicated to full-screen apps, and the other dedicated to WorkBench and some windowing apps. However, the screens aren't quite obvious. Clicking on the menu bar with the left button and dragging it down to show the screen behind just isn't one of those things that come to you - especially when there is no visual indicator to show that there -is- a screen behind. Perhaps, with some kind of notifier that there is a layered screen, it could be more intuitive. As for the "intelligence" shot, well, it was smileyed, so I won't bother spouting the old-time Mac Religion. Save us both, eh? --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.200208.25581@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun25.160016.10433@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>In article <D2150025.izm3tm@brain.UUCP> chuck@brain.uucp writes: >>>In article <43643@cup.portal.com>, morris-ng@cup.portal.com (Yuklung Morris Ng) writes: >>>> >>>> Oh, Amiga DOES NOT need a lot of desktop space compared to Mac, as we have >>>> screens, which a lot of Mac users still not quite understand... >>> >>>Well, that shows what a wonderfully intuitve box the Amiga is, doesn't it? >> >> No, I think it show the kind of intelligence the average Mac >>user has, and the kind of people the machine is targeted at. :) > >[explanation of Amiga "screens" deleted...] > >Well, I won't argue Amiga vs. Mac. I have an SE/30, my fiancee has an A500. >I've been spending more time on the A500 for the past few days, since we bought >Lemmings over the weekend. 8-D (How does one make an insane smiley?) > >But I don't think that the "screens" are very intuitive. Once you figure them >out, they're great - it's nice to have three layered screens, 2 dedicated to >full-screen apps, and the other dedicated to WorkBench and some windowing apps. I guess if you're used to the Mac it might be less obvious, but what's to figure out? If you start up an App that opens its own screen and you want to get back to workbench you just press the front/back gadgets at the top of the screen to flip screens. The same thing happens with windows that open to the full size of the screeen. If you want to see what's behind them you click on the gadget to send the screen to the back. >However, the screens aren't quite obvious. Clicking on the menu bar with the >left button and dragging it down to show the screen behind just isn't one of >those things that come to you - especially when there is no visual indicator to >show that there -is- a screen behind. Perhaps, with some kind of notifier that >there is a layered screen, it could be more intuitive. You don't have to drag screens, you just click on the front/back gadgets just like windows. What's the visual indicator on the Mac if a window opens and takes up the whole screen? How do you know there's something behind it? Common sense of course. >As for the "intelligence" shot, well, it was smileyed, so I won't bother >spouting the old-time Mac Religion. Save us both, eh? Layered screens aren't any less intuition than layered windows. For all intents and purposes Screens can be thought of as large full screen windows with child windows inside them. >--- >Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University >VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> >Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! >Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings" -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
espie@ibis.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.230459.19455@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: [Lots of stuff edited to save bandwidth] > I guess if you're used to the Mac it might be less obvious, but what's to >figure out? If you start up an App that opens its own screen and you >want to get back to workbench you just press the front/back gadgets at >the top of the screen to flip screens. The same thing happens with windows >that open to the full size of the screeen. If you want to see what's behind >them you click on the gadget to send the screen to the back. > and in article <1991Jun26.200208.25581@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >>However, the screens aren't quite obvious. Clicking on the menu bar with the >>left button and dragging it down to show the screen behind just isn't one of >>those things that come to you-especially when there is no visual indicator to >>show that there -is- a screen behind. Perhaps, with some kind of notifier that >>there is a layered screen, it could be more intuitive. > > You don't have to drag screens, you just click on the front/back gadgets >just like windows. What's the visual indicator on the Mac if a window >opens and takes up the whole screen? How do you know there's something >behind it? Common sense of course. > >>As for the "intelligence" shot, well, it was smileyed, so I won't bother >>spouting the old-time Mac Religion. Save us both, eh? > > Layered screens aren't any less intuition than layered windows. >For all intents and purposes Screens can be thought of as large >full screen windows with child windows inside them. > >>--- >>Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University >>VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> >>Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! >>Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" -Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings" > >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / Well, actually, the 1.3 system of screens must have been a bit less than intuitive, because it got better. Under 2.0, you can flip through all screens with amiga-m. You can also drag a screen around without having to reach for the title bar (and you can also drag it in the horizontal direction... virtual screens can be much larger than the real screen, even the workbench.) You can also create new screens and declare them as public, so that you can have as many scratch areas as you wish. There are also some features for applications to actually share non standard screens (developper starting to slobber over his keyboard :-) ). This is getting more and more to match the ``sheets of paper'' paradigm, and since we can't push windows off the screen (we could use that), this helps A LOT in uncluttering your workspace. IMHO, this is even better in most cases. It takes me much less time to flip through several screens than to rearrange window positions/size/depth... to the point I regret that some programs cannot open their own screens. ---- Marc Espie (espie@flamingo.stanford.edu)
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (06/27/91)
From article <1991Jun26.200208.25581@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, by gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu: > Lemmings over the weekend. 8-D (How does one make an insane smiley?) Perhaps a >-) is in order. :) >But I don't think that the "screens" are very intuitive. Once you figure them > out, they're great - it's nice to have three layered screens, 2 dedicated to >full-screen apps, and the other dedicated to WorkBench and some windowing apps I found them extremely intuitive, and well planned. I didn't find the two gadgets, screentofront & screentoback, real intuitive. Screentofront didn't seem real useful, and I always seemed to hit the wrong one. With 2.0, all there is is screentoback, I think, and it's great. Extremely intuitive. > However, the screens aren't quite obvious. Clicking on the menu bar with the > left button and dragging it down to show the screen behind just isn't one of >those things that come to you - especially when there is no visual indicator > show that there -is- a screen behind. Perhaps, with some kind of notifier > there is a layered screen, it could be more intuitive. I almost never really use dragged screens. I just pop thru with the button. It seemed awfully intuitive to me, and I started as a Mac fanatic (looking in retrospect, they were kind of dumb, but now they're almost half an amiga... :-) > As for the "intelligence" shot, well, it was smileyed, so I won't bother > spouting the old-time Mac Religion. Save us both, eh? Of course. :) If I had a bible for every comment, I'd be a brainwashed christian. :D And once again, it's a joke folks. BTW, some %*#!^% jacka$$ wrote me a note about that smiley'ed comment... I could have sworn that that's what the smiley was meant to avoid. Let's mellow out, folks. As always, Greg -- Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.005059.11450@neon.Stanford.EDU>, espie@ibis.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) writes: > and since we can't push windows off the screen (we could use that), > this helps A LOT in uncluttering > your workspace. IMHO, this is even better in most cases. It takes me much less > time to flip through several screens than to rearrange window > their own screens. For once, a Mac vs Amiga discussion is not turning into another silly "my computer is better than yours war". Other than the feature of being able to have different video attributes on each screen, is this really so much different from the Mac feature of being able to selectively hide applications (in System 7)? -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.033737.19606@neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun27.005059.11450@neon.Stanford.EDU>, espie@ibis.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) writes: >> and since we can't push windows off the screen (we could use that), >> this helps A LOT in uncluttering >> your workspace. IMHO, this is even better in most cases. It takes me much less >> time to flip through several screens than to rearrange window >> their own screens. >For once, a Mac vs Amiga discussion is not turning into another >silly "my computer is better than yours war". Other than the >feature of being able to have different video attributes on >each screen, is this really so much different from the Mac >feature of being able to selectively hide applications (in >System 7)? I dunno because I don't know how the hide feature works on the Mac. On the Amiga, usually "hide" closes the current app screen/window and changes it into an icon or titlebar that can be clicked on or brought back via hotkey. Amiga Screens are not really hidden at all since one can drag down the current screen and see whats behind it (rendering may still be taking place). Sometimes when I am ray-tracing or generating something I put the