@Tomppeli

Quote:

Tomppeli wrote: Also you MOS people speak a lot of mime types. Speaking stricktly, do you mean mime types as the original definition for email or do you rather mean file types and related functions to those ?

Itix already told what they are, but the main point talking about them in MorphOS (and Magellan) is that user can configure what actions/functions are available for a file of certain file/mime type. User can freely configure what happens if you doubleclick the file or select certain action from a context menu or drag and drop it.

Here are example pics of mime editor in Ambient and filetype editor in Magellan.

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

@Fab, all

Now, maybe I'm a little late to this discussion, and have only skimmed it because it looks like yet another "My totally obscure OS is better than your totally obscure OS" thread, but a couple of points to note about the RAWBInfo window:

- Shift-clicking a tooltype toggles it as enabled/disabled.

- Drag and drop can't be done between windows, but can be done from icon to window, e.g. to copy tooltypes from another icon, just drop that icon onto the tooltypes area, or to copy the graphics from one icon, drop it onto the icon area. Dragging of individual tooltypes would be a nice feature, but unlike some other things AmigaOS lacks, I've never found myself wishing that Workbench had it.

- Free editing in a text editor for tooltypes can be confusing, but anyone who has used tooltypes before should surely find it familiar. And I don't see how it's any more confusing than the concept of tooltypes itself for non-Amiga people. Personally I prefer the free editing and find having to use an Add button cumbersome, but as Fab pointed out, this is down to personal preference.

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

Lets try to get this back to topic:


1) is MUI better than RA ??
Since my only experience with RA was for a short moment in 2001 (was quite into Amithlon at that time) I can't really say whats possible with current RA, but I do know 3 or 4 things about MUI.

With MUI I only that semi-atomic loop in main() handling nothing but when the user forces a quit. All other user input is handled either by MUI itself or MUI-classes I created. When this mechanism is used to the full extent and with stringent namin-conventions in place even big and complicated GUIs become managble.

MUI in it's current versions offers various buildin classes designed in a way to be easily expanded, so even complex apps don't need to stray from (subclassing) these. Evenmore if you allow the use of external classes, sure some of those are quite crappy, but also easily avoided (if something starts with N.... it's a strong hint ).

Back in the days that wasn't possible with RA.

For a user MUI also allows to change allmost everything in settings without breaking the app, or even making it inconsistent.

2) Is MUI better than QT ?
Well surely QT offers all the above and more in a probraly overall nicer package, but we are talking bout the use of QT on "Amiga" systems here.

"Forcing" developers to write MUI GUIs instead of just recompiling with QT not only means that the app is more consistent with other (MUI) apps used, it also means that these developers had to give some thought into doing their port the proper way and understanding the code to a deeper level. This makes it more likely that they will also look into other parts to make them more "Amiga". As a result you might see the use of locale.library, datatypes/reggae, ARexx-ports and so one.

3) Consistency is king !
When I start using a new app I expect it to react to the same standard shortcuts, have menus that do work just like they do in other apps, react to window-resizing by the same rules, can be send to another screen the usual way etc etc
And when I want to change something (like have the menus at the window, not the screen) I want to be able to do it either globally in 1 place, or per app in a way that does not differ from app to app.

4) Don't be YALD
Don't forget there are 100s of Linux-distros out there that can run those QT apps just fine. Add some not-Linux but still *nix OSes (everything DSB*), heck add Win and OSX.
On top of that add some alt.OSes like Haiku to that list.
Now ask yourself what is gonna make your OS stand out here apart from lacking support for MP,SMP,VM,whatnot and running on a deadend CPU ?

*edit : WTF DSB ??? And I wasn't even drinking ....... BSD BSD BSD ..... obviously

Last edited by Kronos on 29-Aug-2013 at 09:19 AM.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@WolfToTheMoon



Quote:

Will Hyperion now make QT the future default for OS4?

I bloody well hope not.

The QT download is 400Mb, not good for us stuck with 0.5Mbps thanks to BT.

Quote:

Kronos wrote: For a user MUI also allows to change allmost everything in settings without breaking the app, or even making it inconsistent. 2) Is MUI better than QT ? Well surely QT offers all the above and more in a probraly overall nicer package, but we are talking bout the use of QT on "Amiga" systems here.

So, QT allows users to change the look of programs and components at least with same degree with MUI? The thing I love in MUI is that I can configure the look and functionality of programs to my needs quite extensively.

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: [...] 4) Don't be YALD Don't forget there are 100s of Linux-distros out there that can run those QT apps just fine. Add some not-Linux but still *nix OSes (everything DSB), heck add Win and OSX. On top of that add some alt.OSes like Haiku to that list. Now ask yourself what is gonna make your OS stand out here apart from lacking support for MP,SMP,VM,whatnot and running on a deadend CPU ?

Definitly +1