Contents | < Browse | Browse >

===========================================================================
                               Reader Mail
===========================================================================

From: Jon Klooster <matix@netspace.net.au>
Subject: reader mail

To all the gurus in guruland:

I don't know if it is possible but I have a suggestion for a little utility
for anyone out there who is bored:

I think it would be extremely useful if there was a utility that could
determine what the slowest link in any systems connection to the internet.


By link I refer to:  serial.device
                     TCP stack
                     phone lines
                     modem
                     server overloaded
                     or whatever else it may take!

Something along the lines of sysinfo, etc..

Anyway, its just a suggestion, take it or leave it.

But most importantly, keep Amigaing!

Jon.

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

CC: cjefts@geis.com

Jason,

My name is Charles Jefts "Gamesmeister" and I am hosting the Amiga Gaming
forum on Genie (Wednesday nights @ 9:00).  Genie continues to support the
Amiga and the member list remains "sizeable". 

If you are continuing to author the Amiga Report, please include a word
about us. 

Thanks,
Charles Jefts

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

From: Trond Werner Hansen <tronhan@stud.ntnu.no>

Hi,

Read your last Amiga Report with great interest as usual, including part 2
of the dopus5.5 review.  I think it's great that there still is developed
serious programs like dopus, now when the Amiga is having a hard time, but
that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to find some weak spots in a program,
and let the reader know about them. 

Personally, I would like you to make the reviews somewhat more "testy"... 
I found the dopus5.5 reviews a bit too much pointing out all the features,
and not very much "real life" testing..

like:

-speed (it's slower than the old WB when it comes to scanning)
-inefficient window opening (notice how it opens the windows INACTIVE and
then activates them)
-Poor WBPattern performance (esp. with CGFX...poor CGFX performance in
general)
-Only nonprop fonts in listers

that's just a few of everyday problems/weaknesses that would have been
nice if you pointed out..

As you might guess, these and other reasons is why I don't use dopus, but
develop my own WorkbenchNG.

I'm not trying to cast bad light over dopus, because of my own project,
it's just that I use dopus5.5 very much for comparison, and I was a bit
surprised when the only "bad" thing mentioned was that it eats memory...

But, hey! Keep up the good work!

Greetings,

Trond Werner Hansen, student at Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
EMail: tronhan@stud.ntnu.no | WWW: www.stud.ntnu.no/~tronhan | IRC: Coyote
Developing WorkbenchNG and Playboy3.0 | Amiga - There's a lady in every story -


     It's always good to have feedback on our reviews.  Ironically, GPSoft
     was a little less than pleased about my DOpus 5.5 review, but they
     haven't yet explicitly outlined what they perceived as the problem.
     Personally, I think the CyberGFX performance of DOpus 5.5 is fine, and
     I encountered no problem with the patterns I wanted to use.  Since I'm
     running on an 040/25 (stock 3640) system, the speed was not a factor,
     but you're right--on slower machines, it would be noticable that
     windows open slower than the WB windows.  I'd have to say that was
     because the windows are in effect DOING more.   - Jason

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

From: goose@post2.tele.dk (Gustav Kjeldsen)

Hi, Jason.

I just read Amiga Report, and saw Jon's letter, complainig about MUI.  
This made me reflect upon the issue, and here is my contribution...

In my opinion MUI is a VERY well developed AmigaOS add-on, and for one
thing, it provides a lot of the userfriendly functionality that the AmigaOS
lacks today.

Some systems today (one - Windows 95) provides a LOT of userfriendly
features, almost completely eliminating the need to know anything about
computers in order to use them.

Now, that obviously makes Win95 attractive to a lot more people, who are
not computerfreaks but can still be customers.  Since we all want more
Amiga users too, and userfriendlyness is certainly the way to get them. 
That is a feature of MUI.

Another force of MUI is that it is SO easy to use for the programmer.  It
takes care of AREXX, helpfiles, all programs become commodities and a lot
of the configurations are handled through a standard MUI preference
program.  Nobody could be dissatisfied with that...  Unless they WANT
something different, but then they won't follow ANY standard, and that's
not too admireable...

Finally MUI itself is a systemfriendly program.  And it is possible to
limmit and control the level of userfriendliness.  That's a feature not
even Win95 has.

Before I got my first version of MUI (this spring), I too was very annoyed
about it.  But I looked into it, because I was thinking about creating a
spreadsheet program.  Now I just registeret (online through www.sasg.com)
MUI last week, and already have my key file.

I used to think that everybody should stick with the Commodore standards,
but having to program with them myself, I found a lot of gaps in them,
especially some userfriendly things, that were NOT there.

And I realized that we all have to move on, everybody has to.  I'd be a
fool not to look for new and better opportunities, making my life easier,
making it easier to get the job done without having to become an expert in
GUI-creation and userfriendlyness, when I really intended to make a
program, that could take care of a certain task.

Today I wish all programs were MUI programs.  They may require a bit more
ressources, but nowadays that's just a necessity with all computer systems.

If we take a look at the PC development, it's obvious that the reason for
their need of power is because of the demands from the software.  Maybe
Amigans should start using software that requires more power, in order to
get more powerfull equipment and move the standards.  (then we could have
more powerconsuming games as well :-))

Of course this standpoint will start another discussion about prices of a
decent system.  All I can say is that I did it myself.  I bought some add
ons for my Amiga, and they cost the same as a complete pentium system.  
But the Pentium can't run Amiga OS.  And that is what I want.  I feel
trapped when I use Windows, because I don't get to decide the level of
userfriendlyness or abstraction.  So it's worth it for me.  I don't want
limits.  But I want the possibilities.

Gustav...

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

From: argha@execpc.com (James Moe)

I would like to make some suggestions to the Amiga community at large.

I think the we as Amiga owners and users that we take it upon ourselves to
mantain the Amiga's OS and Workbench (ala MUI and NewIcons, etc..)

I think we should form a group to that will make suggestions to the company
that has the ownership of the Amiga properties.

I would like to make a suggestions myself.  I think that web access should
be a part of the OS.  make http and ftp, etc devices.  so that any program
that comes out for tha Amiga has instantaeous access to the net, and we
have a step up on the rest of the computing world.