Complaints about Amiga OS 2.0

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Rodney Ricks

unread,
May 28, 1990, 12:57:46 PM5/28/90
to
In article <20...@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC...@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes:
]On 29 May 90 14:50:16 GMT you said:
]>... I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0.
]>
]>... Yet, whole parts of
]>the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all.
]>
]> I am speaking of the Shell windows.
]>... adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore
]>at most a week to do.
]>
] You are right. It would be very easy to add menu items to the shell
] window. My responce is that if you are using the CLI, then you are
] going out of your way to avoid using the GUI.

Not true. I use the CLI a lot. I also use Workbench a lot. I use whichever
one seems to be best suited to what I'm doing at the moment. Since I currently
can't see many of the files with Workbench, I use the CLI to manipulate them.
When I get 2.0, I'll probably end up using Workbench much more.

I don't use the CLI to avoid Workbench. I use it when I can't use Workbench.

>> Such support ... would
>>greatly facilitate it's use.

How so?

> Having a GUI *INSIDE* your CLI is almost comical.

Wow! With just windows and a menu you have a GUI!?!? I'd better call the
folks at MIT, and tell them that X Windows IS a GUI! :-)

So adding menus to the CLI would not make a GUI inside a CLI, and it wouldn't
exactly be comical. Although I can't think of any good uses of it at the
moment...

> Why don't you write your own?

Yeah, buddy, go ahead and write your own Shell. It'll just take a day or so.
Just ask Matt Dillon. I bet he whipped his up in two minutes! :-) :-)

>> I also have a beef

Where's the beef?!?!? (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it!!!)

>> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.
>>When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced
>>that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially
>>improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like.

Hey! So I'm not the ONLY one who remebered hearing that!

>>However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not
>>detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach
>>synthesis.
>>
> Speech synthesis is a toy.

It's only a toy if you only play with it.

I have a friend, who told me a couple of years ago about how he really
didn't see the need of one feature of his computer. Although it was
available, most IBM PC's at the time were not equipped with this feature. In
fact, he ALSO called this feature a toy. What was he talking about?

Color graphics.

He thought of it as a toy because he didn't use it (except for games).


Many people would probably think of sound (beyond a beep) on a PC as a toy.
Of course, many of us remember when the consensus of computer programmers
and users thought that GUI's were just toys. Although some still hold onto
that opinion, GUI's generally aren't considered as toys anymore.


Speech synthesis can be very useful.

The CURRENT speech synthesis on the Amiga is not terribly useful, because
it's not very good. If you want to talk about COMICAL, try the supposedly
"female" voice on the Amiga. I have yet to hear any setting that makes the
"female" voice sound anything like a female.

Improved speech synthesis on the Amiga could be VERY useful. Think in
terms of educational software. The computer could read to a child, as it
highlights the current word it is saying. Think about foreign language
instruction, where a Spanish translator/narrator combination could help with
learning Spanish. I know that *I* could sure use that!!!

Oh, and I guess multitasking is unnecessary, too! :-)

> No system will be hindered or hailed
> on respect of sheech synthesis.

... except by those who need or can use speech synthesis.

I hope the final release of 2.0 has good, HIGH quality speech. I would like
to be able to have the computer talk in a female voice that actually sounds
like a female voice. I would like that male voice to sound much more like
a male voice. If it ends up taking an unreasonable amount of memory, make
the new library & device available as options on an extra's disk. I will
certainly use them. As it is now, (by my definition), the Amiga's speech
synthesis IS a toy to ME.

> Any idea
> when 2.0 will be available?

From what I've heard, September. The software business being what it is,
look for it around Christmas. :-)

>> -MB-
> F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest

Rodney Ricks - Morehouse College
--
"We may have come over here in different ships,
but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson //
\\ //
Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/

Rodney Ricks

unread,
May 28, 1990, 1:17:07 PM5/28/90
to
In article <3246....@pnt.CAM.ORG> Mar...@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes:
>> I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS
>>which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell --
>>would be given Intuition support. ...
>
>I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use
>Workbench.

