ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractint/archive/v01.n199

Internet Message Format | 1998-05-11 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (fractint-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: fractint-digest V1 #199
Reply-To: fractint-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


fractint-digest         Tuesday, May 12 1998         Volume 01 : Number 199




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 05:51:30 -0400
From: davides <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) beyond the hype

At 10:18 PM 5/11/1998 -0700, you wrote:

(snipped)

"But it's never too late, which is the  reason I offer my support in this.
Either to rebuild Fractint from the ground up to fully support Windows 9x,
or to offer my program(s) as a platform to use the bulk of Fractint's
options/features.  Would there be a lot of interest in a program that was
fully Fractint compatible, and just as fast or faster, but ran in Windows
95 and was called by a different name than WinFract?

(And remainder snipped)

I would be interested - including b-testing. At least right now; I am not
absolutely positive what will be happening a couple of months from now; I
had better check my "fractalscope".  :)
Aside from that - an interesting discussion here.








[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Back up my hard drive?
How do I put it in reverse?

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1998 12:22:48 +0200
From: Brederlow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) FractInt on Linux

"Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Mrvn,
>[snip]
>  - It will gain the CPU power your Windows sucks up. The multitasking is
>  - far better.
>
> I see you're going on hearsay.  I can run a DOS program in Windows, and
> it's only 2% slower than running it in true DOS.  Uh-huh, Windows sure
> sucks up a lot of CPU time!  (Isn't sarcasm grand?)

2% speedup over a time of 50 days is a full day saved and one day is
quite a lot of time. Anyway, you aren't comparing on equal
grounds. Run Windows on your comp, start fractint and work on it. Do
the same with Linux and see the differenc in the multitasking. Its not
only Windows that slows your fractint down, its all the badly
programmed code for other aplications as well.

>  - The Multipart gifs need a little workaround, but why use it? You can
>  - render 2560x2560 images onscreen or on disk.
>
> If you are rendering images for posters, multi-part GIFs are pretty
> important.  2560x2560 doesn't get you very far.

I know. I've rendered several 65536x65536 images lately. I found it
stupid that xfractint wouldnt do more than 2560x2560 per image, so I
wrote a little script that takes the multipart parfiles, renders all
images and sticks them back together. Images that large aren't like
everydays images. My last one took 3 weeks to finish on my P200.

>  - Fast, secure, cheap, capable. 4 GB of Software for free.
>
> As opposed to the who-knows-how-many gigs of free software for Windows?

The 4 GB was ment as a rough figure of what you get with the normal
distribution you buy. No extra CDs or downloads counted in. Compared
to the 0 Byte Windows give you thats a lot. Thats the one thing about
Linux that isn't arguable, Linux is cheap.

>  - How should one start a war between a Operating System and a System for
>  - Games? :)
>
> Precisely in the manner that you just did.  If you wish to be a Linux
> advocate, that's fine (although not appropriate on this mailing list), but
> you'll advance your cause *much* more effectively if you refrain from
> hurling epithets and instead stick to solid, meaningful facts.

If you want Microsoft OSes, pleas at least use their OS, install
NT. Win95 isn't an operating system. Windows NT and Linux come close
to an operating system. The first for mouse users, the second for
keyboard users.

May the Source be with you.
            Mrvn


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 06:17:18 -0500
From: "Paul N. Lee" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

Terry W. Gintz wrote:
>
> Morgan L. Owens wrote:
> >
> > ......(snipped a bunch of unknowledgeable windows bigotry).......
> >
>
> Do you think I haven't worked long and hard to support my claims?
> Just stating my opinions.  I'm just one person, no genius, with
> probably as much fractal programming experience as any one of
> Fractint's authors.  If it looks arrogant to state that I think
> the Stone Soup group is lagging by not using Windows 9x, so be it.
>

Easy there Terry!! :-)   I for one definitely agree with you and all of
your statements.  FractInt has a lot of excellant features and
abilities, but it has become out of date with todays operating systems
and the way users interface with computers.  Some individuals are just a
little slower when it comes to current technology, so you just have to
let them plod along at their own rate.

