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