A UI-type interface? Yes, I want a user-interface type interface!!! :-)

>... Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard
>shell by a new one which would support menus.

Obviously another programmer with a bunch of time on his hands, here. I'm
a programmer without much time on my hands. Many people don't have the time
to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE
something useful. Many thanks to those who support the Amiga in such a way,
but I and many others just don't have the time to do it.



>> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.
>

> ... Please reserve these
>comments for the final release.

If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests
before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should
have been in there. I believe the people at Commodore have heard MORE than
enough whining about what should have been done. I'm sure that they
would agree.

> The speech is indeed much improved,

That's great!!! Is it realistic? Does the female sound like a HUMAN female?

>Martin Taillefer INTERNET: mar...@pnt.CAM.ORG BIX: vertex
>UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!pnt!martin TEL: 514/640-5734

Rodney Ricks

Marc Barrett

unread,
May 29, 1990, 10:50:16 AM5/29/90
to

This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here,
but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0.

With this release of the Amiga's OS, the Amiga is supposed to be
made much easier-to-use and a lot more friendly. Yet, whole parts of


the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all.

I am speaking of the Shell windows. With both OS 1.3 and OS 2.0,
nothing happens when the right mouse button is pressed with a Shell
window active. This seems to me to be a terrible waste of a whole
section of the Amiga's OS. I had hoped that some limited Intuition
support would be added to the Shell -- such as Shell menus -- but
Commodore chose not to do this. Now let's all be honest with each
other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore


at most a week to do.

I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS


which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell --

would be given Intuition support. Such support absolutely would
not interfere at all with the normal use of the Shell, and would
greatly facilitate it's use. But I guess this was not to be.

I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.

When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced
that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially
improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like.

However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not
detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach
synthesis.


-MB-

Jeffrey M. Schweiger

unread,
May 29, 1990, 3:07:21 PM5/29/90
to
In article <20...@snow-white.udel.EDU> BAR...@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:
>
> This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here,
>but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0.
>
> With this release of the Amiga's OS, the Amiga is supposed to be
>made much easier-to-use and a lot more friendly. Yet, whole parts of
>the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all.

[much premature complaining deleted]

Marc -

AmigaDOS 2.0 has _not_ been released as of yet, it is still in beta test.
The versions distributed with the pre-production A3000's to the dealers are
beta test versions.

While your comments _may_ be valid, about the version you saw, until the
OS is actually released, you can't be sure that the problems you percieve
are actually in the OS.

From my perspective, the OS is much easier to use and more friendly. Making it
so does not require wholesale changes to every part of the OS.


--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schw...@cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************

Martin Taillefer

unread,
May 29, 1990, 4:02:00 PM5/29/90
to
> I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS
>which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell --
>would be given Intuition support. Such support absolutely would
>not interfere at all with the normal use of the Shell, and would
>greatly facilitate it's use. But I guess this was not to be.

I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use
Workbench. It has tons of menus. Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard


shell by a new one which would support menus.

> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.


>When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced
>that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially
>improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like.
>However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not
>detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach
>synthesis.

I guess you forgot you were running a BETA of 2.0. Please reserve these
comments for the final release. The speech is indeed much improved, but not on
the betas in the store.

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

Jeffrey Wille

unread,
May 29, 1990, 5:24:55 PM5/29/90
to
I tried out the speech synthesis on an A3000 using AmigaVision at the local
dealer and found it much clearer and more understandable than what I get
out of my A500.

-Jeff

F. Michael Theilig

unread,
May 29, 1990, 6:40:57 PM5/29/90
to
On 29 May 90 14:50:16 GMT you said:
>
> This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here,
>but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0.
>
> With this release of the Amiga's OS, the Amiga is supposed to be
>made much easier-to-use and a lot more friendly. Yet, whole parts of
>the Amiga's OS were hardly touched at all.
>
> I am speaking of the Shell windows. With both OS 1.3 and OS 2.0,
>nothing happens when the right mouse button is pressed with a Shell
>window active. This seems to me to be a terrible waste of a whole
>section of the Amiga's OS. I had hoped that some limited Intuition
>support would be added to the Shell -- such as Shell menus -- but
>Commodore chose not to do this. Now let's all be honest with each
>other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore
>at most a week to do.
>
You are right. It would be very easy to add menu items to the shell
window. My responce is that if you are using the CLI, then you are
going out of your way to avoid using the GUI. It's a philosophical
question.