screen in the back and pull down the front screen just enough to see how far the rendering has gone. In AmigaDOS2.0 screens can be dragged horizontally as well as vertically, so you can have very large virtual displays to scroll around it. The best thing I like about multiple screens is it gives me more desktop space and faster rendering. (when you have lots of windows open on the same screen switching between windows is slowed because of all the clipping being done.) When a Mac app is hidden, does it still run/render, and more importantly, how long does it take for it to reopen it's display? If it has to redraw everything, it may start to get annoying if you switch alot. >-- >Philip Machanick >philip@pescadero.stanford.edu -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/27/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.033737.19606@neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: >>For once, a Mac vs Amiga discussion is not turning into another >>silly "my computer is better than yours war". Other than the >>feature of being able to have different video attributes on >>each screen, is this really so much different from the Mac >>feature of being able to selectively hide applications (in >>System 7)? > I dunno because I don't know how the hide feature works on the Mac. >On the Amiga, usually "hide" closes the current app screen/window >and changes it into an icon or titlebar that can be clicked on or >brought back via hotkey. Hide on the Mac removes all the application's windows from the screen, and dims the application's icon in the Application menu. You can choose to either Hide the current application, or Hide all others (most useful in the Finder to get at the desktop). You can also hide the current application as you switch to another by holding down the Option key. > When a Mac app is hidden, does it still run/render, Yes. >and more importantly, >how long does it take for it to reopen it's display? As long as it takes to respond to an update event. In the case of something like HyperCard, it's instantaneous. With a complicated model in AutoCad, it could take a while, unless the application saves away the current state of the screen on a Suspend event (as Switcher used to do). >If it has >to redraw everything, it may start to get annoying if you switch alot. Yes, in which case I use the 21" monitor, and have everything open at the same time. :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.033737.19606@neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: > feature of being able to have different video attributes on > each screen, is this really so much different from the Mac > feature of being able to selectively hide applications (in > System 7)? Yes. It's faster. A lot faster. Fast enough that even on a 7 MHz 68000 the time to swap screens is invisible to the user. On the Mac, even juggling apps is slow enough to drive me bats (at least on Mac-II and lower class machines) I can't imagine how it'd be like if the app had to repaint *all* its windows instead of just the ones that had been obscured. Until we have infinitely fast processors, faster implementations of an interface may in practice operate differently enough to be effectively a different interface. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
Rick_McCormack@mindlink.bc.ca (Rick McCormack) (06/27/91)
For the Mac, there is an init called WindowShade (I have seen version 1.1, there may be newer versions. Anyone know if it works with System 7.0?) that handles many of these "wish I could get to the area behind this screen" problems. It can be set so that a "command-click" on the title bar causes the window to roll up like a venetian blind, leaving the title bar where it was and revealing the "behind the scenes" area. In addition, the title bar remains "active", but you can change the active window to any other area visible by clicking on . And since you can un-wind other rolled up title bars, you can have a considerable number of these title bars on view, without causing re-draw time to take ages, even on a Mac Plus like mine. BTW, my thanks also for the continuing informative nature of this discussion - I am learning a lot about the actual working of the two machines that is of real value. -- _________________________________________________________ | IMAGISTICS Business Theatre Technology | Rick McCormack | | Interactive Effective Compelling | Vancouver, BC | |________________________________________|________________| | UseNet: Rick_McCormack@mindlink.uucp | A O-L: Rique | |_________________________________________________________| .
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/27/91)
Responding to the following: "Oh, Amiga DOES NOT need a lot of desktop space compared to Mac, as we have screens, which a lot of Mac users still not quite understand..." Give me a break. On my dinky 9" screen (Mac SE) I have a Virtual 2-page display. The screen scrolls automatically according to the active window, WP cursor position, or mouse cursor. I can tell it to take a section of it and enlarge it 3x, take another part of the virtual screen and reduce it to 75%. And despite this, I can STILL use what I see (press button, switch windows, etc) normally.
