NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/advocacy/32487

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 9.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!lindblad
From: [e-mail] (Jarkko Lindblad)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does reading this group make you depressed? The story of a victim.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:55:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 186
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Marc N. Barrett ([e-mail]) wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jarkko Lindblad) writes:
> >Marc N. Barrett ([e-mail]) wrote:
> >
> >>    No.  I am countering your lumping of development tools like text editors
> >> and programming languages with productivity software.  You can't compare them
> >> at all.
> >
> >Jesus... so I guess that programming languages, text editors,
> >AmigaTeX, Real 3D and others are not productivity software. Oh Jesus,
> >then I guess they're games.
>
>    No, they are development tools.  Pretty simple concept to me, really.  Just

Real 3D a developement tool? Christ.
AmigaTeX a developement tool? No wonder you're a CS dropout.
I often use text editors for much more than simply for programming
purpouses - I guess you use WP4.1 for editing your startup-sequence,
editing simple text files etc....

> >    What is productivity software n your opinion?  Just word
> >processors and spreadsheets, I guess.
>
>    Word processors, spreadsheets, databases, desktop publishing programs,
> drawing programs, etc.  My definition of "productivity" software includes

But evidently not if the software is for Amiga as Real 3D and AmigaTeX
do not qualify.

> software that allows a computer to be used as a tool for the composition of
> documents, reports, presentations, and other forms of media.  Basically,

You still fdorgot to mention: 'but not if the software is executed in
Amiga-games machine'.

> productivity software is software that allows you to actually create
> something substantial, something that actually exists.  I don't put the

Ie. programmin languages etc.

> > I don't think you mean databases
> >as we do have several different Superbase-versions.
>
>    Is SuperBase even still supported?  I don't think it is.  But even if it

I think it is. And I know that you think that no Amiga software is
supported - after all, there is no MicroSloth products for Amiga
(excluding Amigabasic).

> is still being supported, does it have the up-to-date features available on
> databases on Mac or IBM, such as dynamic-linking (called "hotlinking")?

Ask someone wealthy enough to buy it. Probably yes.

> >WordWorth and
> >Finalcopy are pretty good text editorts, probably not as good as MS
> >Word for Windows, but good enough for 99% of users.
>
>    Typical Amigoid mentality.  Belittle Mac and IBM versions of the few
> software applications that are better on the Amiga than on the Mac or IBM,
> but completely excuse the mediocrity of Amiga applications that are not as
> good as their counterparts on Mac or IBM.

Hell. I even agreed that there are better word processors available
for PC's and still you whine. Don't you understand that if 99% of
people don't need $46656 whiz-bang wp, they buy a mediocre $100
program instead. Damn I wish you'd be here next to me; I'd do
a huge favour to the world.

>    If a morphing program for the Mac had 99% of the features needed by
> low-end video users, but was not nearly as powerful as a similar Amiga
> morphing package, would you excuse the Mac morphing package as being
> completely adequate?  No, you would flame it as being complete inadequate.

Perhaps. But if the program only had enough features to be a good
low-end video users program that has enough features for 99% of users
and would not be overpriced, I'd probably say that it's a good
low/mid-end program.

> >This 99% does not
> >include you, I know.
>
>    You are so short-sighted it's a wonder you don't bump into walls (or do

Actually one of my two eyes (that't two more than you have) has
slightly worse eyesight than the other.

> you?).  Advanced features in a word processor are often of the kind that you
> don't notice them unless they are not there.  For instance, a few weeks ago

And? Hell, I guess that only Microsoft Word is good enough for my
mother who only needs to write simple letters? Don't answer as your
answer is not needed as you really do think so.

> somebody was complaining about some graphical word processors messing up on
> the kerning of fonts on the printed output.  MicroSoft Word for the Mac has
> built-in a small facility for adjusting the kerning of the output.  Most
> people would not use this facility all the time, but it is pretty damn nice

Many people would _never_ need such feature - I would never need such
feature in a word processor. I mostly use a word processor to write
documents, letters and articles and have never needed such feature.
    If I really need to do something complex I will change to
right tool and use somekind of DTP-software.

> to have when the automatic output isn't quite right.  Another nice facility
> of MicroSoft Word is the built-in mini typesetting language.  It isn't
> exactly TeX, and most people would not use this facility very often either,
> but it is also very nice to have once in a while to print an occasional
> mathematical formula.  I could list literally dozens of other examples.

Yes you could. And still 99% of the people would never need these
features and might even be better off with a more light weight wp
which is faster and takes up less space.
    Are you stupid enough not to notice that I don't argue with
the fact that on some areas there are better PC-software than Amiga
software. You fail to see that I fight against your ridicilous claims
of Amiga not having any productivity software.

> > Then there are ProCalc (never seen) and Maxiplan
> >spreadsheets - probably not too good ones, but porobably not too lousy
> >either. 99% of computer users don't use spreadsheets. You do.
>
>    No I don't, but I wouldn't touch an Amiga spreadsheet with a ten-foot
> pole.  I know people who have tried composing the figures of business reports
> with Amiga spreadsheets, and they did nothing but complain about them.

I know you wouldn't. This is why you know so little about them (not
that I know much more about them as I don't do spreadsheeting).
    If the people who whined are your friends, they probably
whined because some keystroke combinations which draw a picture on
Lotus 1-2-3 just did a recalculation or spoke the cell in Amiga. AT
least you would whine about this.

> >> word "good" confused people.  I did this because the Amiga does have some
> >> productivity software available, but no really good productivity software
> >
> >Corection: no software with label MicroSloth.
>
>    Wrong.  I despise MicroSoft as a company overall, probably almost as much
> as you do.  But I am willing to admit that MicroSoft Word for the Mac is a
> damn good word processor.  I admit that I don't like the overpowering nature

Has anyone ever denied it? I have not. I do admit that Word is a
powerful wp, but still I probably would not use it even if it were
available for Amiga for numerous reasons (it's too expensive, too
large for my system, etc.).

> of MS Word 5.0, though.  I like MS Word 4.0 better.  It has most of the
> features of 5.0, without cluttering up the screen as much.

See - now even you prefer a 'less' powered version of software, but
still don't agree with me if a little featureless wp is just as good
for 99% of people. Or have you just decided that MS Word 4.0 is the
worst acceptable word processor available on any platform and that
anything worse is unacceptable?

> > And then there's no
> >Intel inside either.
>
>    Have I ever said anything good about Intel?  I'd like you to quote me on
> anything good I have ever said about Intel, because it would be funny to see
> me quoted as sying things that I have never said.  I have programmed assembly
Perhaps I should correct: And there's no Intel, AMD or Cyrix inside,
nor is the operating system co-operative (to include Mac too).

> language on both Intel and Motorola microprocessors, and I like Motorola
> processors more by far.  The one thing I have against Motorola is that they
> are not as committed to the 68000 line as Intel is to the 80x86 line, and
> Motorola has let Intel jump ahead of them somewhat, when Intel used to be

I would never say that Intel is ahead of Motorola with their
CISC-line. Fastest 68040 is easilly a match for fastest 486. P5 may
give the lead to Intel if they manage to get it out before Moto is
ready with 060.
    The reason why Moto may even lose the CISC-wars is not because
they don't want to make fastest CISCs but because they can't afford to
invest as much as Intel on their CISC's (I'm pretty sure Intel makes
more money with CISCs thatn Moto even as they sell similar quantitys
of them as Intel does sell more 486's than Moto 040's).

--
Jarkko Lindblad         | sleep my friend and you will see
[e-mail] | that dream is my reality
------------------------| they keep me locked up in this cage
          - MetallicA - | can't they see it's why my brain say rage