> I had hoped that, with Amiga OS 2.0, the parts of the Amiga's OS
>which still totally lack Intuition support -- such as the Shell --
>would be given Intuition support. Such support absolutely would
>not interfere at all with the normal use of the Shell, and would
>greatly facilitate it's use. But I guess this was not to be.
>

Having a GUI *INSIDE* your CLI is almost comical. Just remember
that you are not limited to Commodore's Shell. There are dozens of
them available. Why don't you write your own?

> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.
>When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced
>that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially
>improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like.
>However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not
>detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach
>synthesis.
>

Speech synthesis is a toy. No system will be hindered or hailed


on respect of sheech synthesis.

I intended on having many "constructive criticisms" of 2.0, but
from what I've read, my complaint list may be very small. Any idea


when 2.0 will be available?

>
> -MB-

----


F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest

GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet

"He is a borderline genius that experiences
peridoic phases of abject stupidity."

Frank Pecher

unread,
May 29, 1990, 10:22:13 PM5/29/90
to
In article <20...@snow-white.udel.EDU> BAR...@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:

>I had hoped that some limited Intuition
>support would be added to the Shell -- such as Shell menus -- but
>Commodore chose not to do this. Now let's all be honest with each
>other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore
>at most a week to do.

Right. It would be most easy to implement. But:
There are different manners of working with a computer:

* If you are a user, you may prefer usage of the computer with a
mouse. This is easy to learn, and quick -- if uncomplicated
actions are to be done (try working with a text processor
without keyboard:-)). In any case, to start a program, the
workbench is sufficient.

* There are applications that are controlled nearly entirely by
mouse. (painting programs) This makes sense. You can't draw with
a keyboard.

* If you are a programmer, however, you prefer working with a shell.
The shell is no graphical user interface. Normally, you operate it
with your keyboard. It would be highly incomfortable then to have
to use the mouse from time to time; programmers (at least I) prefer
to do everything with keyboard. If you want comfort in a shell, use
aliases, or batch files, or both. To handle windows and screens
with your keyboard, use wKeys.

> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.
>When the Alpha version of OS 1.4 was shown, Commodore announced
>that the Amiga's speach software was going to be substantially
>improved, making the Amiga's speach sound much more human-like.
>However, when trying out Amiga OS 2.0 on an A3000, I could not
>detect any improvements whatsoever in the Amiga's speach
>synthesis.

Correct. Apperently, CBM didn't think about an export of Amiga computers to
other countries than the USA initially. Otherwise they would have
implemented INTERNATIONAL phonetics. To pursue your point: if all known
phonems had been implemented, the speech synthesis of the Amiga sounded
less synthetically. Of course, the translator.library would be
aproxximately four or six times that big (Just a guess).

--
\ "... and the universe will explode later for your pleasure!" /
\ -- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at The End of The Universe /
\ ADDRESS: ro...@bcstarc.UUCP /
\____Frank Pecher___________BANG:____...!smurf!nadia!bcstarc!root____/

hami...@intersil.uucp

unread,
May 30, 1990, 3:53:40 AM5/30/90
to
In article <20...@snow-white.udel.EDU>, BAR...@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:
> This is not going to come as much of a surprise to most people here,
> but I have some complaints about Amiga OS 2.0.
>
> <complaints deleted>

>
> Now let's all be honest with each
> other; adding menus to the Shell windows would have taken Commodore
> at most a week to do.