One day, there will be a 32-bit Windows version of FractInt that people
will feel the same about as they do the DOS version.  And, they will not
want to upgrade to the newer 128-bit multi-interface version of the
future.  That's just the way of things.  (It's kind of an age thing.)


- -------------------------------------------------
     Why do most folks hate cynics so much?
       Because we're almost always right.
- -------------------------------------------------
http://www.fractalus.com/cgi-bin/theway?ring=fractals&id=43&go

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:58:43 +1200
From: "Morgan L. Owens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

I really like the idea of generating several fractals concurrently. They
wouldn't render any faster overall (the same amount of computation would be
needed in any case) but it would make exploring a lot easier. Whack out a
bunch of attempts in one go and kill off the boring ones. The feel would be
more interactive.

At 00:08 12/05/98 -0700, Terry Gintz wrote:
>Morgan L. Owens wrote:
>
>> >
>> I would agree with this as well - so long as Winfract can update its
>> rendering in realtime as parameters are fiddled a la Tierazon. Otherwise
>> I'd be using with DOS Fractint.
>
>Morgan,Claims have flew that laziness was not an issue here, but I fail to
see the
>point that doing in a Windows program what you can't do in Fractint is so
>important to reduce a program's usability to nil.
>
Pardon? I'm having trouble parsing this sentence; whatever it meant, my
point being that if given a DOS Fractint and a Windows Fractint that had
identical capabilities I would continue to use DOS. I'm happy with DOS
Fractint's UI, and changing just for the sake of changing isn't my style.
But, as I said in the paragraph after the one quoted, this is a personal
choice.

>  Like I said, you either like
>Windows or you don't. Everything you say in this letter is with the latter
>emphasis.
>
Nowhere did I say I didn't like Windows. Using MacOS8 at work and Windows95
at home, I much prefer the latter product. But I do like DOS as well.
Where's the crime in that? I'm just pointing out the sorts of things I
would like to see in a Windows version of Fractint that would in my opinion
make the project worthwhile.

>If I was being heckled by you in a computer store(as a pc salesman), I
>would be strongly tempted to tell you to seek out a used-computer store, than
>waste time trying to describe the merits of today's super personal
computers or
>software.
>
...skipping ad hominem attacks...

>There's nothing "arrogant" about what I've said and meant, though
>through colored glasses it might seem that way.
>
As I said, I was referring to your _presentation_ of your case, not its
contents.

>> Personally, if I had a choice between DOS and Windows Fractints, I'd be
>> picking the DOS version, unless the Windows one was significantly superior.
>> For a start, a Windows port would have to be able to take over the entire
>> screen; without any real estate being taken up with distracting window
>> frames and menu bars (or mouse pointers) - but this shouldn't be too
>> difficult. Care would have to be taken to minimise clutter; it would be
>> nice to have separate dialogue boxes for each of the menu screens Fractint
>> offers open simultaneously - but it would have to be necessary to be able
>> to remove them and rearrange them at will (I'm thinking of Photoshop's
>> palettes here).
>
>You're talking here of limitations that only a Windows programmer would
make out
>of preference, or lack of experience.  I've always had a full-screen mode
for my
>windows programs,
>
Good for you.
>...and it's not that hard to implement.
>
I'm not at all surprised - many programs I have used were full-screen; some
were done well, some were done poorly.

>  On the one hand you say
>you want to reduce clutter, then you say you want all the Fractint screens
to be
>open at the same time.  The reason I haven't gone to MDI for my fractal
programs,
>is the frame clutter.  Having several dialog boxes open at the same time
makes
>little sense, when they open and close so easily.  And you don't have to
exit the
>"graphics" window to see the dialogs in Windows.
>
I repeat: "but it would have to be necessary to be able to remove them and
rearrange them at will". Check the next paragraph, where I say "...hitting
'z' and switching focus to (or opening) the user parameters screen and
(say) shift-Z to close it." The only erratum I would like to correct in
that line is replacing the "screen" with "dialogue box". Being able to open
and adjust dialogues while the graphics screen is still open is an idea I
_like_.

