SHULMAN@RED.RUTGERS.EDU.UUCP (12/06/86)
Delphi Mac Digest Saturday, 6 December 1986 Volume 2 : Issue 65
Today's Topics:
RE: User Interface (3 messages)
RE: Usenet Mac Digest V2 #99
Clickin On
RE: Opening the HD20SC (2 messages)
RE: MPW & Lisa Pascal
Tags footnote: Seagate 225N
IBM PC vs. Mac (12 messages)
RE: Winter, Electrons, and Sealing Wax
Frustrated?
RE: Startup
San Francisco Expo info
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MACINTOUCH
Subject: RE: User Interface
Date: 4-DEC-17:00: Network Digests
On the subject of the user interface, two points:
1) I think the worst sin by far is hiding things by having hidden, secret
commands (e.g. the Command-S in Disk First Aid). I am well qualified to
handle systems-level things, and less "dangerous" functions, and I resent
it strongly when some Bozo hides them from me and I lose the functionality
until somebody stumbles on it by accident, and I stumble on their discovery
through the net or hearsay. That's why we have dialog boxes, for heaven's
sake: to prevent someone from doing something stupid by accident. The whole
point of the Macintosh interface is to present the user with all the
functions he can do, up front.
2) Function keys are often a good way to accomplish a task faster than
it could be done typing letters and numbers, or even mousing. Since the
Mac hasn't any function keys, we get all these non-standard _combinations_
of keys, such as Command-Enter. It would make more sense to me to have
real function keys on the keyboard, with space for a template, and let those
be used by individual applications as the user interface designers see fit.
As a simple example, it might make more sense to have a Print function key
than to have to type Command-P (which sometimes means "print" and sometimes
means "plain text.")
Ric Ford
------------------------------
From: DDUNHAM
Subject: RE: User Interface
Date: 5-DEC-21:53: Network Digests
The big advantage of putting commands in the menu is that the screen isn't
cluttered. Palettes are nice, but they take a lot of room. If they're in a
window, they have to be duplicated in a multi-window program. If they're not,
they likely interfere with Servant (at least SuperPaint does).
------------------------------
From: DDUNHAM
Subject: RE: User Interface
Date: 5-DEC-21:53: Network Digests
The Finder's [Command][Option] commands are documented in the book that came
with the Mac+.
Scrolling menus aren't a hack; they're there for many fonts. I feel bad about
using them in Acta 1.2, but I'm limiting myself to one menu.
How can you possibly suggest wave-up menus a la GEM? The way you can easily
cancel a menu inspection is one of the more wonderful parts of the Mac
interface.
------------------------------
From: JIMH
Subject: RE: Usenet Mac Digest V2 #99 (Re: Msg 15418)
Date: 4-DEC-19:57: Network Digests
>From: nahaj@utah-cca (john b. nahaj halleck)
>Subject: please forward to delphi
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 86 14:52:52 MST
Thanks for the advice Jeff told me where to get keymouse and it is really nice
however it is not everything we need. We will be talking to it authors soon.
thanks for the response. jim
"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
------------------------------
From: MOUSEKETEER
Subject: Clickin On
Date: 5-DEC-01:10: Business Mac
I don't know if this has been brought up as yet, but I read today
that Borland has purchased Click On Worksheet for the Mac, and will
be bringing out a new version, perhaps tied with another product.
This tidbit in this week's Computer & Software News.
Alf
------------------------------
From: PEABO
Subject: RE: Opening the HD20SC (Re: Msg 15443)
Date: 5-DEC-01:22: Hardware & Peripherals
Hmmm ... did you try running it with the (1) plastic skin off, and/or (2) with
the sheet metal off, to verify where the noise comes from?
If (1) is still noisy and (2) isn't, then I wonder if there is some way to shim
the metal to defeat the resonances?
Of course, as you have pointed out, this all voids the warranty on our
temporary swap ... :-)
peter
------------------------------
From: MACINTOUCH
Subject: RE: Opening the HD20SC (Re: Msg 15455)
Date: 5-DEC-10:18: Hardware & Peripherals
The sheet metal is not something you can easily rip out, it'd take some effort.
I've been thinking about shoe goo as a vibration dampner. I wonder if it would
work on static drains for hard disks (applied to the spring) ...
Ric
------------------------------
From: HSTARR
Subject: RE: MPW & Lisa Pascal
Date: 5-DEC-03:48: Network Digests
Laird -- last time I looked at Pascal (MPW &/or Lisa), I found that 'they' had
stuffed the register allocation algorithm in MPW, and don't seem to have fixed
it through 2 betas and a release. Lisa Pascal still churns out the best code.
