Accused: As RISC PC user I'm living in the stone age
Alexander Ausserstorfer
someone suggested that I'm living in the stone-age with all my Risc PCs
and other Acorn computers which I'm keeping at home (several pieces).
My point is that I tried a lot around with "modern" systems (Apple,
Windows, Linux) and found them for awkward as I wrote times before. I
have no really need for them. The Acorn computers I have are very good
for all the things I'm still doing. I'm a very limited user of the world
wide web because I find a huge part of it is mentally deficient and the
technology is basically ineffective, just a "blow".
My point: the roots and technologies of current popular chip designs and
software (CATIA, ACAD, Intel, AMD etc.) are often in the 70ies and 80ies
of the last century. Sure, there is a huge advance in improvements and
acceleration of the old technology, but the main idea is old and odd
what leads automatically to restrictions and complex structures which
are saturated with mistakes.
The idea of RISC and in this way also of RISC OS computers, the steering
of its great desktop, is newer. There is no need for a huge expenditure
to create a genius product. It is just often hard to convince people
(all around the world) of innovations which aren't well-known by the
society (it is one of the point why we have so much problems in the
world around).
RISC OS computers were a great start - special for users - I think. It
was a complete new run. I don't think that the thousend infusion of an
old technology (like of an tea bag) is really an advance just because
most of mankind is using it today for playing around.
Alex'
--
E-Mail: bavariasound [ at�] chiemgau-net [ point] de
PGP (key): http://home.chiemgau-net.de/ausserstorfer/kontakt/key
Web: http://home.chiemgau-net.de/ausserstorfer/
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
> Hi,
>
> someone suggested that I'm living in the stone-age with all my Risc
> PCs and other Acorn computers which I'm keeping at home (several
> pieces).
I have felt for years that there is room for more variety of operating
systems and hardware on the personal computer market. There is no
such thing as "one size fits all" OS out there.
> My point is that I tried a lot around with "modern" systems (Apple,
> Windows, Linux) and found them for awkward as I wrote times
> before. I have no really need for them. The Acorn computers I have
> are very good for all the things I'm still doing. I'm a very limited
> user of the world wide web because I find a huge part of it is
> mentally deficient and the technology is basically ineffective, just
> a "blow".
Yes, you should not have to bow to peer pressure when you are
perfectly happy with the OS and computers you use. For an example, I
used a PlayStation 2 running Linux as my main desktop for quite some
time some years ago, and even then it was dreadfully inefficient
compared to regular PCs. I admit that I ran the browser off the PC
using the X window network protocol.
[snip]
> RISC OS computers were a great start - special for users - I
> think. It was a complete new run. I don't think that the thousend
> infusion of an old technology (like of an tea bag) is really an
> advance just because most of mankind is using it today for playing
> around.
I'm a new RO user, I've been playing with it on RPCEmu for about a
week now. Reading the RO 3 programming manuals I found out that the
architecture was quite advanced for its time, at least compared to the
PCs.
I'll add that the PS2 is really beutifully designed architecture. The
CPU, MIPS, is also RISC architecture. It is very specialized and
doesn't bend very well to desktop use. For what it's meant for, it's
pure beauty. What I've seen of the Acon architecture has also such
beauty.
Johann -- just adding my two bits.
John M Ward
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <joh...@myrkraverk.com> wrote:
> "Alexander Ausserstorfer" <bavari...@usenet.cnntp.org> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > someone suggested that I'm living in the stone-age with all my Risc
> > PCs and other Acorn computers which I'm keeping at home (several
> > pieces).
I've had that done to me as well. All it shows is their ignorance.
> I have felt for years that there is room for more variety of operating
> systems and hardware on the personal computer market. There is no
> such thing as "one size fits all" OS out there.
Correct: the same as there is no single car type, or mobile 'phone type,
or anything else. Some of us are intelligent enough to think beyond one
dimension...
> > My point is that I tried a lot around with "modern" systems (Apple,
> > Windows, Linux) and found them for awkward as I wrote times
> > before.
They are all lumbering and clumsy, even Linux. It's like taking a lorry
to go shopping :-/
> > I have no really need for them. The Acorn computers I have are very
> > good for all the things I'm still doing. I'm a very limited user of
> > the world wide web because I find a huge part of it is mentally
> > deficient and the technology is basically ineffective, just a
> > "blow".