Well, since we're all being honest with each other..........***SHUT UP!!!!***

>
> <more complaints deleted>
>
--
Fred Hamilton Any views, comments, or ideas expressed here
Harris Semiconductor are entirely my own. Even good ones.
Santa Clara, CA

Larry Phillips

unread,
May 30, 1990, 7:26:38 AM5/30/90
to van-bc!rnews
In <32...@auc.UUCP>, r...@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes:
>In article <3246....@pnt.CAM.ORG> Mar...@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes:
>
>>> I also have a beef with the speach support with Amiga OS 2.0.
>>
>> ... Please reserve these

>>comments for the final release.
>
>If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests
>before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should
>have been in there. I believe the people at Commodore have heard MORE than
>enough whining about what should have been done. I'm sure that they
>would agree.

It's already too late to change a lot of things sbout 2.0, and requests for
enhancements that fall into this category will not be acted upon until the
release after 2.0. There is a big difference between a request for enhancement
and a gripe about 'the way it is', when the 'the way it is' is taken from
observation of a prerelease. What Martin is saying is that comments on 2.0
should be reserved for 2.0.

-larry

--
The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| // Larry Phillips |
| \X/ lphi...@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
| COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703...@compuserve.com |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Martin Taillefer

unread,
May 31, 1990, 9:06:48 AM5/31/90
to
>In article <3246....@pnt.CAM.ORG> Mar...@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes:
>>I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use
>>Workbench.
>
>A UI-type interface? Yes, I want a user-interface type interface!!! :-)

How about just *trying* to figure out what I meant instead of pointing out the
obvious? I meant a graphically-oriented interface.

>>... Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard


>>shell by a new one which would support menus.
>

>Obviously another programmer with a bunch of time on his hands, here. I'm
>a programmer without much time on my hands. Many people don't have the time
>to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE
>something useful. Many thanks to those who support the Amiga in such a way,
>but I and many others just don't have the time to do it.

Gee, have you heard about PURCHASING? Replacing the shell doesn't mean writing
your own, it means REPLACING the shell. If enough folks want menus in their
shell windows, someone IS going to write such a shell.

In any case, this doesn't have anything to do with the shell, it is the
console handler which would need the magic.

>>comments for the final release.
>
>If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests
>before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should
>have been in there. I believe the people at Commodore have heard MORE than
>enough whining about what should have been done. I'm sure that they
>would agree.

The thing is, it IS too late! It has been too late for a long time now. Beta
testing means the features have been frozen and from now on there will only be
fixing of bugs and integration of all new components.

So basically, complaining about the new OS at this point has no benefits.
Folks do not know what the final OS release will actually be like so their
complaints may often be pointless. Folks writing the OS have stopped adding
features and are busy cleaning things up.

What is useful at this point is a nicely documented bug report.

>That's great!!! Is it realistic? Does the female sound like a HUMAN female?

It does sound better, haven't played with it much though.

>Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/

--

Alan Kent

unread,
Jun 1, 1990, 4:30:03 AM6/1/90
to

Does anyone know if the improved speach now has tonal control?
For languages such as Chinese, Thai etc., tonal control is very
important. You could sort of fudge the sounds with the old
synthesizer, but tonal control was (almost) impossible. By tonal
control I mean rising and falling tones, not simply monotonic
at a specific frequency.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alan Kent, ACSNET: a...@goanna.cs.rmit.OZ
Key Center for Knowl. Based Sys., INTERNET: a...@goanna.cs.rmit.OZ.AU
RMIT Dept. of Comp. Sci., JANET: ajk%au.oz....@uk.ac.ukc
GPO BOX 2476 V, BITNET: ajk%goanna.cs....@relay.cs.net
Melbourne, 3001, AUSTRALIA UUCP: ..!uunet!goanna.cs.rmit.OZ.AU!ajk
Phone: +61 3 660 2992 Fax: +61 3 662 1617

John Sparks

unread,
Jun 1, 1990, 10:22:44 AM6/1/90
to
r...@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes:

|Wow! With just windows and a menu you have a GUI!?!? I'd better call the
|folks at MIT, and tell them that X Windows IS a GUI! :-)

er, Xwindows ***IS*** a GUI, buddy. Icons, menus, the whole shmear.