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.033737.19606@neon.Stanford.EDU>, philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.005059.11450@neon.Stanford.EDU>, espie@ibis.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) writes: >> and since we can't push windows off the screen (we could use that), >> this helps A LOT in uncluttering >> your workspace. IMHO, this is even better in most cases. It takes me much less >> time to flip through several screens than to rearrange window >> their own screens. >For once, a Mac vs Amiga discussion is not turning into another >silly "my computer is better than yours war". Other than the >feature of being able to have different video attributes on >each screen, is this really so much different from the Mac >feature of being able to selectively hide applications (in >System 7)? Great, isn't it? The fanatics on both the Amiga and the Mac side have managed to keep from foaming at the mouth. <grin> Actually, Philip, it's quite different. Imagine your standard 640 x 480 Macintosh screen. Now, add another button to the mouse that is attached to the Mac that is attached to the screen in your imagination. <grin> By clicking with this new button on a gadget at the far right of the menubar (looks like 2 sheets of paper, one half-covering the other), you get a whole new screen. And if you click-and-drag the menubar with that new button, the screen slides away to expose part of the other screen. Programs can take up an entire screen for themselves, or they can just run in a window. Admittedly, you get the same "functionality" of screen-flipping with the Hide feature in System 7. But the multiple virtual screens provide more apparent room. It's hard to quantify, but it is my opinion (as someone who's used both Macs and Amigas) that being able to flip or drag "virtual" screens is more useful than app hiding. I mean, let's be honest here. I know -I'd- rather have more screen space - virtual -or- real. Hey, to the folks who were talking about AmigaDOS 2.0 - is that thing out of beta yet? I saw a beta about a year ago, and was -very- impressed. It was supposed to out RSN back then... :-( --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.041627.29718@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > I dunno because I don't know how the hide feature works on the Mac. >On the Amiga, usually "hide" closes the current app screen/window >and changes it into an icon or titlebar that can be clicked on or >brought back via hotkey. Same thing on the Mac, essentially. "Hide" will remove all the app's windows and gadgets, but there will still be an entry on the System Menu. (The System Menu is a pull-down menu on the far right of the menubar that lists all active apps, and contains the hide/restore commands). Also, the icon that represents the application will still be "grayed". (Mac apps aren't re-entrant, so a running app will have its icon dimmed). By double-clicking the program icon, or by selecting the app name from the System Menu, the app will come back. > When a Mac app is hidden, does it still run/render, and more importantly, >how long does it take for it to reopen it's display? If it has >to redraw everything, it may start to get annoying if you switch alot. Hmmm... I haven't really tested that. I'll have to try it tonight when I run my Navigator session - see if everything still bops along when hidden. But it does have to redraw. :-( That's one of the reasons why I said in a previous post that multiple "virtual" screens on the Amiga are more useful that app-hiding on the Mac. Neither app-hiding nor "virtual" screens can touch having real multiple monitors, though. :-) (Sure, and I've got a Mac IIfx and Amiga 3000/25 at home... <sigh>) --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun27.155751.28356@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >Same thing on the Mac, essentially. "Hide" will remove all the app's >windows and gadgets, but there will still be an entry on the System >Menu. (The System Menu is a pull-down menu on the far right of the >menubar that lists all active apps, and contains the hide/restore >commands). Also, the icon that represents the application will still >be "grayed". (Mac apps aren't re-entrant, so a running app will have >its icon dimmed). ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ?????? The grayed icon is purely user-interface feedback, to let you know that the application is running but hidden. It hasn't anything at all to do with re-entrancy. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ c+ g+ k s+(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.161530.14821@midway.uchicago.edu>, jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >?????? The grayed icon is purely user-interface feedback, to let you know >that the application is running but hidden. It hasn't anything at all to >do with re-entrancy. Correct, to an extent. The grayed icon is to show that the program is running (whether or not the app is hidden makes no difference). And you're right, the grayed icon doesn't have anything to directly do with re-entrancy. It's visual feedback, to show the user that the program is already running and that (here's the kicker) -because- it's already running, you can't run it again. Get it? It's visual feedback that the program can't be run, -because it's already running-. On the Amiga WorkBench or in MS Windows, the icon of a running app undergoes no change. Why? Because apps are re-entrant there. I can have the same application running two or three time if I like. Dumb Personal Experience: the time I forgot I was in a Windows DOS shell and re-ran Windows. Couldn't for the life of me figure out why it was so much slower than normal till I quit the second session of Windows to discover I still had another session. Oops... --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.073542.442@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >>If it has >>to redraw everything, it may start to get annoying if you switch alot. > > Yes, in which case I use the 21" monitor, and have everything open at >the same time. :-) That's nice, if you can afford it, but I find it still doesn't solve the problem. No matter how big the screen is, I like to have shell windows/ text editors/comm programs open up to full size. This cuts down on scrolling and allows me to see more of what I am editing at once. That's why I like having a full screen shell on one screen, and a full screen comm program on another (like I have now) I can switch quickly between them with one keypress or via the mouse (pressing the left and right buttons at the same time). No matter how much you give a user, he will find a way to use it up, and want more. (This applies to ram, cpu power, screen real estate, etc) Windows help maximize screen real estate but too many on one screen starts to slow switching between them down. Screens don't have this problem. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, > Reggie." "Yes, C.J." -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.195750.29163@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun27.161530.14821@midway.uchicago.edu>, jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >>?????? The grayed icon is purely user-interface feedback, to let you know >>that the application is running but hidden. It hasn't anything at all to >>do with re-entrancy. > >Correct, to an extent. The grayed icon is to show that the program is >running (whether or not the app is hidden makes no difference). But...it's not gray unless the application is hidden. >And you're right, the grayed icon doesn't have anything to directly do >with re-entrancy. It's visual feedback, to show the user that the >program is already running and that (here's the kicker) -because- it's >already running, you can't run it again. > >Get it? It's visual feedback that the program can't be run, -because >it's already running-. Ohhhh... I get it. You're referring to the icon of an active application, as displayed on the Finder desktop. I thought we were talking about the icon in the System 7 Application menu. Picked Nit: the Mac User-Interface Term for what you're referring to is a "hollow" icon, not a "grayed" icon. >On the Amiga WorkBench or in MS Windows, the icon of a running app >undergoes no change. Why? Because apps are re-entrant there. I can >have the same application running two or three time if I like. The problem on the Mac is that the OS Resource Manager is not re-entrant. Many apps are in fact multi-launchable, but they have to reside on a shared file-server and be launched on different Macs. :-( -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ c+ g+ k s+(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.161530.14821@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.155751.28356@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >>Same thing on the Mac, essentially. "Hide" will remove all the app's >>windows and gadgets, but there will still be an entry on the System >>Menu. (The System Menu is a pull-down menu on the far right of the >>menubar that lists all active apps, and contains the hide/restore >>commands). Also, the icon that represents the application will still >>be "grayed". (Mac apps aren't re-entrant, so a running app will have >>its icon dimmed). ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ > >?????? The grayed icon is purely user-interface feedback, to let you know >that the application is running but hidden. It hasn't anything at all to >do with re-entrancy. But does the Mac have "pure" applications and support for them at all? I find this to be a major multitasking feature, as I can run multiple copies of a 200-500k App without using extra memory. The same code and data space is used, so the only extra memory that the other running copies take up is their stack, screen memory, and global/static data(which has to be copied and initialized on startup.) Resident applications/code also runs _very_ fast. There is no delay between running and startup. Its faster than loading from harddisk or ramdisk since no loading/filesystem routines are called. Resident/ sharable code is one of the reasons the Amiga, even the 512k Amiga, can run lots of programs at once or multiple copies of programs. >-- >John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu >University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 >Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 >B0 f++ c+ g+ k s+(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900 -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