[Have you noticed the one about having code as a Proc (other than Main) and or
Global/Local vars -- it can have a significant impact on the way Pascal
generates code. Globals are never allocated to registers, and certain
optimizations aren't performed on the MAIN prog. -- Harry
------------------------------
From: BRECHER
Subject: Tags footnote: Seagate 225N
Date: 5-DEC-03:58: MUGS Online
Recently I speculated that the Seagate 225N in the Apple HD20SC "probably" uses
custom microcode to implement 532-byte sectors in support of file sector tags.
Today, sources at Apple confirmed that it does indeed use custom code,
since the normal 225N provides only power-of-two sector sizes.
Actually, I originally speculated that it uses custom ROMs. That speculation
was in error, since the 225N controller does not get its microcode from ROM --
the code is stored on the disk.
------------------------------
From: MACINTOUCH
Subject: IBM PC vs. Mac
Date: 5-DEC-11:43: Business Mac
MACSPARKY and I are currently arguing against some IBM PC enthusiasts, and
staid MIS types, for the allocation of a budget to Apple solutions to
some typical corporate computer tasks: word processing, database, telecom., and
spreadsheets. The IBM guys are arguing for AT's and clones, using the
following non-specific arguments. We're looking for help, facts, and figures
to counter them. The bottom line is that the users are going to be a lot
happier with the Macs, but they may not get them because the MIS guys are
trying to force PC's down their throats. Here are the arguments for PCs':
- peripherals are less expensive
- processing speed (AT clones) may be higher
- the size of the installed base of PCs is much higher than Macs
- much more software is available for PCs
- there are far more 3rd party vendors and suppliers for PC software and
hardware
- networking software and hardware must be compared carefully between PC's and
Macs (our assumption here is that the PC guys will argue transfer rate
superiority)
- Are Apple's desktop publishing "goodies" really worth the "extra cost"?
- "IBM has a reputation as a service-oriented company where Apple does not"
Looking for reasoned arguments against these points. We'll assemble all we
get, with some other backing information, and try to let a little light into
this organization through some big ol' MIS clouds.
Ric Ford
------------------------------
From: TSTEIN
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15466)
Date: 5-DEC-13:58: Business Mac
Re: processing speed. I have run informal benchmarks of Excel on 512K
Mac vs. 1-2-3 on IBM AT. The times to recalculate _once_ were
vitually identical. Excel is superior at data tables and subsequent
recalcs because it only does the cells that are needed. The
spreadsheet was a large business projection originally done in 1-2-3,
transferred to the Mac, and loaded into Excel. Sorry I can't give you
numbers on this. I have comparisons of 1-2-3 vs Excel for the 8088 PC
series (in fact, I think I sent you a copy in article form). Tim Stein
------------------------------
From: PDNNOG
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15466)
Date: 5-DEC-18:51: Business Mac
I sympathize with your plight. For all the things you list except
service, I think the IBM'sers are right. I speak as one who has two
macs and one compaq, as well as an xt at work. But none of the
arguments adress the critical issues of productivity and learning
curve. It takes an inordinate amount of time for anyone to learn how
to do a letter, for example, or run dBase III, not to mention that if
you don't use XYWrite every day for two hours, you ]forget the
commands. I have found that laserwriter output significantly
increases the stature of the memo in terms of how it is read that any
similar thing from an HP laserjet. And just layout a proposal with
RSG3.0 with graphs and graphics and see how quickly it is accepted. It
would seem to me that any business that values output would, if shown,
seriously consider the macintosh system because it takes little time
to master and certainly little exra time to create visually appealing
proposals as opposed to typewritten goop. I could go on and on, but I
know I'll run up the bill. Let me know if these kinds of thoughts are
useful, and I'll think of more.