Plus it multi-tasks, unlike workbench (I know the programs run from
workbench multi-task but WB doesn't. That's what the little sleepy cloud is
for. It means workbench is busy and can't do anything else till it gets
finished.)


--
John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY)
spa...@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK
A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash

Rodney Ricks

unread,
Jun 1, 1990, 1:59:58 PM6/1/90
to
Well, I just saw an Amiga 3000 and (pre)release 2.0 yesterday, for the
first time (I know, I know, I'm late...). All I can say is...

WOW!!!


Thanks, Commodore!

To think that someone one the net said that the 3000 was a piece of garbage?
Nonsense.

If you haven't seen it yourself, go and see it. Don't let anyone convince
you that it's not worth it just because it doesn't have 1024 x 1024 x 8 bits
standard. It's a nice, FAST machine. It FEELS fast.

It even reboots VERY quickly (around 5 to 10 seconds). It even makes crashing
a whole lot less annoying (unless you lose something), when it comes back up
so quickly. It makes not be a SparcStation speedwise, but DAMN it's fast!


I'm your typical (early) Amiga buyer / MSDOS-hater, which means that if it
isn't perfect, I'll criticize it. The 3000 isn't perfect.

Then again, nothing is.

But the 3000 IS damn good! And that was just with a 1084 monitor!

Release 2.0 is nice, too, although the color combination for the icons for
files without .info files looks somewhat ugly.


As far as the speech goes, it does seem the same (maybe there is some SMALL
improvement), but since it's a Beta release, I'm not assuming that it will
be that way in the final release.


In summary, I have no complaints about 2.0. I have criticisms of every
computer system.

To the folks at Commodore, please don't get annoyed by those of us who whine
about every little nit that we can find to pick. Amiga owners tend to be
very picky people.

If we weren't picky, we'd buy MSDOS machines!

And now, for something completely different. Subliminal messages to the folks
at Commodore.

68040 board!

Low-cost 8-bit video board!

16-bit audio board!


Give me a free Amiga 3000!


Ok, ok, Commodore crew, so it wasn't subliminal. Quit complaining.
You're starting to sound like us!!! :-) :-) :-) :-)

Keep up the good work.


Rodney

Sean Cunningham

unread,
Jun 1, 1990, 12:16:03 PM6/1/90
to
In-Reply-To: message from GWO110%URIACC...@brownvm.brown.edu

You're right on this one Marc...

Pulldown menus, inside a shell? Isn't it the purpose of the shell to get
around menus, icons, etc...and get down-and-dirty right into the DOS, with a
few niceties like command-history, etc.??? If you're going to have menus and
gadgets in the shell, it might as well not be the shell at all, but some sort
of utility program like DiskMaster, or Utilimaster...or SID.

I'm not worried about the speech either...when I want realistic sounding
speech, I sample it. What other computer has built in text to speech like the
Amiga? Not clones...not macs...remember"it's not how well a waltzing bear
waltzes...but that it waltzes at all."

Sean

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc |
ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!se...@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their
INET: se...@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they
| weave a paradise for
RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. "
Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats
|
Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Dave Mc Mahan

unread,
May 31, 1990, 8:20:42 PM5/31/90
to

In a previous article, r...@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes:
>
> [ Previous commentary deleted. ]

>
>Obviously another programmer with a bunch of time on his hands, here. I'm
>a programmer without much time on my hands. Many people don't have the time
>to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE
>something useful. Many thanks to those who support the Amiga in such a way,
>but I and many others just don't have the time to do it.

I used to think that coming up to speed on programming the amiga and using
Intuition is tough. Sure, it does take time. It isn't always like you think
it should be, but there are reasons you will discover later. You will be
frustrated by errors in documentation (I have an early set of RKMs, so this
may have been corrected in later versions), the time it takes to figure how
things work so you can do neat graphics, and other problems. I have found
that picking a desired non-trivial program you would like to implement and then
going for it is the best way. Getting support and help is quite simple, if
you are reading this message. Just post a message for help or a question
to comp.sys.amiga.tech, and you will get it answered. Make sure you have really
tried to answer your own question as best you can first, but any and all topics
are allowed.