tappek@infonode.ingr.com (J. Kurt Tappe) (06/28/91)
>Well, that shows what a wonderfully intuitive box the Amiga is... Foul!! Come on... Whatever you might think of the Amiga, windows are a VERY easy concept of the Amiga GUI to understand. Easier, in my opinion, than Multifinder/System 7.0. (and, before you assume I'm a Mac neophyte, I use both Amiga and Mac *heavily*) Thanks for no more wisecracks. Kurt -- From daemon Tue Jun 25 21:07 CDT 1991 >From JKT100%PSUVM.PSU.EDU Tue Jun 25 21:06:55 1991 remote from infonode Return-Path: <JKT100@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> Received: from [128.118.56.2] by infonode.ingr.com (5.61/1.910401)
tappek@infonode.ingr.com (J. Kurt Tappe) (06/28/91)
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.005059.11450@neon.Stanford.EDU>, espie@ibis.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) writes: >> and since we can't push windows off the screen (we could use that), >> this helps A LOT in uncluttering >> your workspace. IMHO, this is even better in most cases. It takes me much less >> time to flip through several screens than to rearrange window >> their own screens. >For once, a Mac vs Amiga discussion is not turning into another >silly "my computer is better than yours war". Amen. And I think it's agreed on both sides that we're missing indicators to tell the user that there are screens or windows behind the ones we are viewing. I'd love to see this on BOTH the Amiga and Mac. On the mac, I often have large windows that completely cover small ones, and I hate to move them to get at the ones underneath because the Desktop saves the new position unless I put them back! On the Amiga, I often have 4-6 screens open at once, and there is no quick way to jump directly to a certain one without flipping thru all the others. Mods to both systems needed! :-) Kurt -- From daemon Tue Jun 25 21:07 CDT 1991 >From JKT100%PSUVM.PSU.EDU Tue Jun 25 21:06:55 1991 remote from infonode Return-Path: <JKT100@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> Received: from [128.118.56.2] by infonode.ingr.com (5.61/1.910401)
tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) (06/28/91)
>>?????? The grayed icon is purely user-interface feedback, to let you know >>that the application is running but hidden. It hasn't anything at all to >>do with re-entrancy. > >Correct, to an extent. The grayed icon is to show that the program is >running (whether or not the app is hidden makes no difference). I believe you are talking about two different icons. The original poster is refering to the sicn (ics?) that gets grayed when you hide an application and not the icon (icl?) itself. Which _does_ have alot to due with whether or not the app is hidden (but still running). Also in reference to an earlier post there is no need on the Mac to continually "peek" at the application to see if it's finished rendering or doing whatever. There is a thing called the notification manager which most/some programmers take advantage of that can flash a small icon (or a sound or an alert box) notifying you that some process was completed. An excellent example of this is Mandlezot by Dave Platt. Of course that still doesn't stop me from checking on the progress from time to time if I'm bored ;). Todd -- Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu BitNet: tagreen@iubacs.bitnet
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.232602.22983@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) writes: > >>>?????? The grayed icon is purely user-interface feedback, to let you know >>>that the application is running but hidden. It hasn't anything at all to >>>do with re-entrancy. >> >>Correct, to an extent. The grayed icon is to show that the program is >>running (whether or not the app is hidden makes no difference). > >I believe you are talking about two different icons. The original >poster is refering to the sicn (ics?) that gets grayed when you hide >an application and not the icon (icl?) itself. Which _does_ have alot >to due with whether or not the app is hidden (but still running). > >Also in reference to an earlier post there is no need on the Mac to >continually "peek" at the application to see if it's finished >rendering or doing whatever. There is a thing called the notification >manager which most/some programmers take advantage of that can flash a >small icon (or a sound or an alert box) notifying you that some >process was completed. An excellent example of this is Mandlezot by >Dave Platt. Of course that still doesn't stop me from checking on the >progress from time to time if I'm bored ;). This is sort of like the Amiga's DisplayBeep() function which flashes all screens. I think it's more attention getting than the Mac's flashing icon, but the flashing icon idea sounds cooler. The problem is, what if you've ran things from a shell instead of from the GUI/Workbench? There won't be an icon to flash. Oh well, we can always used the animated pointer trick. (DisplayBeep() is very annoying, it's meant that way to get your attention. It flashes the entire screen (on my screen colors) yellow/bright white for a period of atleast a second. DisplayBeep can be patched to use a sample (like a beep, siren, etc) >Todd > >-- >Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu >NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu >BitNet: tagreen@iubacs.bitnet -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu (Garance A. Drosehn) (06/28/91)