> Yes, you should not have to bow to peer pressure when you are
> perfectly happy with the OS and computers you use. For an example, I
> used a PlayStation 2 running Linux as my main desktop for quite some
> time some years ago, and even then it was dreadfully inefficient
> compared to regular PCs. I admit that I ran the browser off the PC
> using the X window network protocol.
> [snip]
> > RISC OS computers were a great start - special for users - I
> > think. It was a complete new run. I don't think that the thousend
> > infusion of an old technology (like of an tea bag) is really an
> > advance just because most of mankind is using it today for playing
> > around.
> I'm a new RO user, I've been playing with it on RPCEmu for about a
> week now. Reading the RO 3 programming manuals I found out that the
> architecture was quite advanced for its time, at least compared to the
> PCs.
Indeed. The lesson here is that independence leads to innovation and
mainstream advancement. Sticking in the rut of convention results in
stagnation. That's why cars still run on wheels (a medieval technology)
and burn fuel that they have to carry with them (did no-one learn the
lesson of the cat-flap collar key?) and polluting the air as a
by-product. It's all outdated and primitive technology, because there
is no real competition. It's far easier not to bother to innovate...
> I'll add that the PS2 is really beutifully designed architecture. The
> CPU, MIPS, is also RISC architecture. It is very specialized and
> doesn't bend very well to desktop use. For what it's meant for, it's
> pure beauty. What I've seen of the Acon architecture has also such
> beauty.
The British often (not always) have a much better idea of how best to
apply science and technology, but are sidelined by the all-powerful
megabucks corporations Stateside and that nation's huge buying power.
I well recall how the eye-opening experience of Microsoft exhibiting at
the BETT shows resulted in feedback that ended up with their
specifically targeting the education market that Acorn, Apple and
Research Machines (RM) then dominated between them, using all the
marketing clout at their disposal to achieve a (never deserved)
near-monopoly in a market area they barely even understood to
marginalise and eventually force out the "good guys" so they could sell
their trash instead.
> Johann -- just adding my two bits.
Ha! I have 32 bits ;-)
--
John Ward in Medway, Kent - using RISC OS since 1987
Now using an Iyonix, an A9home, 2 RiscPCs and Virtual-RPC!
Acorn/RISC OS web page: www.john-ward.org.uk/personal/john/computers
druck
> In article <m3r5ozu...@myrkraverk.com>,
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <joh...@myrkraverk.com> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as "one size fits all" OS out there.
>
> Correct: the same as there is no single car type, or mobile 'phone type,
> or anything else. Some of us are intelligent enough to think beyond one
> dimension...
No, but if you bought a model T Ford whilst everyone else had a horse
and cart, and kept it to this day, you can't then complain it only does
40mph amaximum, and you can't see anything at night because your
headlights aren't as bright as candles.
If you'd bought the original Cellnet brick or Vodafone car battery and
handset, you'd would have been out of luck over a decade ago when they
switched off the analogue cell network.
In terms of how technology has progressed, they are both apt examples.
>>> My point is that I tried a lot around with "modern" systems (Apple,
>>> Windows, Linux) and found them for awkward as I wrote times
>>> before.
>
> They are all lumbering and clumsy, even Linux. It's like taking a lorry
> to go shopping :-/
Unfortunately you need a lorry load of stuff these days. Take digital
camera images and processing with Photodesk. When cameras were 1.2Mpix,
the Risc PC nipped through them, when they grew to 3.2Mpix I got an 3x
faster Iyonix and it handled them at the same speed. They they went to
7Mpix, the Iyonix didn't get any quicker, and now at 12Mpix, it just
isn't usable RISC OS or not.
Even if you put RISC OS on an ARM chip of comparable speed to a
multicore x86 as used in Windows and Mac OS boxes, and tried using RISC
OS software you'd still find it's severely lacking, software development
on all but 2 or 3 major applications stopped over 5 years ago when it
was already half a decade behind. We can't do vast areas of usage such
as video and most of the web, and what we have such as in image
processing is a fraction of that in ancient versions of packages which
are given away for free.
RISC OS is still a nice toy, play with it by all means, but you can't
compare it what you can do on computers today.
