> > 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.
Which is crap. Open a DPaint file requester - or an ADpro one, or an ImageFX one, and lo and behold: they will display "A file for Jamie" whether they support it or not. Some apps filter requesters via datatypes but that merely gives them a list of files it can load: it does NOT give them any information on the finer points of the file. "This is a picture" is about as far as it gets. > 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! ;) That's not funny, though. > > 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! Dpaint doesn't check, though, does it? Think. > > 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!! It doesn't need it. If you give a file the right name, you don't even need a computer to tell you what's in it. It's 100x faster to say "this file has an mp3 extension, therefore there is a very good chance that it is in fact an mp3 file", than to scan the first few kilobytes pattern matching it against a database of 100-200 descriptions of file formats. Even Deficons manages to mis-label a file sometimes. It's sometimes a lot easier, when you have 99.9% of the planet and 20 years of experience in use, to do the quick and semi-reliable assumption than to waste time getting it wrong - which is a support headache to say the least. > 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! :) If you say so. Do you get off on being so narrow minded? > > 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! Pardon? > > 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! ;) Memory protection doesn't prevent crashes, it merely catches them. One day when you learn how computers work in the real world, maybe you'll be qualified enough to talk about them. Until then you seem to be little more than a BAF. -- Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