>>
>> And I wouldn't be using Winfract at all unless I can do everything via the
>> keyboard including hitting 'z' and switching focus to (or opening) the user
>> parameters screen and (say) shift-Z to close it. If everything was mousy
>> you would need sliders for entering numeric values (including decimals -
>> and you thought sliders for integer values was icky!) And a combination
>> keyboard-and-mouse interface is just downright annoying.
>
>Nonsense. Having a little of both(mouse and keyboard) gives your hands a
>chance to exercise different muscles, and reduces fatigue.  You can talk all
>you want about the merits of touch typing, but IMHO it's a pain to do for any
>length of time.  Years of typing has convinced me that touch typing is just
>plain bad on your hands and wrists.
>
Perhaps one of us has better touch-typing skills than the other? I taught
myself to type because I was fed up with people being unable to read my
handwriting; my official timing is now up to 74wpm (with pauses) and not
once developed an ache. But boy can those mouses cramp!

> Talk to someone with carpal tunnel syndrome.
Isn't that caused by poor wrist support?

>>
>> "archaic help system"? Personally I prefer Fractint's help system to almost
>> all the online help available with Windows applications.
>
>Have you used real Windows context help?
>
Probably. I've used quite a bit.

> There are links embedded in the [Fractint] help file to specific
sections, but I
>always forget what section to look in to get help about things like the
palette
>editor or zooming.  In my programs, each menu selection has a direct link
to the
>help section that pertains to that command.  You activate the link by
pressing F1
>when the menu item is highlighted.  Each of my windows also has a Help button
>to access context help for that window.  If your Windows program doesn't have
>these
>features, it's because the programmer chose not to implement them, not that
>Windows has bad online help.  Many fractal programmers  who work with Windows
>don't include much more than a status bar or simple help file.  They're not
>getting paid for their efforts either.
>
Not even the professional programmers? I mean, even Help for Microsoft Word
and Photoshop can be tedious wade-throughs at times. And as for Windows
itself ... I've just opened my desktop wastebin and hit "F1". The first
help topic I'm offered is entitled "Windows, the Web, and You." Selecting
it tries to send me to Microsoft's web site. Why I get this when I try to
get help about the recycle bin is a mystery I'm not interesting in learning
the solution to. And I leave it to you to find where it says in the help
how to _rename_ the recycle bin.

Good thing those programmers aren't getting paid.

While the Help software itself may be all right, it's almost never used
effectively. Fractint's help documentation could be easily adapted for
Windows, and it would be a lot more useful and easier with it than
virtually every online help I've come across so far.

>> But may I add in conclusion that Terry Gintz could have presented his case
>> somewhat better. I caught a distinct odour of arrogance from his posting
>> (was it just me?) and to come as close as he did to slandering Fractint's
>> dozens of authors over the years (66 at last count) was just plain
>> uncalled-for.
>
>Do you think I haven't worked long and hard to support my claims?  Just
stating my opinions.
>
Likewise.

>I'm just one person, no genius, with probably as much fractal
>programming experience as any one of Fractint's authors.
I could tell: "In my programs [insert great feature here]" - features which
I can't fault as being good ideas for a Windows-based Fractint.

> If it looks arrogant >to state that I think the Stone Soup group is
lagging by not using Windows 9x,

...there was a suggestion of incompetence...

>  If I *was* to speak out of arrogance I would state for the record
>
...'Nuff zed.

Good grief: I say I type, like DOS Fractint, mention the sorts of things I
would expect in a Windows version - and he bites my head off because he can
program them.