---druck
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
> RISC OS is still a nice toy, play with it by all means, but you
> can't compare it what you can do on computers today.
True. Hopefully ROOL will help here.
What can be done, and what is done are two different things. The OP
is quite happy to use RO today. I was happy in a text-only world for
months some years ago. I used the linux console exclusively with
Emacs as my environmen and text-only browsing on my PS2.
While we do need the lorry around [*], it's going to be out of place
when going shopping, just as a station wagon is out of ploce when you
are travelling off-road and need to cross deep rivers. And taking an
off-road vehicle shopping isn't the best of expierences either if
parking places are at premium.
Wisely choosing the tool for the job is the best thing we can do.
Sometimes our choices are limited to what we know and sometimes using
power tools makes no difference at all.
That said, I'd also like to point out that RISC OS itself isn't really
a tool. It's a platform/foundation upon which we use other tools --
the software -- and if they are right for the job, and/or sufficient
for it there isn't any gain in changing the platform.
As you, druck, point out, using old tools can be a handicap but
sometimes new and shiny makes no difference and can be a hurdle if it
takes too much effort to master it.
Johann -- who had time to burn.
[*] Context for car anology snipped.
Martin Bazley
> John M Ward wrote:
> > They are all lumbering and clumsy, even Linux. It's like taking a lorry
> > to go shopping :-/
>
> Unfortunately you need a lorry load of stuff these days. Take digital
> camera images and processing with Photodesk. When cameras were 1.2Mpix,
> the Risc PC nipped through them, when they grew to 3.2Mpix I got an 3x
> faster Iyonix and it handled them at the same speed. They they went to
> 7Mpix, the Iyonix didn't get any quicker, and now at 12Mpix, it just
> isn't usable RISC OS or not.
>
Minor point here, but my camera produces 8.1 megapixel JPEGs and they
take about 4 seconds to display in Thump - quite adequate for my
purposes. Of course, there's the whole RAW debate to factor in as
well...
--
__<^>__
/ _ _ \ You always find something in the last place you look.
( ( |_| ) )
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ==========================
Vince M Hudd
> The following bytes were arranged on 7 Feb 2010 by druck :
> > Unfortunately you need a lorry load of stuff these days. Take digital
> > camera images and processing with Photodesk.
[...]
> Minor point here, but my camera produces 8.1 megapixel JPEGs and they take
> about 4 seconds to display in Thump - quite adequate for my purposes. Of
> course, there's the whole RAW debate to factor in as well...
Equally minor point, but Druck specifically mentioned "processing with
Photodesk" - he's talking about a bit more than just looking at them.
--
Vince M Hudd ::: Soft Rock Software
http://misc.vinceh.com ::: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Is there any scope for a new Bristol RISC OS user group?
See: http://www.riscository.com
druck
> Minor point here, but my camera produces 8.1 megapixel JPEGs and they
> take about 4 seconds to display in Thump - quite adequate for my
> purposes.
Not for me, I might have a hundred pictures to look throw to find the
one I'm I want to use. That's over 6 minutes at 4 a second, where has as
it takes me under a second to decide it's not the right one. So that's
about 5 minutes wasted before I've even started work on the image.
> Of course, there's the whole RAW debate to factor in as well...
True.
---druck
Martin Bazley
[snip]
You CC'd me on that one as well, so whatever button you pressed, perhaps
try pressing the other one next time?
--
__<^>__ "Your pet, our passion." - Purina
/ _ _ \ "Your potential, our passion." - Microsoft, a few months later
Alexander Ausserstorfer
<4B6E840...@druck.org.uk>
druck <ne...@druck.org.uk>
hat geschrieben:
[snip]
> RISC OS is still a nice toy, play with it by all means, but you can't
> compare it what you can do on computers today.
I got a message today:
| Du kannst auf deinem Acorn ja schon mal anfangen was zu machen.
| Vielleicht benutzt du ein einfaches Malprogramm wie MS Painbrush. So
| k嚙緯ntest du das alles mal als GIF oder etwas anderes abspeichern und
| mir zuschicken, wenn du m嚙箱htest. Dann k嚙緯nte ich sehen, wie es
| aussehen soll. Der Rest geht ganz schnell! Ich kann mich noch gut
| erinnern, wie Champ und ich uns beim DIN A5 Teil einen bei abgebrochen
| haben. Und heute? Da mache ich 20 Seiten in nur 3 Wochen. Das schreiben
| f嚙締lt dann immer leichter. Also, denke mal dar嚙箭er nach! Bis dann.