------------------------------
From: LOFTUSBECKER
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15466)
Date: 5-DEC-22:13: Business Mac
I would start out by observing that none of what you list are
arguments; they are assertions of fact (or sometimes questions) which
presumably relate to arguments, but the arguments themselves are
unstated. I don't think I'm just quibbling over words here: remember
the famous marketing speech to drill manufacturers, where the speaker
pointed out that their customers didn't want drills, they wanted
holes. Similarly, your company shouldn't want computers, it should
want certain problems solved. The question is not what is in some
abstract sense the "better" computer, but what computer will "better"
help people do the things they need to do (with "better" here
including a balance between performance and price as one of the
factors). Against this background, some specific comments on the
"arguments":
- peripherals are less expensive
Sometimes true and sometimes not. (For instance, full page
displays for word processing are cheaper--and more effective--on the
Mac; modems cost the same for both computers, or more if you add in
the fact that a port is a separate purchase for the PC; disk drives
tend to be more for the PC, but there's no 5 Meg Bernoulli available
for the PC for $500, as there is for the Mac. And so on.) But the real
question is not whether "peripherals", in the abstract, are more
expensive, but how much you will be paying for the peripheral
equipment that you actually buy. (It doesn't matter that someone
makes a $75 modem if in fact you buy a Hayes.) In your case it looks
as if what you're wanting will be modems (identical), hard disks
(variable, depending on which one or ones you get), printers
(variable, but if you're planning on lasers (as I would), more for the
Mac).
It might be worth mentioning that Mac software is generally a lot cheaper
for comparable power.
- processing speed (AT clones) may be higher
If you want raw processing speed probably the fastest are Mac
addons, like Levco's and the GCC whatsitsname. But this is really a
silly point. What you want is to do particular things, and unless
you're doing extended FORTRAN or similar number-crunching, the
question is how the particular machine, and the software you're using,
performs. For word processing, for instance, the limiting factor is
the typist's speed, and printing speed. For telecommunications, it's
data transmission rate. For number crunching, it's generally the
program _and_ the particular numbers you're crunching.
- the size of the installed base of PCs is much higher than Macs
Probably true, but so what? That is a test that (at least in the past)
would have guaranteed that companies bought the wrong thing: Apple ]['s until
1984, for instance, over IBM's. I think it is pretty clear at this point that
both computers (and their progeny) are going to be around for a few more years;
there's no present serious likelihood that either will stop being supported.
- much more software is available for PCs
As with the "peripherals" point, the question isn't how much
software there is that you won't buy but whether the programs you
actually do buy do the job for you, and how well. In the particular
areas you list (a) IBM word processors, presently, are more powerful
though for simpler work the Mac ones are better; (b) Excel is clearly
better than any IBM spreadsheet; (c) databases are pretty much a wash;
and (d) telecommunications the same. (I am, here, avoiding the
question of "user interface" and "ease of use".) All of these,
however, are rankings that literally can change from month to month.
If you really want the computer with the most software, get an Apple
/e (and play Stickbears on it....)
- there are far more 3rd party vendors and suppliers for PC software and
hardware
Same as above: how many does your company contemplate buying from?
- networking software and hardware must be compared carefully between PC's and
Macs (our assumption here is that the PC guys will argue transfer rate
superiority)
As to the importance of carefully looking at networking software,
certainly true. As to the importance of data transfer rates the
question is what data you are going to transfer and how fast you need
it to move. If you will be (illegally?) storing a single copy of your
software on a central hard disk and expecting each user to access the
software through the network, data transfer rate is important; ditto
if (for instance) users are regularly sorting large,
centrally-maintained disk files. On the other hand, if networking is
for printing, mail, and occasional file sharing, it's much less
important. Overall, I think most organizations would trade a lot in
data transfer rate for reliability and lack of down time.
Myself, I have advised several organizations getting into computers not to
buy _any_ network (except perhaps very simple ones for printer sharing) for at
least a year. None is very good yet. Overall, on this question I think it is
likely to be true that the networks for PC's will remain somewhat better than
the networks for Macs, but that the difference is a factor of huge importance
only in a few installations.
- Are Apple's desktop publishing "goodies" really worth the "extra cost"?
This is a question, not an argument. The factual assertion (extra
cost for a Mac system) on which it rests may or may not be true. If
it is, the question can't be answered without knowing (a) how much
extra the cost is, and (b) what kind of things you'll be doing and how
much you care about how they look. For instance, if you want your
letters to look typed you can do it cheaper with IBM equipment. If
you use a lot of charts you are likely to find Mac output on a
LaserWriter stunningly good. If your company pays a lot for printing,
it might (or it might not) be cost-effective to do it in house with
Macs. (Might not because if you depend a lot on color and photographs,
the LaserWriter just won't cut the mustard.)
- "IBM has a reputation as a service-oriented company where Apple does not"
Quite true, and a very well-deserved reputation. BUT (a) if you
are buying AT-clones, IBM service won't do you diddly (see the
"argument" above on processing speed, which is relevant at all only if
you are thinking of buying AT clones), and (b) when last I checked,
IBM's well-deserved reputation for service was based ONLY on the
service it provided to minicomputer, mainframe, typewriter,
DisplayWriter, and copier customers. PC buyers got service from their
local dealer, with all the variation in quality (bad to poor,
generally) with which we are all familiar.