Morgan


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:11:49 -0400
From: Jack Valero <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

At 05:56 PM 12/05/98 +1200, Morgan Owens wrote:
>And I wouldn't be using Winfract at all unless I can do everything via the
>keyboard ...<snip>
Several here have gone on about the merits of "touch typing". But note
that it is not called "touch manipulating" or "touch navigating". Keyboards
are great for *typing* but imagine trying to use photoshop if
*everything* had to be done with the keyboard...

>"archaic help system"? Personally I prefer Fractint's help system to almost
>all the online help available with Windows applications.
I will always prefer good dos-based help systems to poor Windows-based
help files. But a good Winhelp file will beat Fractint's every time.
WinHelp can be like a hypertext book with full indexing, toc, personal
annotations, bookmarks, etc and anyone can find it because it has its own
spot on the menu bar. By contrast, how many long time Fractint users do not
even know that a full manual is included with Fractint? As I've said before,
I *like* Fractint but a true admiration and respect does not remain blind to
its weaknesses. (although in fairness, Fractint's help system was
good for it's day)

>But may I add in conclusion that Terry Gintz could have presented his case
>somewhat better. I caught a distinct odour of arrogance from his posting
>(was it just me?) and to come as close as he did to slandering Fractint's
>dozens of authors over the years (66 at last count) was just plain
>uncalled-for.
Well, Terry is certainly passionate and earnest in his convictions.
Unfortunately, he has the extreme gall to know what he is talking
about. When these traits are presented together, the result is
easily confused with arrogance but that does not make it so.

I think that overall, I agree with Terry that a *competent* Win95
implementation is the way to go. Yes, I like MS-DOS. But I remember
that when it was first introduced, people complained of its
shortcomings as bitterly as they now complain about Windows.
Win is not perfect but neither am I- and I absolutely *love* me...
I like being able to return to a program after several months'
absence and still be able to use it adequately because of
all those helpful menus. I couldn't always do that with DOS
programs until they became Window-like. Today, far more
people with mediocore computer skills are doing constructive
work with their computers than ever did before Windows and
other similar gui systems. If a new version of Fractint takes
advantage of the Win world and thus exposes more users to
fractals, how can that be a bad thing?

If Terry wants to shake up our world and challenge our
assumptions I might call him over exuberant, or maybe
even a pain in the ass, but I certainly would *not*
call him arrogant. Slander? Terry has his own view of fractal
program perfection. Still, he thinks highly enough of Fractint
that he has gone over the code extensively and is interested
in assisting it to a higher level. By implication, he must
also have some respect for the Fractint programmers.

His complaints are threefold:
1. No real effort has been made to bring Fractint to Windows
2. No adequate programming documentation is available charting
   and explaining Fractint's development.
3. Fractint's help system is underwhelming by today's standards

The first 2 are self evident- only the last is subject to debate.
So what's all the fuss?
Regards - Jack

visit our fractal gallery: http://www.globalserve.net/~jval/phractal.html

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:18:32 -0700
From: "Angela Wilczynski" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

Again, very well put Jack and a good bottom line summation.  I would add that
Terry's comments seem to indicate to me that he is willing to start the effort
to provide a choice to the fractal community, not to usurp the DOS version for
those who prefer it.

I would like to relate the experience of a friend of mine who is a gifted
computer graphics artist, but had no experience with fractals. She admired mine
so I talked her into trying Fractint and later she picked up Tierazon as well.
She was utterly baffled by Fractint but was making very nice fractals with
Tierazon within a day. For her the windows interface overcame any of the
problems mentioned during this really interesting discussion. She readily
admitted, though, that she preferred images I got with Fractint because of the
way Fractint handles colors.

I know that is a single users experience, but I suspect it is fairly typical of
many folks who are completely unfamiliar with a DOS type interface.  I have to
add that I am shying away from POV Ray because it doesn't have a genuine GUI and
I'm intimidated.

