Clarence wrote:
>I would call the visual appearance "toylike" - definitely for the under teens
>crowd - and maybe they would tolerate all the mouse pushing.
>
>Maybe a good idea, but with a poor and buggy interface.
>Right now, Rosco says: "Two Thumbs Off".
The GUI was very good looking for me (although a few odd things existed),
so am I under teen? <g> However without anything useful to fill it with I'm
afraid that Qube will go the same way as Seal, Desktop2 and Paw have gone.
>From a "hype" when it's first released, development stops. The authors of
these programs are clearly able to put together (good) graphical
interfaces. But they need to either write more (and better) software for
it, or team up with a few people before releasing it. Now there's a risk
that in a few months time we will have added Qube to the above list.
As Qube stands now it's just a fancy looking text editor, and personally I
will stick to Edit/SetEdit for editing text.
The smaller problems in the GUI are easily fixed when you have something to
start working on. But, the interface to connect to the internet must be
changed, I see a risk that using a modem and PPP (even without PAP/CHAP) is
hardwired into the system. A way to call upon native drivers must exist so
that NICs etc. can be used.
I haven't looked in the source for Qube yet, but I hope it was actually
made objectorinted instead of the way Seal has semi-objects implemented in
C. An object oriented language isn't perfect, but a graphical interface is
very suited to create out of objects (such as the scrollbar class, the
button class etc).
//Bernie
