--- Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The problem with having windows looks at the file's header is that > > someone would actually have to write their own routine to do such. > > It's far easier, in any os, to use the default system of loading > > files. IIRC, because the Amiga looks at a file's header, the > > applications are easier to make do so too. > > Apart from the fact that it's a really rather slow way of doing it. > > That, and also the fact that even if you name a file > > "A file for Jamie" > > Most Amiga apps wouldn't know whether it was a picture or a text file > if it hit them on the head.
Not true actually! Many Amiga apps don't look for the stupid PC .ext convention. Anyway, in that case neither would a feckin winPC for that matter.... :) It wouldn't know what to do with the file, it'd probably give up and go down the pub! ;) Just for a laugh, how about we start sending winPC users .mp3s and that bloatcode that is .PDF as .html?! Jolly good fun on a rainy Sunday afternoon methinks! ;) > How do you tell if a file is an IFF file > from inside a DPaint requester, with a name like that? > They're discussing the merits of the computer doing the donkey work of checking a files type not the user! Of course it's handy for us humans but it's far too easy to send a winPC outta whack when it's filechecking system is so damn dumb! And how many MBs of cack is win made up of these days?! You'd think they could manage to put in some simple checks like that for glods sake! > The trick is: you're all jumping around about a "graceful" feature of > the Amiga that was actually a shareware afterthought, which took 8 years > to get into the OS, and got ruined with an evil preferences GUI :) > And windows is about 15-20 years old, used by like 99.9% (figures supplied by Off-the-top-of-my-head-facts TM ;) of the desktop 'puter market and it STILL doesn't bloody have it!! > Next time you extoll the virtuous nature of the Amiga, I would go back > to things you remember from when it was first released (1985, 1990, 1992 > or so) and then realise you're comparing an obselete 20 year old box > which did practically nothing, with the computers today which are 100x > more powerful. > And they bloody need to be to run the bloatcode that is win :) But then, you could get a double decker bus to do 400mph if you strapped a jet engine to it! :) > There are plenty of things in Windows and X11 that are done to simplify > the system - the way when you click a window, it pulls to the front, is > a simplification of layers.library, since it is a lot of hassle to handle > things that can be active AND behind things. Glody hell! Just think how much bloatcode they could put out if they did! Good job they didn't then! > Microsoft and the original > pioneering GUI people decided it wasn't worth the feature to have all > those race conditions and lockup bugs for 15 years. Considering that it's supposed to have mem protection windows is one big lock-up bug! ;) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