I use Fractint NOT because it has the best documention, is faster, has a better
interface, etc. but because it has a wonderfully rich set of features which
produce a superior image (IMHO). That's my bottom line. And I use Windows
because it allows me to use dozens of graphics and other applications, not
because it is in some way perfect. I suppose I will have to move to NT one of
these days..... but I'm resisting (the stupid thing uses 250 megs of hard disk
space!!!!)......when all the OTHER applications I need run only under NT. I
don't know what OS2 or Linux are because those words are never on any of the
boxes at the computer store when I go to buy a new program.

Angela

Jack Valero wrote:
> <<lots of very cogent comments snipped>>
>
> His complaints are threefold:
> 1. No real effort has been made to bring Fractint to Windows
> 2. No adequate programming documentation is available charting
>    and explaining Fractint's development.
> 3. Fractint's help system is underwhelming by today's standards
>
> The first 2 are self evident- only the last is subject to debate.
> So what's all the fuss?
> Regards - Jack
>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:46:19 PDT
From: "john Weeks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

Terry wrote
>Do you think I haven't worked long and hard to support my claims?  Just
stating my
>opinions.  I'm just one person, no genius, with probably as much
fractal
>programming experience as any one of Fractint's authors.  If it looks
arrogant to
>state that I think the Stone Soup group is lagging by not using Windows
9x, so be
>it.  If I *was* to speak out of arrogance I would state for the record
than any of
>my true-color pictures(done in Windows 95) is more impressive than its
Fractint
>counterpart, if it had a Fractint counterpart.   But you would never
believe that,
>would you?  Check out my galleries, then try to duplicate the tc pics
in
>Fractint.  Try to make a midi or AVI file with Fractint, if you think
it's so
>great.

What makes Fractint "great" is it's wide user base.  I am a Windows
programmer and make fractal programs that use 32bit color and sound and
AVI files etc.  These images are superior to Fractint, but I love all
the pars that people post to this list and the wide range of users.
It's not a question of technology; it is a question of human
interaction.
     My suggestion would be to go ahead and make a Web page with your
windows based program and invite people to input their code improvements
and suggestions.  I'm sure there are lots of WinProgrammers who will be
happy to join your adventure.
     This is the "Fractint" list and regardless of its Pro's or Con's
has numerous devotees who, through their hard work and devotion, make
Fractint come to life.  I find this to be the true power of Fractint.

                                      john

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen)
Subject: Re: (fractint) beyond the hype

On Mon, 11 May 1998, Terry W. Gintz wrote:
> But as the poet said "Nothing is revealed", or something like that.  The basic
> lines of fire have been drawn for a long time.  I've been in the fractal game
> nearly as long as Fractint(Fra386), since 1984,

According to the change-log file, fra386 was in 1988.

> With all the steady stream of DOS pandering, Damien probably came closest to
> reality when he mentioned the problem of converting 16-bit assembly code to
> the 32-bit model.

Well, this has already been done with xfractint.

> Having a
> functional Windows version of Fractint also eliminates the need to support a
> hundred different graphics modes and boards.

Yes.

> Angela mentioned a compelling reason for having a Windows version:
> multiple-document support.  I can open up to 20 files in my programs, each with
> its own "window", and this is an arbitrary limit just to keep the window menu
> manageable.  Right now I just simulate multiple windows, and switch between
> them, drawing on one main window.  With MDI or MFC, as Steve Ferguson uses in
> his programs, any number of windows can be open at the same time.  With
> Fractint, you have to save one picture before opening another, etc.

This could indeed be quite compelling, particularly on a multi-CPU
machine (until after someone builds in multithreading capabilities,
anyway.)

> If I convert them to hard-coded versions, they
> may actually run faster in my programs than Fractint.

No surprise there.  I've occasionally thought about implementing
on-the-fly compilation for Fractint formulas, with VCODE or some such,
but never did anything more than think.

> I've optimized Paul's
> orbit-trap methods to plot up to 3 times faster than Fractint, and in true
> color!  So speed is the biggest myth about Fractint that I've seen touted.  If
> I had a parser in my programs as optimized as Fractint's parser, there would
> be little speed difference there, a matter of minutes or seconds at most
> rather than hours.

