[net.micro.mac] Comments on MacDeveloper magazine

wkp@lanl.ARPA (06/13/85)

My compliments on a fine magazine.  Maybe sometime in the future
I'll be able to access it without spending a lot of time downloading
and binhexing it.

Commendations to the contributors and editors!
--

bill peter                              ihnp4!lanl!wkp

rjd@linus.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (06/17/85)

Yes, I agree that MacDeveloper was quite good.  Can we try to find some nice
way of posting it to the net?  It took me ooooh so long to download all of
those separate parts and then try to print them all out and wait tens of
minutes for them to be converted to the newer MacWrite format and printed.
If this electronic publishing business is going to work we've got to agree
on something better.  

I suggest that someone post a copy to the net in larger chunks, in the new
Macwrite format, Pack-It'ed together.  This would _greatly_ reduce the time
involved in the transfer/printing process.  

I think it's safe to assume that most people who read MacD would have the
new Macwrite and a large enough majority have 512k to make it worth it to
post in bigger pieces (perhaps one big piece!).

brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) (06/18/85)

> Yes, I agree that MacDeveloper was quite good.
     I cannot agree more.  As proof, I will show you how I disagree with
most of the other things you said.

>Can we try to find some nice
> way of posting it to the net?  It took me ooooh so long to download all of
> those separate parts and then try to print them all out and wait tens of
> minutes for them to be converted to the newer MacWrite format and printed.
     I don't see any problem with the current method.  I would prefer
MacWrite format to text format.  That way it's easier to format the thing
and include pictures to augment the text.

> I suggest that someone post a copy to the net in larger chunks, in the new
> Macwrite format, Pack-It'ed together.  This would _greatly_ reduce the time
> involved in the transfer/printing process.  
     Oh, really?  How?  A Pack-it'ed file is as large as all of it's
constituent parts.  Transfer time will be about the same.  Printing time
better be the same also.

> I think it's safe to assume that most people who read MacD would have the
> new Macwrite
     Probably so, or at least that will provide incentive to go and get it.

>and a large enough majority have 512k
     No way.

>...to make it worth it to
> post in bigger pieces (perhaps one big piece!).
     I would rather leave it open to everyone, not just the 512K snobs.
One also must remember the 32K (or is it 64K?) limit on posting files to
USENET.

jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/19/85)

>I think it's safe to assume that most people who read MacD would have the
>new Macwrite and a large enough majority have 512k to make it worth it to
>post in bigger pieces (perhaps one big piece!).

No!  This is grossly unreasonable to assume.  I, for one, have a 128K Mac
with one disk drive, and probably will for a long time to come, unless the
recent changes at Apple lead to an improvement in their pricing strategy.
It's already difficult enough to print some of the MacWrite documents that
are sent out, since so little space is left on the disk.

Also, when files are posted in larger pieces, some systems have problems
with them...
-- 
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

	    "Fheryl qnloernxf pebff bhe cngu, naq fgnl, znlor, njuvyr..."

thompson@oberon.UUCP (mark thompson) (06/21/85)

>rjd@linus.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) writes:
>
> Yes, I agree that MacDeveloper was quite good.  Can we try to find some nice
> way of posting it to the net?  It took me ooooh so long to download all of
> those separate parts and then try to print them all out and wait tens of
> minutes for them to be converted to the newer MacWrite format and printed.
> If this electronic publishing business is going to work we've got to agree
> on something better.  
> 
> I suggest that someone post a copy to the net in larger chunks, in the new
> Macwrite format, Pack-It'ed together.  This would _greatly_ reduce the time
> involved in the transfer/printing process.  
>
I strongly support the electronic magazine also. 

Please don't make the chunks larger! In particular, don't packit it into
one large file, then break it up for UUCP posting (something that a lot
of people seem to do).  My MAC is connected to my unix(tm) by a VERY
noisy line. Large files are a large pain, and transmitting them as small
files to the mac, glueing them back together, then binhexing, takes hours.

One can easilly transmit 'n' seperate files to the mac automagically, and
you can select and print a group also, so that seems like a non-problem.

As to the MacWrite version, I am indifferent, except to note that I have
kept the 2.2 version handy, as the 4.x versions seem to have many little
problems, especially with text-only files.

-mark
-- 
mark thompson		is  THOMPSON@USC-ECLC.ARPA
or { ihnp4 | hplabs | akgua | sdcsvax} !sdcrdcf!uscvax!oberon!thompson
    "And all that science, I don't understand, it's just my job
                                           five days a week..."

rjd@linus.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (06/23/85)

In article <2128@ut-sally.UUCP> brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) writes:
>...
>>Can we try to find some nice
>> way of posting it to the net?  It took me ooooh so long to download all of
>> those separate parts and then try to print them all out and wait tens of
>> minutes for them to be converted to the newer MacWrite format and printed.
>     I don't see any problem with the current method.  I would prefer
>MacWrite format to text format.  That way it's easier to format the thing
>and include pictures to augment the text.
>

Yes! MacWrite is much preferable to text since it allows headers, figures,
etc.  The problem is that with the old Macwrite format, I can't do a "batch
print" of all of the sections at once because for each file I have to respond
to the silly "The document is being reformatted and will be opened as
'untitled.'" dialog box.  For those who don't know, you can print multiple
files (even files of different types) by selecting them with shift-click or
by surrounding them and then selecting "print" from the "file" menu of the
finder (any version).