He wrote that I can use a programme like MS Paintbrush to create a thing
like Archive, the GAG-News or Drag'n'Drop. He wrote that I can send him
the pages as GIF. He used 3 weeks to create 20 pages of his pamphlet.
He's using Windows and I think he has never heard anything of DTP,
Postscript nor object based drawing programmes what I'm using on RISC OS
since the first day.
These are people who need broadband to press 1.2 or more MB sized JPGs
through the line because they aren't able to adjust the data image
structure to their usage. Very often, a 100 kb sized JPG would be enough
to send friends for on-screen-printing, depends on the usage. I think,
this is one point why the web today requires so much resources although
it hadn't to be. Often it is just unintelligent what they are doing.
I waited for almost 14 years to get my first Risc PC because that time I
was a child and spent all my money to an A5000 and later I was never in
luck of much money again for a new one. I bought the first RiscPC in
2008 from CJE.
In December of last year, someone from France sent me another RiscPC
with a lot of software, like TopModell 2, Architech, Desktop Publisher,
Acorn Advanche, Ovation (unfortunately the programme disc is faulty).
Within the parcel was a stack of Acorn magazines like Acorn User and
Acorn Archimedes world. I read from these things that time but never
could afford it. Today, I'm happy to discover these stuff although I
must admit that I'm very disappointed by TopModell, Merlin and also
Architech. I don't find the operation with the mouse typical clever for
Acorn computers so I'm still going on with POVRay at the moment. POVRay
is a very powerfull tool what I'm using since 1994 on my RISC OS
computers.
The thing what put me forward was the Internet and personal contacts.
That time it was very hard to get anything for my Acorn computer,
software like informations. I often bought a pig in a poke when I decide
for anything, like EasyWriter. This all changed with the Internet and
personal contacts.
I know that current popular systems can do it faster and more but I see
also that they often don't work properly and that they are very complex
and clumsy. They pinch your time. You can often reach more with less
because you can better concentrate on. One good book is of more use as
hundred unintelligibles.
I appreciate what I have and find it crazy what you can do today with a
RiscPC in comparison to former times. Thanks to everyone who's still
supporting RISC OS computers in his rare spare time.
Alex'
--
E-Mail: bavariasound [ at嚙稽 chiemgau-net [ point] de
Chika
> someone suggested that I'm living in the stone-age with all my Risc PCs
> and other Acorn computers which I'm keeping at home (several pieces).
Why? Have you arranged them in a circle or something? :)
> My point is that I tried a lot around with "modern" systems (Apple,
> Windows, Linux) and found them for awkward as I wrote times before. I
> have no really need for them. The Acorn computers I have are very good
> for all the things I'm still doing. I'm a very limited user of the world
> wide web because I find a huge part of it is mentally deficient and the
> technology is basically ineffective, just a "blow".
Why worry about it? If you look at all the operating systems that you
mention, you will find that they all have their problems and, as for age,
consider when they were started. As far as it goes, you use the OS you
feel does the job that you want it to do. I still have two machines doing
various things and, if I don't run them as often as I used to, I know that
they will work when I do finally switch them on.
Well... there's an exception to that, but I'm looking to sort that out
later in the year, with any luck.
> My point: the roots and technologies of current popular chip designs and
> software (CATIA, ACAD, Intel, AMD etc.) are often in the 70ies and 80ies
> of the last century. Sure, there is a huge advance in improvements and
> acceleration of the old technology, but the main idea is old and odd
> what leads automatically to restrictions and complex structures which
> are saturated with mistakes.
It goes further than that. The actual design of computers in general can
be traced back a lot further; the CPU/memory/buffer design was being
thrashed out and was pretty much decided on by the 1960s, the only real
change being the increased popularity of the integrated circuit and the
invention of the single chip microprocesser which took off by the end of
the 1970s. For language and logic design, you could go back as far as the
last war.
> The idea of RISC and in this way also of RISC OS computers, the steering
> of its great desktop, is newer. There is no need for a huge expenditure
> to create a genius product. It is just often hard to convince people
> (all around the world) of innovations which aren't well-known by the
> society (it is one of the point why we have so much problems in the
> world around).