In summary, learning to drive the amiga from a programmer's point of view is
not like falling off a log, but it is quite handy when you want to turn out
a program. I urge any and all out there who have been thinking about learning
to do some whippy graphics to 'just do it'. Learning is a life long process,
and there are always excuses to be found to avoid learning. I owned an amiga
and all the compilers, assemblers, and docs for about 3 years before really
starting to write code. I wish I had started sooner. The amiga is supported
in large part by the user community, not a few programmers working for large
corporations. The benefits of this way of operation are available on fish
disks (and other PD/Shareware sources) rather than on store shelves.


>Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College


-dave

Rodney Ricks

unread,
Jun 1, 1990, 4:56:41 PM6/1/90
to
In article <3266....@pnt.CAM.ORG> Mar...@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes:
>>In article <3246....@pnt.CAM.ORG> Mar...@pnt.CAM.ORG (Martin Taillefer) writes:
>>>I do not agree. A CLI is a CLI. If you want UI-type interface, go use
>>>Workbench.
>>
>>A UI-type interface? Yes, I want a user-interface type interface!!! :-)
^^^

|||
>How about just *trying* to figure out what I meant instead of pointing out the
>obvious? I meant a graphically-oriented interface.

You missed my smiley face; I was just kidding!

>>>... Anyway, it is easy to replace the standard
>>>shell by a new one which would support menus.
>>

>> ... Many people don't have the time


>>to LEARN how to write programs on the Amiga, and then to actually WRITE

>>something useful. ...

WARNING, WARNING: A non-serious and (hopefully) humorous reply is coming!!!!

>Gee, have you heard about PURCHASING?

Purchasing? No, what's that?!?!?! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

>>>comments for the final release.
>>
>>If we did that, then it would be TOO LATE!!! We need to make requests
>>before things are finalized, or else we'll just be whining about what should

>>have been in there. ...


>
>The thing is, it IS too late! It has been too late for a long time now. Beta
>testing means the features have been frozen and from now on there will only be
>fixing of bugs and integration of all new components.

>What is useful at this point is a nicely documented bug report.

Well, this may not be nicely documented, but here's a bug report.

System setup: Display model A3000 with 1084 monitor
2 Mb RAM
(I think the HD was 40 Mb, and it may have had
some kind of large drawing tablet connect to it)

While running Commoditites Exchange and IHelp, with nothing else running
(except maybe the standard CLI), I was flipping through the windows using the
F1 key. I held it down (or just tapped it very quickly, I forget which).
For about five seconds.

The system froze up completely. No system error message. I ended up rebooting.

>>Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College


>Martin Taillefer INTERNET: mar...@pnt.CAM.ORG BIX: vertex

Rodney (again)


--
"We may have come over here in different ships,
but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson //
\\ //

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Jun 7, 1990, 4:38:00 AM6/7/90
to
While we're wishing, a good specification of how the system works and
how to modify it and tailorable sound source files (to allow one put
in phonemes that don't occur in English) would vastly improve the odds
of commercial products being developed around the Amiga's speech
synthesis system, perhaps opening a whole new market area. Drilling
kids learning English as a second language in spoken English would
sell to a lot of inner city schools, for example.

Anything existing or planned in this direction? Specifically, is there,
for example, an IFF chunk for algebraically defined (or however one does
this) phonemes?

Kent, the man from xanth.
<xant...@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xant...@well.sf.ca.us>

Martin S. Stoller

unread,
Jun 8, 1990, 5:17:35 AM6/8/90
to
In article <1990Jun7.0...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xant...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>While we're wishing, a good specification of how the system works and
>how to modify it and tailorable sound source files (to allow one put
>in phonemes that don't occur in English) would vastly improve the odds
>of commercial products being developed around the Amiga's speech
>Anything existing or planned in this direction? Specifically, is there,
>for example, an IFF chunk for algebraically defined (or however one does
>this) phonemes?
>Kent, the man from xanth.
><xant...@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xant...@well.sf.ca.us>