The more important point is that service is _very_ important, and
in some cases critical. I have advised law office buyers never to
consider a system unless either (a) they can get an in-house service
contract with guaranteed fast response time, or (b) they can buy a
little extra equipment and just plug in a new one when a bad one fails
at a critical time. In most cases the best way is to cover most of the
equipment with (b), but a central hard disk may be so expensive you
have to get a service contract on that.
Overall, I would make the following comments.
A. The continuous, overall focus should be on what you want to do and what
combination of hardware and software will best let you do it. In fact, in most
cases the software you choose will be much more important than the hardware in
determining how efficiently your people get their work done. Arguments over
what, in the abstract, is the "best" computer are ridiculous.
If someone gave your office a free Cray supercomputer, how much use do you
think it would get?
B. The weakest point for the Mac is "production" word
processing, i.e., the kind of thing where typists sit off in a room
for eight hours a day and just grind out documents. On the other
hand, if most (perhaps even much) of your word processing is going to
be done by nonsecretaries (i.e., if general office workers will be
doing a lot) then the Mac's ease of use is a tremendous plus.
C. Documenting the Mac's ease of use is not easy, and the
difference is rarely comprehended by people who don't use computers
(who find them all scary, and think of the differences as being like
the difference between an angry lion and an angry tiger) or by people
who haven't used Macs (who think that "easier" means something like
the differences between PFS:Write and WordStar). Hughes Tool is said
to have done a study (I've gotten mail from people who claim to have
read it) concluding that there was a 10:1 advantage in learning time
and productivity between Macs and IBM equipment -- but the study (it
is said) is considered "proprietary" by Hughes and I haven't been able
to see it. I've heard rumours of others, but never seen one.
There are, however, a couple recent InfoWorld articles that may
be helpful: one is reporting a (Rand Corp?) study that training time
is the major cause of dissatisfaction among computer users. The other
is a real dilly, with some nice quotes (including one manager using an
8:1 ratio in training time) and what I find the most telling argument
against IBM equipment I've ever seen: one pro-IBM type is explaining
that "Lotus isn't a difficult program. Why, I can take a complete
computer illiterate, and in eight weeks I'll have him writing macros."
WHEE! How long does it take to start using macros in Excel...?
There's also a recent article (Chemical Engineering Progress September
1986, pp.37-42) comparing the two and coming out with the Mac far
ahead.
D. I'm not from Missouri, but I like to be shown. If you are
really contemplating a large purchase, I think it would be crazy not
to get in a couple systems and actually try them out, doing the things
that you will do, for a few weeks before you go with one. You should
try to set this up so that the people using the machines are (a) as
neutral as possible in the dispute, and (b) typical of the other
people who will be using computers.
I am in a situation much like yours except, I think, the fight was lost
before I even arrived. Still I'm fighting a rearguard action, and if you come
across any hard information I'd love to hear of it. Hope you find some of this
helpful.
- Lofty
------------------------------
From: DWB
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15471)
Date: 5-DEC-22:26: Business Mac
- peripherals are less expensive
In some sense this is true. Consider the prices of a hard disk
for the mac (about $700) and for the AT (about $400 for a 506 type
drive, about $600 for a voice coil drive) This is largely due to the
fact that a SCSI controller has to have more smarts then the dumb
controller's you stick in a PC or AT.
- processing speed (AT clones) may be higher
Check the recent article comparing how fast things get done. I believe it
was in Computer Currents. If not it was in one of the other similar mags. If
you can't find a copy, let me know and I'll try to send you one. What it boils
down to is that people get about 75% of what they need to get done, done faster
on a mac.
- the size of the installed base of PCs is much higher than Macs
Rapidly changing. Macs are catching up though. I don't really think there
will ever be as many macs as PClones out there, just because PClones are going
for about a grand, with a 20 Meg hard disk. If you just consider AT's, and not
PC's and their clones though, I think you'll find that there about as many macs
as AT's out there.
- much more software is available for PCs
Largely depends on what you want to do with it. Page layout for instances
hasn't really yet hit the PC. And what of it there is (except for PageMaker on
the PC) doesn't really much up to the Mac.