So Fractint is re-parsing the formula for every pixel?  I haven't
looked at the code, so I don't know, but that seems rather brain-dead.

> Windows provides for edit boxes, so any
> custom formula you want to enter in my programs is edited inside my programs,
> not by a separate text editor.

I'll be upset if a fully-GUI version of Fractint removed the ability to
use my favorite text editor.

> IMHO, touch typing is not a necessary skill for using a fractal program, or
> any computer program these days.

Touch typing is still a necessary skill for using a word-processor, and
I suspect it will continue to be until voice input gets faster than
touch-typing.

> I suspect mice and GUI
> were invented just to replace the awful burden of touch-typing on a person's
> wrists,

No.  Mice and GUIs were invented so that children who had not yet
learned to read could use computers.

Touch-typing, done properly, does not injure your wrists.

> Programming sets its own limits on the wary typist.  I refuse to argue anymore
> with what my own hands tell me is the gentlest method of data input.  The
> business schools and colleges are still pushing touch typing, but who do they
> work for?  Big business doesn't care about people's wrists, just getting the
> job done in the shortest time.  If you are doing a lot of touch typing with
> your fractal program, you are working too hard.

If you're doing touch-typing with Fractint, it's because you're
entering formulas.  Touch-typing is no faster than hunt-and-peck for
navigating menus in my experience.

YMMV.  Contradictions are welcomed.

> My programs use an expanded "palette"  editor like
> Fractint's palette editor, with additional features not found in Fractint.

Cool!

> If I go down in flames, I have at least made the effort to rock the boat.

A worthwhile endeavor, to be sure.

Kragen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:42:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen)
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

On Tue, 12 May 1998, Morgan L. Owens wrote:
> And I wouldn't be using Winfract at all unless I can do everything via the
> keyboard including hitting 'z' and switching focus to (or opening) the user
> parameters screen and (say) shift-Z to close it. If everything was mousy
> you would need sliders for entering numeric values (including decimals -
> and you thought sliders for integer values was icky!)

Dials are a decent alternative to sliders for numeric values where you
need fine control.

> And a combination
> keyboard-and-mouse interface is just downright annoying.

Yes.

> "archaic help system"? Personally I prefer Fractint's help system to almost
> all the online help available with Windows applications.

Agreed.  Primarily, though, I agree because the quality of the
documentation is excellent, not because the help system itself is
better or worse than other hypertext help systems.

Kragen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen)
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

On Tue, 12 May 1998, Terry W. Gintz wrote:
> Morgan L. Owens wrote:
> > <some stuff>
>
> Like I said, you either like Windows or you don't.

Some of us base our preferences more on usability than on technology.
I have used windowed, GUIed-up-the-wazoo programs that were usability
catastrophes; I have used non-GUIed programs that were usability
exemplars, like Fractint.

> would be strongly tempted to tell you to seek out a used-computer store, than
> waste time trying to describe the merits of today's super personal computers or
> software.  There's nothing "arrogant" about what I've said and meant, though
> through colored glasses it might seem that way.

I disagree.  GUIs can improve usability, but they often don't.
Usability and utility are what I look for in software, not GUIs.

You *have* had an arrogant attitude; just because some companies are
making a lot of money by having the same attitude does not make it less
arrogant.

> > And I wouldn't be using Winfract at all unless I can do everything via the
> > keyboard including hitting 'z' and switching focus to (or opening) the user
> > parameters screen and (say) shift-Z to close it. If everything was mousy
> > you would need sliders for entering numeric values (including decimals -
> > and you thought sliders for integer values was icky!) And a combination
> > keyboard-and-mouse interface is just downright annoying.
>
> Nonsense.  Having a little of both(mouse and keyboard) gives your hands
> a chance to exercise different muscles, and reduces fatigue.  You can
> talk all you want about the merits of touch typing, but IMHO it's a pain
> to do for any length of time.  Years of typing has convinced me that
> touch typing is just plain bad on your hands and wrists.   Talk to
> someone with carpal tunnel syndrome.