I know of several people here in Switzerland who (myself for instance) are
playing with the idea of an intelligent LANGUAGE TRANSLATION DEVICE. The
name is, I'm afraid, a bit missleading: we're working on a new translator.dev,
which should be able to emualte (ei: sound like) a Swiss farmer or Swiss
layer, which-ever comes easier. The device could be used for other, simpler
languages, like English, Hebrew, and Chinese. Might take a while before
it gets to a demo stage, 'cause we are all hard working and have
a minimal of spare time >;->
The format may well be IFF, 'cause that's the best |:-$

--

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Martin S. Stoller, Technical Support Assistant |
| Commodore Electronics Limited (CEL), Switzerland |
| 'We maveric maniacal programmers must be marvelous...' |
| ...the deamomnd ring... |
| See ya... Martin S. Stoller |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Rodney Ricks

unread,
Jun 11, 1990, 1:04:54 AM6/11/90
to
In article <18...@corpane.UUCP> spa...@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
|r...@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes:
||Wow! With just windows and a menu you have a GUI!?!? I'd better call the
||folks at MIT, and tell them that X Windows IS a GUI! :-)
|
|er, Xwindows ***IS*** a GUI, buddy. Icons, menus, the whole shmear.

That's what I thought at first, until I kept hearing (and hearing and hearing)
that X Windows is not a GUI, but something on which a GUI can be
based. That's why we have such things like Motif, DECwindows, etc.

|Plus it multi-tasks, unlike workbench

I think a better comparison would be to compare XWindows to Intuition.
DECwindows, for example, is an interface that sits on top of Xwindows,
just as Workbench is an interface that sits on top of Intuition.

|Plus it multi-tasks, unlike workbench (I know the programs run from
|workbench multi-task but WB doesn't. That's what the little sleepy cloud is
|for. It means workbench is busy and can't do anything else till it gets
|finished.)

Yes, I've even complained about that many times.
That will be fixed in 2.0.

|John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY)
|spa...@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK
|A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash

I'm temporarily losing access to the net, so send any personal replies
to /dev/null.

Hopefully, when I come back (in August), I'll be hearing people criticizing
the Amiga 3500! :-) You know, the new model with the 25MHz 68040 board in
the CPU slot... :-)

Classic_-...@cup.portal.com

unread,
Jun 15, 1990, 9:49:32 PM6/15/90
to
MB> Speech synthesis is a toy.

Poorly implemented speech synthesis might be a toy, though I would even
argue that.

Speech synthesis is essential to many applications:
* Programs for blind people
* Security software which needs to notify someone who can't
always be in visual range of the computer
* Educational programs--thousands of important applications here

Point made, no additional bandwidth needed ...
Julie (LadyHawke)

David S. Herron

unread,
Jun 21, 1990, 9:35:46 PM6/21/90
to
In article <18...@corpane.UUCP> spa...@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>r...@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes:
>
>|Wow! With just windows and a menu you have a GUI!?!? I'd better call the
>|folks at MIT, and tell them that X Windows IS a GUI! :-)
>
>er, Xwindows ***IS*** a GUI, buddy. Icons, menus, the whole shmear.

Hi John ...

Sorry dude, but I gotta correct some mis-comprehensions in yer brain.

First: It's not a system named X Windows,
it's a windowing system named X.

(Calling it X Windows makes it sound like it's for the PeeCee market)

Second: X doesn't specify user interface issues. The UI stuff varies
depending on which window manager you're using, and which widget
set the program was written with. The X designers consciously
chose not to specify any UI garbage because they didn't want
to fight that battle. Instead they left that to the more capable
people around (and somehow it's ended up in the marketeers
hands.. sometime that'll make sense)


X is only a network protocol for scribbling things on a screen. It's
the applications that give shape and meaning to the scribblings.
--
<- David Herron, an MMDF weenie, <da...@twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <da...@ms.uky.edu>
<-
<- Sign me up for one "I survived Jaka's Story" T-shirt!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages