Re: User interfaces (was: XGS/32 v1.4b Released!)

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

phoenyx <quazar@dcnet2000.com> wrote:

>Part of the reason I didn't jump on the IIgs and the GS/OS band wagon
>was Apple's requirements for meeting their 'Human Interface' minimum
>standards. In order to make this possible, they loaded the GS with tons of
>toolbox calls which in many ways degraded the performance of applications.
>No, not all applications. There are many which benefit from the common
>interface, but not all.

The IIGS was similar to the Amiga in this way.  Yes, it had a
toolbox (or a set of standard libraries in the Amiga's case).
Yes, the toolbox was standardized.  But unlike the Mac, you
didn't HAVE to use it.

The IIGS offered the best of both worlds.  You could generate
standard GS/OS based programs that made use of toolbox with
Apple's interface standards OR you could program "on the
metal" like the FTA and others did.

At least on the IIGS, the standard tools were unargurably
good.  In the Amiga's case, the GUI was so ugly that a
great many Amiga programs (and most games) boycotted
the standard.  AmigaDOS had some great qualities not the
least of which was multitasking before any non-UNIX PC
had it, but the Amiga's standard interface was absolutely
terrible.