NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/advocacy/32201

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 6.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!pagesat!a2i!mike
From: [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: The 'Screens' debate:
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 92 04:17:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 118
Nntp-Posting-Host: bolero

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>As far as I can see, only real use for these 'screens' on Amigas
>is to simultaneously display a resolution/colors combination radically
>different from the WorkBench.

Very effecient when the machine was limited to 16 colors in the pallette. Also
permitting varying resolution displays conserved memory. Since the original
A1000 was designed as a 256K machine ("who could ever use 512K??") that kind
of clever resource management was a real necessity.

>It is a nice thing to pull down the WorkBench, and see a largely differnt
>resolutions/colors scheme, but I don't see how it is terribly
>useful.  To make a generality, Amigas really need this mostly in cases
>where the 'standard' mode they are in is insufficient.  Right?

Having a different screen for each app is no different than having mulitple
monitors. How many Mac users use say, the mono monitor for the finder, and
a second, color, unit for applications. I know of several. With the Amiga, all
of the monitors are in one box with the screens stacked on top.

>If the WB was in a 16color, higher-res mode (say, an A3000), and you
>wanted to display or use an art program that used 256 colors, you
>could easily give it its own 'screen' to 'HAM-it-up' or what-not.  Then
>you could 'drag' down the screen and still access the WB.

Exactly. And since the Amiga was designed with a artists eye up front such
touches were decidedly important.

>NOW: is this better than running a hires, 256-color WB *anyway* and then
>running the art program, and *iconizing* the art program to get back to
>the WB?

In many respects, yes. Why waste precious memory on an 8 bit deep WB? Who
needs 256 color icons?? 4 bit WBs handle most jobs quite nicely and fast,
while 8 bitters are real performance dogs, just like my Mac IICI. If you want
a super-WB, say 2000x600 while forced to 8 bits deep, you're wasting
1.2 mag of valuable CHIP RAM.

>Or having it truly 'windowed' on the 256-color WB and simply
>DRAG that windows it is in 'off' side of the screen into virtual-WB
>space?  It is still full-screen, and you can still see the WB (ala
>'pulling' down a screen).

THen it means dragging the app back to the center screen, if I remember
where I put it, and thrumming my fingers while the WB rebuilds itself.
Left-Amiga-M is much handier.

>My friends, that is basically what all these people with Windows and
>OS/2 do anyway.  If I wanted to run art programs, and liked hi-color
>desktops in Windows anyways (background, whatever), I'd run a
>256-color driver.  I could maximize/minimize the art program easy enough,
>or 'flip' through apps to get to it.

And wait for the workspace to rebuild itself each time, not to mention
each app re-rendering itself if you have multiple programs running. That
could get tiresome if you're running Pagemaker or some CAD package
with a complicated rendering (since windows has no "Smart Refresh" mode).

>And in OS/2 I could simply drag that
>full-screen 'down' with the title bar...'down' or sideways, whatever - it
>would just be a *window* that _happened_ to be the full-screen size.
>
>So while 'screens' are in fact pretty nice, they do not seem to be
>the savior of Amigas like so many people on this group say they are.
>
>Well?

I'm not sure that they have been regarded as the "savior" of the Amiga. Just
one of the many little thoughtful design elements which make it feel
like a much nicer machine than my Mac. It also implies that there was a
certain amount of higher-mental activity applied when the specs were
being drawn up.

Multiple screens also serve to cut down on screen clutter. At any one time
I may have literally 15 windows open on the Mac. If I want to discard a file
I may have to move 3 or 4 windows just to get to the damned trashcan.(Drag
,wait, drag, wait, drag, "Oh there's the trashcan! Now where's the damned
file I want to dump?", drag, wait, drag, wait, drag, "Oh, there it is!") The
same goes for simply finding a folder I had opened, and each time I move
or pop a window, the finder must rebuild itself wasting more time. With
some apps running 3 or 4 windows open all of the time it can get to be
real messy. (When running Premier, editng a large Quicktime clip, the main
editing window can take 10 or 20 seconds to refresh as it spools the
video off of the drive).

SYS-7 has helped a little with some of their enhancements, but
frequently I find myself trying to drag the finder screen down. ;-)

And one other simple niceity is the way multiple screens eliminate
color collisions, one of the biggest delemmas with colormapped systems.
I've had my Mac screen screwed up frequently by
poorly designed SW that would screw up the basic color set, and in many
cases not resetting the colors back. (ResEdit is by far the worse offender)
I like the fact that a WB will STAY
the same set of colors and the App can use whatever colors it needs with
no fear of interference. It's also very nice for the programmer. On the Mac
the color manager is overly complicated and slow out of necessity to limit
color problems, (and I still don't understand exactly what's going on.)
But on the Amiga the programmer is operating in a completely independent
space and doesn't have to know what the WB is doing.


>--
>Dan Stephenson                                         [e-mail]
>"Yes Dan, I have heard of Ultima Underworld.  From my point of view it
> appears to be a rather large stick which you seem to be using to beat
> everbody in this group with." -Mark Steyn, comp.sys.amiga.advocacy

Mike

P.S. Dan, I've seen Ultima Underworld, and I'm glad I don't have a PC
otherwise a lot of time would get "wasted".  ;-)

--
This message brought to you by the Happy Fun Ball! It's Happy! It's
fun!! It's the HAPPY FUN BALL!!! (Still legal in 16 states)
*** Mike Smithwick - [e-mail]
*** No disclaimer is necessary since I only work for myself, HA! HA! HA! HA!