Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Statement Message-ID: <8612131550.AA10935@cory.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Sat, 13-Dec-86 10:50:36 EST Article-I.D.: cory.8612131550.AA10935 Posted: Sat Dec 13 10:50:36 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Dec-86 22:47:07 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 31 >Keith Doyle: >Yes, but look at what you just said. It's convenient from the CLI point of >view, but not the WORKBENCH point of view (too slow). And why are the >..info files there? Not for the CLI but for the Workbench. > >I like being able to manipulate the files seperately too, (the Apple >resource/data fork mess is a pain in the ***), BUT one of the main reasons >I don't use the Workbench, is it's poor performance. When I'm looking >over the shoulders of a freind on a MAC, the icon interface is snappy >enough to be useful. I believe the performance of an icon based interface >to be in direct correlation to it's usefulness. Look at what you just said .. "BUT one of the main reasons I don't use the Workbench, is it's poor performance". EXACTLY MY POINT. Tell me something... how can people (scope: anybody who uses the workbench) work with an interface that takes 15 seconds to open a window? The functionality that is supposedly lost by going to a single .info file per folder can be regained with utilities. However, the functionality that I consider lost in the current system (slow icon display on open) can only be regained when: (A) C-A writes a more intelligent disk cache (B) C-A changes the interface to use a single file. The added "neatness" is simply a nice aftereffect. Now which method would you use? (B) certainly is easier, and also has side benefits (one example iterated above) that would make many CLI users turn back to the workbench. -Matt