One enjoyable factor in all this is when one of the big companies
controlling the mainstream announces a "new" idea. We can then get a laugh
considering what this actually is and compare it with what we used to do
back before we were told that it was wrong to do it that way. Cloud
computing? Just a large central store, not that different to what was
being suggested with the Netstation. Virtual desktops? So what is so new
about remote terminal sessions? Slates and pads? I can remember trying a
Newton and I can recall Acorn working on a tablet design long ago. There's
nothing new under the sun.
> RISC OS computers were a great start - special for users - I think. It
> was a complete new run. I don't think that the thousend infusion of an
> old technology (like of an tea bag) is really an advance just because
> most of mankind is using it today for playing around.
That was the biggest plus about the whole RISC OS experience. It was
simple and intuitive, unlike so many of its contemporaries and unlike the
current crop. While it is sad that it has fallen behind in some ways, the
fact that it continues to work is a credit to those that designed it.
There are very few systems that survive in this way.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Hazukashii serifu kinshii!!
... Last Christmas I got a computer for my Girlfriend - Good Trade!
John M Ward
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
[Lots snipped, but all kept on permanent file here]
> One enjoyable factor in all this is when one of the big companies
> controlling the mainstream announces a "new" idea. We can then get a
> laugh considering what this actually is and compare it with what we
> used to do back before we were told that it was wrong to do it that
> way.
This even applied to simple user characteristics such as "walking
sub-menus" which the computer magazines derided when RISC OS introduced
them, but were suddenly a brilliant idea when they appeared in Win 95
(and beyond).
There were many other examples, and I could probably spend the best part
of an hour listing them. In general, when Microsoft did something, it
suddenly became acceptable. When they didn't, it either wasn't
considered important or it was "a bad thing".
So, were the magazine writers merely incompetent, or perhaps corrupt?
Who knows? They did, however, help Microsoft to kill off the more
innovative competition, giving them an almost clear field to dominate
and thus reduce consumer choice.
The other platforms (certainly ours) could have gone a lot further: with
a large enough user base we too could have afforded the licences for
newer technologies, and the investment in more powerful hardware (such
as the Iyonix 2, which was already part-developed) and beyond.
There is no real reason why we couldn't have been just as strong in
niche and minority markets (yet of sufficient size between them) to be
as big a player as we were a decade ago -- but that will not happen. It
has been a waste of something of genuine value.
Rob Kendrick
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> There were many other examples, and I could probably spend the best
> part of an hour listing them. In general, when Microsoft did
> something, it suddenly became acceptable. When they didn't, it
> either wasn't considered important or it was "a bad thing".
I wouldn't say "acceptable", but "mainstream". Journalists routinely
hated some things Microsoft did. There were countless articles on how
dreadful Windows 95, Windows ME, and Windows Vista were.
B.
John M Ward
Possibly: but I well recall reading articles at the time saying how good
these ideas were, when the same publications had been negative about
precisely the same when reviewing RISC OS. I don't recommend quibbling
on this: I noted it at the time and am on rock-solid ground here.
The fact that it happened that way at all shows double standards at
best.
Rob Kendrick
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > I wouldn't say "acceptable", but "mainstream". Journalists
> > routinely hated some things Microsoft did. There were countless
> > articles on how dreadful Windows 95, Windows ME, and Windows Vista
> > were.
>
> Possibly: but I well recall reading articles at the time saying how
> good these ideas were, when the same publications had been negative
> about precisely the same when reviewing RISC OS. I don't recommend
> quibbling on this: I noted it at the time and am on rock-solid ground
> here.
I certainly don't recall reading reviews of RISC OS that were critical
of such things. It might have been a bit before my time. Do you have
any examples?
B.
druck
> So, were the magazine writers merely incompetent, or perhaps corrupt?
> Who knows? They did, however, help Microsoft to kill off the more
> innovative competition, giving them an almost clear field to dominate
> and thus reduce consumer choice.