I suggest that (1) you take a basic human factors course with a focus
on software to correct your misconception about mixed-mode
mouse-keyboard interfaces, and that (2) you take a typing course so you
can learn how to type without injuring your hands or wrists.

> Have you used real Windows context help?  With Fractint you have to
> scroll through the main index of the help file each time you want
> to find out about a command. Every time.

How many minutes did you spend using Fractint?  This is simply not true.

> I always forget what section to look in to get help about things like
> the palette editor or zooming.

About the palette editor: bring up the palette editor, then hit F1.

About zooming: bring up an image, then hit F1.

> In my programs, each menu selection has a direct link to the
> help section that pertains to that command.  You activate the link by
> pressing F1 when the menu item is highlighted.  Each of my windows also
> has a Help button to access context help for that window.

This is also true of Fractint.  Except that there's no GUI Help button
- -- you have to press F1.

> If your Windows program doesn't have these
> features, it's because the programmer chose not to implement them, not that
> Windows has bad online help.  Many fractal programmers  who work with Windows
> don't include much more than a status bar or simple help file.  They're not
> getting paid for their efforts either.

Lots of MS-Windows programs, including MS-Windows itself, have
*terrible* online help, apparently because it was added as an
afterthought and with the explicit intent of explaining how to do
things.  It rarely provides a way to orient yourself, browse through
nearby help pages, or learn about the conceptual structure of the
program, which is what you need to do when your task isn't one of the
ones the help authors anticipated.

This has been confirmed by several usability studies.

It's not an issue of insufficient technology, just insufficient docs.

Kragen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:32:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen)
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

On Tue, 12 May 1998, Jack Valero wrote:
> At 05:56 PM 12/05/98 +1200, Morgan Owens wrote:
> >And I wouldn't be using Winfract at all unless I can do everything via the
> >keyboard ...<snip>
>
> Several here have gone on about the merits of "touch typing". But note
> that it is not called "touch manipulating" or "touch navigating". Keyboards
> are great for *typing* but imagine trying to use photoshop if
> *everything* had to be done with the keyboard...

It would be unusable!

> By contrast, how many long time Fractint users do not
> even know that a full manual is included with Fractint?

I suspect that all of them have *read* much or all of it.  I suspect
that many of them don't know about "fractint makedoc", which makes a
flat text-file version of the online help.

> Well, Terry is certainly passionate and earnest in his convictions.
> Unfortunately, he has the extreme gall to know what he is talking
> about.

He knows some of what he's talking about.  He certainly knows
MS-Windows programming and fractal generation.

He thinks he's a usability expert, though, and he's not.

> I think that overall, I agree with Terry that a *competent* Win95
> implementation is the way to go.

I'd much prefer a competent portable GUI implementation.  Using
something like Qt, wxWindows, or Tk, which would make it possible to
use Fractint with the same GUI on Linux or Win95 (or even MacOS -
*desire*), would be an enormous boon.

The last xfractint implementation I looked at doesn't even try.

> Today, far more
> people with mediocore computer skills are doing constructive
> work with their computers than ever did before Windows and
> other similar gui systems.

I agree.

> If a new version of Fractint takes
> advantage of the Win world and thus exposes more users to
> fractals, how can that be a bad thing?

No, I think this would be a great thing.

> So what's all the fuss?

Oh, probably just that Terry and I have prickly personalities and think
we know everything :)

Kragen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:41:01 -0700
From: Mark Christenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) fractint v20 and beyond

At 12:08 AM 5/12/98 -0700, Terry Gintz wrote:
>blah blah blah...

Terry, I've sat here quietly through what seems like days
of this mudfight.  But since the battle continues to rage,
I guess it's time to add my cup of urine to the punchbowl
(tasty visual, no?).

The reasons that people make the choices they do may
seem cryptic, silly, or trivial, but they are usually based
on what, at least to the person making the choice, are
practical considerations.  I offer myself as an example.