- there are far more 3rd party vendors and suppliers for PC software and
hardware
- networking software and hardware must be compared carefully between PC's and
Macs (our assumption here is that the PC guys will argue transfer rate
superiority)
Transfer rate isn't what is important. Throughput is. Very
rarely is a network actually overloaded. What usually happens is the
network software on either end get's overloaded, not the network wire
itself. You can thus discount AppleTalk's relatively slow transfer
rate.
- Are Apple's desktop publishing "goodies" really worth the "extra cost"?
It's not "desktop publishing goodies" that's the issue. It's overall
useability. How long is it going to take someone to become productive with a PC
vs. how long it's going to take them to be productive with a Mac? How
productive are they ever going to get with a PC?
- "IBM has a reputation as a service-oriented company where Apple does not"
IBM also has a reputation for charging exhorbitant amounts for service.
And they only service their own equipment. If you start using the cheap
hardware mentioned elsewhere you stop getting that service. If you get a real
AT instead of a Mac, you haven't saved anything so the arguments about extra
goodies being worth extra cost are hogwash. They really can't have it both
ways.
David
------------------------------
From: JOSEF
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15466)
Date: 6-DEC-00:17: Business Mac
Ric--i'm having the same problem here where i work, so let me tell you how i
would deal with those particular issues:
1) - Cheaper Peripherals. Tough to argue with that one.
2) - Processing Speed. Let's lay this one to rest once and for all:
this has nothing to do with Mac vs IBM. It's simply that Motorola
processors leave comparable Intel processors in the dust. Right after
a friend of mine got his AT clone, we decided to run a little test.
We wrote a C program which does a whole series of floating point
multiplies and compiled and ran it on our respective systems. On the
AT, the program ran just about twice as fast! So how can I make the
above statement? Well, closer inspection revealed that the AT was
using 32-bit precision. The MAC uses Apple's SANE environment which
runs 80-bit precision. The rule of thumb is that doubling the
precision quadruples your processing time. The net result: The MAC is
more than TWICE as fast. Even after accounting for potential
differences in efficiency of compilers, I claim this factor of two
should hold.
3) Higher Installed base: so what?
4) More software available. Personally, I would rather choose from 3
good spreadsheets than 10 or 20 lousy ones.
5) More vendors. So what?
6) Networking software. Here's one where Apple wins the cost issue
hands down. I don't have a good handle on the speed issue, but I
imagine it depends on how people intend to use the system. I suspect
it's a wash.
7) IBM service-oriented. That's great if your buying a 20 million
dollar mainframe, but I doubt if IBM is going to send out a service
rep to show you how to do a directory listing on your $1500 PC. And I
though we were talking about clones anyway!! !
GOOD NEWS though! Just about an hour ago our VP of Finance wandered
by and mentioned that he was seriously considering getting a MAC (for
the company). This is a major breakthrough since literally every
other person at this company is IBM oriented, and we alrealy have 3 or
4 clones in house. I think what did it is this: we have a LaserWriter
which is used strictly by our technical pubs guy who has it hooked up
to his pc compatible. The graphics he has turned out with it is
clearly inferior to what I've been able to with my MAC. And not only
that, but he apparently has a hell-of-a time doing it with his
hard-to-use "paint" program. Hope this helps!
Joe
------------------------------
From: INC
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15485)
Date: 6-DEC-00:35: Business Mac
You know, just reading this shows a lot of what seems to be happening
at many corp. environments that I deal and work with. When I started
working at the place of my current employment, they had one Mac 512
with a 10m Hyper. Now they've got 4 Mac+'s, two Laser+s and when
budgets go through in the next couple of weeks, I should be getting a
Mac in my department, one my desk! (yay) Now maybe I can move this AT
out from under my desk and make some leg room!
Anyway, it seems more and more companies and realizing the Mac's
capabilities and power and are more willing to look, listen, learn and
buy. (I tried to find a word that started with an 'l' but hey... Alf,
got one?) When I had began working there last Feb., they knew I was a
Mac'er but wouldn't budge on getting one much to my chagrin. Now that
my boss, and her bosses (the owners) have seen the fantastic output,
they want more of 'em. I think the MSDos Mac could deliver a strong
blow to the PC protocal because people will buy it for Mac and PC
uses, and in my prediction, will use the Mac part of it 99% of the
time and will realize quickly the clutter of the PC.
Remember... Output is what gets seen, and if a user can generate a
slick memo in minutes that looks typeset, nothing else will suffice.