[skipping over many people discussing many things about amiga windows and the such-like] Is there any particular reason that this topic is being discussed in comp.sys.mac.system (in addition to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy)? Does anybody think that the de-macification of the Amiga is a macintosh systems issue? - - - - - - - - Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer (handles NeXT-type mail) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/28/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > But does the Mac have "pure" applications and support for them at all? > I find this to be a major multitasking feature, as I can run > multiple copies of a 200-500k App without using extra memory. [Sidenote: Kev's Rule #2 which everyone breaks -- use common terminology for features, not funky CBM/Mac names!! Eg: use "reentrant", not "pure".] Ray: Well, yeah, I mean yeah... but it took _years_ before we started seeing very many reentrant/resident apps on the Amiga. It sure wasn't common at first! True story: about two dozen CoCo/OS9 owners trooped down to see the A1000 when it hit our town. We thought the Ami graphics were awesome, of course. We were all dying to buy one right then and there. UNTIL we tried to bring up another incarnation of the editor, and it didn't have enough room to LOAD another copy. "What!??" we all yelled, "You mean there's a 68000 in there and the bozos didn't even write reentrant code for it??!" That was enough to convince us all that the Amiga was really a C64 in disguise :-) So because of that bogosity, and the MSDOS-ish pathnames, we all left the store. No sales to us then. For that matter, it wasn't too long ago that even _suggesting_ that Amiga programmers write reentrant code, was a surefire flame topic on most nets. "Why?" they'd ask. "Who needs to run more than one copy of each program at one time?" Arrgh. In other words, Amiga history itself is awful weak to be dumping on the (was singletasking) Mac for not using reentrant code. Give the Mac a few more years of multitasking; then you can rag them :-). cheers - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> PS: if anyone's interested, Rule #1 is: don't use Amiga part numbers in discussions with other machine owners, unless you explain what they are! (example: "Well, my Amiga has an A2091".) Confuses the whole net.
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun28.015423.21346@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> But does the Mac have "pure" applications and support for them at all? >> I find this to be a major multitasking feature, as I can run >> multiple copies of a 200-500k App without using extra memory. > >[Sidenote: Kev's Rule #2 which everyone breaks -- use common terminology >for features, not funky CBM/Mac names!! Eg: use "reentrant", not "pure".] > >Ray: Well, yeah, I mean yeah... but it took _years_ before we started >seeing very many reentrant/resident apps on the Amiga. It sure wasn't >common at first! ARP Ares and the arp commands have existed for a long time now. (3 years?) Almost all the Matt Dillon stuff has/is always reentrant. For about, what 2 years? Lattice has been able to produce reentrant code. AmigaDOS 1.3 Copyright 1988 contained the resident command and the pure bit. I'd say resident commands have been around for awhile, I sure have been using them for a long time. Not to mention all AmigaDOS libraries and devices are pure, which cuts down on executable size and the need for link libraries. [Story of Coco OS/9 deleted]. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/28/91)
Responding to the following: "This is getting more and more to match the ``sheets of paper'' paradigm, and since we can't push windows off the screen (we could use that), this helps A LOT in uncluttering your workspace." Another replacement for this on the Mac is that the Multitasking Icon menu has the Hide Application command (always, in every program) to hide all entities of that program (including windows). It's useful.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/28/91)
Responding to the following: "When a Mac app is hidden, does it still run/render, and more importantly, how long does it take for it to reopen it's display? If it has to redraw everything, it may start to get annoying if you switch alot." Yes, it does continue to run. You can switch back to it by choosing it under the "Cooperative Multitasking Icon" menu on the right side of the menu bar. This brings its windows up again. Of course the window has to be redrawn, but I don't know on what "level" the redraw is taking place.