Guaranteeing a multi-page advert every month, worth hundreds of
thousands a year, does wonders for editorial independence.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
32 bit Conversions Page - http://www.armclub.org.uk/32bit/
Alexander Ausserstorfer
<50ed85d...@acornusers.org>
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org>
hat geschrieben:
> [Lots snipped, but all kept on permanent file here]
>
> > One enjoyable factor in all this is when one of the big companies
> > controlling the mainstream announces a "new" idea. We can then get a
> > laugh considering what this actually is and compare it with what we
> > used to do back before we were told that it was wrong to do it that
> > way.
>
> This even applied to simple user characteristics such as "walking
> sub-menus" which the computer magazines derided when RISC OS introduced
> them, but were suddenly a brilliant idea when they appeared in Win 95
> (and beyond).
>
> There were many other examples, and I could probably spend the best part
> of an hour listing them. In general, when Microsoft did something, it
> suddenly became acceptable. When they didn't, it either wasn't
> considered important or it was "a bad thing".
The other point is that MS is going on very strong whereas there was
always problems in the RISC-OS- and also Amiga-business. You can trust
Microsoft in the way that they will go on with their software in a clear
way also in the future. Also a lot of hardware ist still supported or
made for it. The company is serving the people very good - not by the
products but by all other. I just want to remind what was happen with my
order of the A9home: I waited for three months for it then cancelled the
order and bought an old but trusty Kinetic RiscPC. AmigaOS was split to
different branches like RISC OS was.
The marketing of MS is very good.
This doesn't mean that their software nor the computers which it runs on
are good. To say the truth: IBM-compatible PC's and also MS-software
were always horrible to me. One point why I'm still using RISC OS is the
desktop:
You can open two or more windows and move objects between them by drag & drop.
You can do this between filer windows, programm windows (which contain
documents) or filer and programm windows. You can move complete files or parts
of a file (from a programm window) like pictures, text blocks or in
ZIP-archives pressed files.
Some examples here are SparkFS or D64FS. It is so easy to open a file by just
two clicks to open a new window and to move something in and out.
The system is transparent and easy to understand because the reality works so:
take something, put it to another place or open a box, a drawer, put something
in or take it out.
I think, this is the point, why I stick to RISC OS despite so many new
shiny desktops we have today. I don't know another desktop which works
so ingeniously like the RISC OS one.
I have to admit that I discovered this technique before I met RISC OS. It was
the filer of GEOS (Commodore 64) I was astonished first time. There, two
windows show the contents of two different discs or folders. Simply by the
pointer, you were able to copy or move files between the two places.
[snip]
A.
Tim Hill
<bavari...@usenet.cnntp.org> wrote:
[Snip]
> The marketing of MS is very good.
So is there hardware, but their software and operating systems are a
massive pile of overly-complex insecure bloated poo. A victim of its own
success perhaps. We should never forget that MS 'won' because ignorant
people who earn > GBP 100K (like Tony Blair and big business folk)
worship Bill Gates and all he touches and happily continue to fork out
shed loads of cash when they could get the basics of what they need for
nil.
Our schools tell our kids to use Windows and to buy Word so they pirate
it. Is it any surprise my teenage daughter bought herself a Mac at the
first opportunity? I was so proud. :-) Perhaps we will see more young
adults rebel against what their ignorant, brainwashed, teachers think is
best.
[Snip]
> I have to admit that I discovered this technique before I met RISC OS.
> It was the filer of GEOS (Commodore 64) I was astonished first time.
> There, two windows show the contents of two different discs or folders.
> Simply by the pointer, you were able to copy or move files between the
> two places.
IIRC, you have been able to do that on windoze since '95 for 'filer
windows' but as a RISC OS user I still try and open/drag files from
windoze Save As boxes. :-)
If they introduce that idea I could be in one of their adverts and
pretend Windows8 is my idea. They could smarten up the copy/move
behaviour too: I forget when I'm working where a folder may be domiciled
(two local hard drives, NAS, various removable media and shared network
folders which All Look The Same) but a file's source and destination
location determines what a select/drag does. Consequently, I always
adjust/drag in windows to remain in control.
I remember that Amiga = "My Girlfriend". Were Commodore poking fun at
nerds? Why was there never an Amigo for ladies?
The early ones seemed to be okay just so long as you liked blue; two that
friends had seemed to always have blue tinged screens; and not a very
good display at that, though they were great for manipulating images in
their day. Irony.
T
--
Tim Hill
...................................................
tjrh.eu
... "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently" Much Ado, Act v, Sc.1