Gotta run... Just booted up the Timex. Talk about great output... ;-)
Joshua
------------------------------
From: SYNTHONY
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15468)
Date: 6-DEC-01:01: Business Mac
There was a comparision between the IBM & MAC (plus) a few months back in
Infoworld... even Infoworld ended up saying very nice things about the Mac! (I
was shocked).
Bill
------------------------------
From: MACINTOUCH
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15494)
Date: 6-DEC-10:36: Business Mac
Lofty,
Thanks for the excellent reply. I, too, am pushing very hard to get this
matter evaluated on the basis of "Here's the budget. What are the problems?
What are the possible solutions to the problems? What are the pros and cons
of each? Which is the best choice?" I feel that once the problems are
actually well defined (preferably on paper), that we can put together a fine
proposal (LaserWritten) that will show Mac solutions to be competitive or
superior. Unfortunately, it seems to be important to counter these early
PC-superiority assertions, to give the Mac a fighting chance to be considered
at all!
Ric
------------------------------
From: MACINTOUCH
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15495)
Date: 6-DEC-10:43: Business Mac
I was talking yesterday with a professor who is probably typical of
many. The university has a variety of computer equipment, some
obsolete, some OK. Word processing is the most important function for
many people, and this is done on a central Wang system and on IBM PCs
and clones. The fact is, that the single most available computer in
this person's overall home and work environment is PCs/clones. What
she needs is the ability to take those PC floppies and read them into
any system. File conversion headaches make it easier in many cases to
simply write things by hand, then type them in later, when the main
(Wang) computer is available and she's at a terminal.
This is a BIG issue. What the Mac world needs is a $200 package that
includes a 5 1/4" floppy drive and the software to read and write a
large variety of floppy disk formats, especially including PC DOS,
Wang, CP/M, and Apple II. That's it folks. Supply that and we'd
solve a big percentage of the problems.
Apple - you should do this, at this price, if you want to create some real
IMPACT.
Ric Ford
"MacInTouch"
------------------------------
From: JIMH
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15496)
Date: 6-DEC-10:55: Business Mac
Ric, the folks who make maccharlie have a seperate product which is a
51/4 inch drive and conversion software. i dont have any idea what it
costs. An alternative is something like tops which cost something
like $300 for both sides of the pc mac pair. most newer mac stuff
reads IBM format fine. This at least in our office is makeing a big
impression. jim
------------------------------
From: MACINTOUCH
Subject: RE: IBM PC vs. Mac (Re: Msg 15499)
Date: 6-DEC-10:58: Business Mac
I think the MacCharlie is probably a lot more expensive (even the
disk-only one). The problem with TOPS is that many smaller
organizations don't necessarily have PCs and Macs in the same place.
Ric
------------------------------
From: BILLIAM
Subject: RE: Winter, Electrons, and Sealing Wax (Re: Msg 3560)
Date: 5-DEC-18:10: Hardware & Peripherals
I think I just addressed this message back to myself. Well, at least I
know I'll agree with what it says...
I agree that tabs in RSG 3 are major confusion.
I also had trouble printing kerned text on the laserwriter in
Helvetica. I might have hit KERN 2 or 3 times and that might have been
the problem. The text that was kern had the kerned pairs TOO close
together and looked like garbage. The solution was to select the text
and set LETTERSPACING to 0.
They should change the name to Almost Ready Set Go.
- Billiam Coronel
------------------------------
From: MACMAG
Subject: Frustrated?
Date: 5-DEC-20:31: Mousing Around
If you feel frustrated with Apple for any reason...
( upgrades ) ( lack of support ) ( Copy-protection on MacPascal ) ( Mac Plus
keyboard )
or whatever!
We'll gladly give you a button At the San Francisco show saying...
LOVING THE MAC....
inspite of Apple.
Free.. (just for the heck of it).
Rich.
------------------------------
From: MACLAIRD
Subject: RE: Startup (Re: Msg 1058)
Date: 5-DEC-05:12: Programming Techniques
Gee, I really misread that one, didn't I? I take it AutoBlack is one
of those screen-faders? If it gets started a la MacsBug, it
_most_certainly_ won't work right as an INIT! (although careful
FEditing to remove the first 512 bytes might do it... if there is no
application data in there...)
Laird
------------------------------
From: MACINTOUCH
Subject: San Francisco Expo info
Date: 6-DEC-11:03: Business Mac
For people going to the San Francisco expo, you might want to check
your local bookstore for "Updated San Francisco Access," a 5" x 10"
booklet that has a lot of useful information in it. It has recently
been updated.
Ric
------------------------------
End of Delphi Mac Digest
************************
-------