gibson@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (John Gibson) (06/29/91)
In article <6528@mindlink.bc.ca> Rick_McCormack@mindlink.bc.ca (Rick McCormack) writes: >For the Mac, there is an init called WindowShade (I have seen version 1.1, >there may be newer versions. Anyone know if it works with System 7.0?) that Yes, WindowShade 1.1 works in system 7, at least on a IIci with 24-bit addressing and no VM. It's still quite useful, even with sys 7's hiding feature. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- John Gibson Princeton Univ. Dept. of Music gibson@silvertone.Princeton.EDU
metahawk@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun27.154807.28286@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > >Admittedly, you get the same "functionality" of screen-flipping with >the Hide feature in System 7. But the multiple virtual screens >provide more apparent room. It's hard to quantify, but it is my >opinion (as someone who's used both Macs and Amigas) that being able >to flip or drag "virtual" screens is more useful than app hiding. I >mean, let's be honest here. I know -I'd- rather have more screen >space - virtual -or- real. As an observation from someone who doesn't own an Amiga or a Mac, but who has played with both for a while, including AmigaDOS 2.0 & System 7.0, I find the Amiga multiple screens much more convenient than the Macintosh's flat display. The Amiga's WorkBench can do anything the Mac's desktop can, and it has the ability to have more such screens behind it, especially with 2.0's public screens. The Mac just has the one screen that you see, whereas an Amiga has several that reach back deeper into the monitor and can be slid around like HUGE windows (each with its own command bar) to give a more 3D effect to the workspace. It IS much like working with several different papers at a real desk, except these pages are much more powerful and interactive than the average sheet of paper. >Hey, to the folks who were talking about AmigaDOS 2.0 - is that thing >out of beta yet? I saw a beta about a year ago, and was -very- >impressed. It was supposed to out RSN back then... :-( Where have you been? It's been out of beta for a long time. They're already up to 2.03, and developers have 2.04. >--- >Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University >VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> >Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! >Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings" "Hello? Is there anybody in there? Wayne Rigby "Just nod if you can hear me." Computer and Systems Engineer - Pink Floyd (A delightful blend of EE and CS) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Yes, C-128's still live! metahawk@rpi.edu
mmoore@ux.acs.umn.edu (Malcolm Diallo Moore) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun27.235411.16654@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu$ rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
$
$(DisplayBeep() is very annoying, it's meant that way to get your
$attention. It flashes the entire screen (on my screen colors) yellow/bright
$white for a period of atleast a second. DisplayBeep can be patched to
$use a sample (like a beep, siren, etc)
$
$--
$/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
$| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
$\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
Yeah yeah yeah I know this is the wrong newsgroup to post it but I saw it here
and I ain't wasting any more bandwith than I have to so.
Is there a program I could put in my startup-sequence that would patch
DisplayBeep()? Better yet is there a program that you can change (either in
menu or on CLI) the sound made when DisplayBeep() is called?
ADthanxVANCE.
Malcolm "Get Wit The Program" Moore
(mmoore@ux.acs.umn.edu)
Whaddaya want, a biscuit?