>> I suggest that someone post a copy to the net in larger chunks, in the new
>> Macwrite format, Pack-It'ed together.  This would _greatly_ reduce the time
>> involved in the transfer/printing process.  
>     Oh, really?  How?  A Pack-it'ed file is as large as all of it's
>constituent parts.  Transfer time will be about the same.  Printing time
>better be the same also.

Obviously you are correct in saying that the transfer times are about the
same.  A Packit'ed format offers several other advantages, though.  For one
thing, there are simply fewer files to worry about in the transfer process.
I like to start a download and then leave my Mac alone until it finishes.
With seven separate parts, this can't be done easily without some sort of
programming (RedRider) or wildcard forms (Kermit) and neither of these
things are available on many common transfer programs.  The time saved is
_my_ time which is even more valuable than _Mac_ time.

Also, Packit provides some error checking.  This makes it better as a
"universal" format for distribution because something like MacDeveloper
could be distributed as a simple text file and transferred in any old way
and then translated with packit at its destination.

>> I think it's safe to assume that most people who read MacD would have the
>> new Macwrite
...
>>and a large enough majority have 512k
...
>>...to make it worth it to post in bigger pieces (perhaps one big piece!).
>     I would rather leave it open to everyone, not just the 512K snobs.
>One also must remember the 32K (or is it 64K?) limit on posting files to
>USENET.

O.k. If you eliminate the hassles with the old version of Macwrite, I don't
really care if you keep the individual files small for the 128k weenies,
because I can still print them all at once.  But I still think they should be
packit'ed (in small enough packits to make it over all of the commonly used
networks).  

What does everyone else think about this?  I hate to keep arguing about
small details like this, but I think it is important that we settle on a
good format since this is obviously intended to be an ongoing thing and
there will likely be more like it in the future.

I encourage everyone who's interested in the way the Mac works to take a
look at Mac Developer.

brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) (06/23/85)

     When we last left our flamers, we were discussing the best way to send
things like the MacDeveloper magazine.  There seems to be a slight error
in the way one part of my response was viewed.
 
> >> I suggest that someone post a copy to the net in larger chunks, in the new
> >> Macwrite format, Pack-It'ed together.  This would _greatly_ reduce the time
> >> involved in the transfer/printing process.  
> >     Oh, really?  How?  A Pack-it'ed file is as large as all of it's
> >constituent parts.  Transfer time will be about the same.  Printing time
> >better be the same also.
> 
> Obviously you are correct in saying that the transfer times are about the
> same.  A Packit'ed format offers several other advantages, though.  For one
> thing, there are simply fewer files to worry about in the transfer process.
> ...
> Also, Packit provides some error checking.  This makes it better as a
> ...
     Here's the problem.  I (the one with two ">"'s) didn't mean to put
down packit.  I think it's an okay program.  I was pointing out that transfer
time would be the same.  I use the macsend shell script so I don't have
any problems starting up ut-sally to send me lots of files while I go deal
with mass amounts of beauracracy and paperwork.

> O.k. If you eliminate the hassles with the old version of Macwrite, I don't
> really care if you keep the individual files small for the 128k weenies,
								  ^^^^^^^
Hey bud, I was a pioneer, not a weenie.

Brian H. Powell		brian@ut-sally

ted@usceast.UUCP (Ted Nolan) (06/24/85)

In article <1096@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
>It's already difficult enough to print some of the MacWrite documents that
>are sent out...
>

I agree.  Is there any way to convert these documents to some semi legible
ascii format on the host news machine?  (Even nicer would be if they were
posted in text format...)

				Ted Nolan  ..usceast!ted
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Nolan                   ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!usceast!ted  (UUCP)
6536 Brookside Circle       ...akgua!usceast!ted
Columbia, SC 29206          allegra!usceast!ted@seismo (ARPA, maybe)

      ("Deep space is my dwelling place, the stars my destination")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jpj@mss.UUCP (J. P. Jenal) (06/25/85)

I seem to have missed this.  Could someone please provide info on how
to go about getting a copy?  Thanks in advance.

Cheers...

	Jim Jenal		(aka ...!scgvaxd!mss!jpj)
	Mayfield Senior School	( "  ...!ihnp4!mss!jpj)

jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/26/85)

>> O.k. If you eliminate the hassles with the old version of Macwrite, I don't
>> really care if you keep the individual files small for the 128k weenies,
>                                                                  ^^^^^^^
>Hey bud, I was a pioneer, not a weenie.
>
>Brian H. Powell         brian@ut-sally

Amen, that's the truth!  Not only that, I paid close to FULL PRICE for mine,
since our University wasn't one of those "worthy" to be an AUC member (and
they showed their gratitude by buying Zenith Z150s, hundreds of them, and
only a few dozen Macs!).

Considering how much Apple has done to upset its supporters with incompat-
ibility among products, you'd think the users, at least, would be more
considerate...  There will probably be 128K Macs out there as long as the
upgrade stays so high-priced; you can't forget such people.   In fact, given
that they bought the machine when it was still a vast unknown (since the
price for the 512K model is now well below what I paid for the 128K one),
you should be grateful that they bought them at all.

Why do people have to use words like "weenie" in here, anyway...
-- 
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

	    "Qbpx! Qbpx!  Zl obj jrag bss juvyr V jhm pyrrava' vg!"