Why did I choose PC vs Mac?  When I bought my first
system in 1991, I was tiring of the politics of my 12 year
career in space flight operations and looking for a way to
go independent.  I had been programming off and on since
1975, and thought (naively, given the speed of evolution in
the field) that I could write computer games as a solo effort.
I went to computer stores and checked the inventory.  For
my needs the choice was a no-brainer, since PC games
outnumbered Mac by about 4:1 (presumably reflecting
market share).  No mental gymnastics about performance
or ergonomics, just a simple assessment of sales base.

Why am I still on Win 3.1 vs 95?  The answer to this and
other questions on the list boil down to two issues: footprint
and performance.  My first PC had a 115MB hard drive
(large for a personal system of the day), which set me back
a good chunk of change (about $400).  DOS and Win 3.0
occupied about 25% of that. When I upgraded to Win 3.1,
It was because it was a great improvement in the use of
graphics.  There were the downsides of larger footprint and
slower performance, issues which were not resolved until
years later when I upgraded from a 486/25 to a 486/80 with
a 420MB drive.  But Win 3.1 looked much better (does
anyone remember how butt-ugly Win 3.0 was?) and useability
was improved.  I do *not* see such advantages in Win 95 and
subsequent Microplot products (realize I am speaking from the
viewpoint of the average user, not from that of programmers
who write multi-tasking/multi-threaded apps), particularly
given the huge footprints (both hard and volatile memory
requirements).  What was it someone said?  Win NT takes
250MB?  Has there really been a tenfold improvement in
performance or functionality?  Not to mention the fact that
WIn 95 doesn't "play well with others" (namely DOS).

My other major bitch about Win 95 is the approach MS takes
with new products.  Transitioning from 3.0 to 3.1 was traumatic
enough, but worth the pain.  When I recently assembled my
brother's Pentium/Win95 system, I was shocked at how much
the interface had changed, for no apparent reason than change
itself.  It seems to me that the best products are improved by
*evolution*, not *revolution*.  The learning curve between the
two MS Windows releases is not justified, since the interface
is not improved.  IMHO, having to hit that g--damn "Start" button
every time I wanted to do anything to the system config was a
huge pain in the ass.  Why change just for change's sake?

Why am I still on Netscape Navigator 2.02?  Once again,
footprint!  I don't need "a suite of network applications", I
need a browser.  I have Eudora for e-mail, and FTP and Telnet
apps, and that's all I need.

Extending the issue to the world at large, a few more examples.

Why is most of the world following the herd to Win 95/98?
Mainly because the gaming world was so drawn to MMX
technology (which 3.1 does not support) that gamers had
no choice but to follow, or, like me, do without the latest and
greatest.  BTW, most of the "enhancements" offered by Win 95
are due *not* to Bill Gates' software "gurus", but to Andy Groves'
hardware wizards.

Why is NT languishing in the personal market?  Possibly a
circular problem (no NT/personal market, so developers don't
support, so people don't buy NT, etc.).

Totally unrelated, but germane to the issue of relevant needs:
Why do people use automobiles to commute to work?  Just
look at the word.  "Self-motion", with all it implies:
independence, freedom, flexiblilty, speed.  Unless traffic is
horrific (as it often is here in Silly-con Valley), point-to-transit
is always faster than public conveyances with innumerable
stops.  The personal bottom line is convenience, not political
or environmental correctness.

More to the point, why do people *physically*
commute to work at all?  Especially in information technologies?
** Answer: our masters like to keep us on a short leash. **


In summary, we all have valid reasons for our choices, no
matter how obtuse they may seem to others.  Terry, by
all means please pursue your goals, but forgive me if I don't
want to saddle my 100hp "go-cart" of a system, which works
great with DOS 6.22 and Win 3.1, with the performance load
of an air-conditioning double trailer rig with a 100 watt sound
system.

Can we please terminate this thread?


Bud


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

End of fractint-digest V1 #199
******************************