tad@killer.UUCP (09/27/87)
** FLAME ON! ** My Micrsoft Macro Assembler 5.0 was the last straw! For program documentation, especially compilers, I find that there is nothing more aggravating than softbound manuals. One thing that I have always liked about Microsoft is their binders. You can lay the suckers flat on the desk and have them stay on the right page. It is a real drag to be typing an unfamiliar instruction with one hand while struggling to keep the manual on the right page with the other. ACK! Am I the only one this picky, or are there others who are just as aggravated? Borland has a bad habit if softbinding manuals, Turbo C, Turbo Pascal (and most likely the 4.0 release of Turbo Pascal), and Turbo-every- thing-else, and now apparently Microsoft has caught this disease. I appreciate these companies' efforts to reduce prices, or at least maintain present ones, but I am definitly willing to pay a little extra for binders. After all, how much *can* they cost? If there's anyone else who is aggravated by these, write and complain. Here's the addresses for Borland and Microsoft (as I struggle to type with one hand and hold these @#%$^&* manuals with the other ;-|: Borland International 4585 Scotts Valley Drive Scotts Valley, California 95066-9987 Microsoft Corporation 16011 NE 36th Way box 97017 Redmond, Washington 98073-9717 ** flame off ** (Ahhhh, I feel much better now :) With much relief, Tad -- Tad Marko ..!ihnp4!killer!tad || ..!ihnp4!alamo!infoswx!ntvax!tad UNIX Connection BBS AT&T 3B2 North Texas State U. VAX 11/780 "Hi there!" -- Peter Gabriel in "Big Time"
toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (09/28/87)
In article <1651@killer.UUCP> tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: >** FLAME ON! ** > >My Micrsoft Macro Assembler 5.0 was the last straw! For program >documentation, especially compilers, I find that there is nothing more >aggravating than softbound manuals. [...] >Borland has a bad habit of softbinding manuals, [...] >and now apparently Microsoft has caught this disease. >I appreciate these companies' efforts to reduce prices, or at least >maintain present ones, but I am definitly willing to pay a little >extra for binders. [...] It could easily be more than a cost issue. I always thought the reason for the bound manuals was that it is a form of copy protection. Lets face it, loose sheets of paper can be easily fed into a copy machine, while copying that Turbo manual will take a lot of time -- might as well just buy another copy! If you want to go to the trouble, you can sand or saw off the book's spine, and since all these manuals have "perfect bindings" all the pages will neatly come apart. Now just three-hole punch them and put it in a binder. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM
stevec@uthub.UUCP (09/28/87)
I suspect the reason for using softbound books rather then binders is to make photocopying a pain on cheap software. I bought TC for $75 (Canadian!!!) and see no point in anyone copying it because I would never allow such a thing, and the photocopying of the manual would be a royal pain. For $75 it is not worth the hassle of photocopying a softbound book, but a binder you can just pull out the pages, slap in a sheet feeder and get a copy in minutes. I agree its a pain, but I bet it keeps the price down even more then just the binding cost. ...stevec
joel@intelisc.UUCP (Joel Clark) (09/28/87)
In article <1651@killer.UUCP> tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: > >My Micrsoft Macro Assembler 5.0 was the last straw! For program >documentation, especially compilers, I find that there is nothing more >aggravating than softbound manuals. >Borland has a bad habit if softbinding manuals, Turbo C, Turbo Pascal >(and most likely the 4.0 release of Turbo Pascal), and Turbo-every- >thing-else, and now apparently Microsoft has caught this disease. > >I appreciate these companies' efforts to reduce prices, or at least >maintain present ones, but I am definitly willing to pay a little >extra for binders. After all, how much *can* they cost? I believe their main reason for softbounding their manuals was copy protection. They are much harder to send through a Xerox machine. Their software is not copy protected. You are just buying the manuals, the software is free. :-) I neither support or condemn this practice. Joel Clark joel@isc.intel.com or tektronix!ogcvax!intelisc!joel I do not represent any company in any way involved with Pascal. My employer has no knowledge of my statements.
sytek@tekgen.TEK.COM (Mike Ewan) (09/29/87)
In article <1651@killer.UUCP> tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: >** FLAME ON! ** > >My Micrsoft Macro Assembler 5.0 was the last straw! For program >documentation, especially compilers, I find that there is nothing more >aggravating than softbound manuals. > ... >I appreciate these companies' efforts to reduce prices, or at least >maintain present ones, but I am definitly willing to pay a little >extra for binders. The way I figure it, the softbound manuals are an insidious copy protection scheme. As hard to hold open as they are, they are even harder to run through a copy machine. And who wants a compiler without documentation. Anyway, I agree that it is a terrible pain to try and use one of those manuals while developing code. I've been tempted to dismember either the MASM or Turboc manuals many times. Mike Ewan Tektronix Inc. ( Assume usual disclaimers. )
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/29/87)
> ... I am definitly willing to pay a little > extra for binders. After all, how much *can* they cost? ... You'd be surprised. Production of square-bound softbound books is very highly automated and hence quite cheap. Almost anything else means manual operations and the price skyrockets. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
farren@gethen.UUCP (09/29/87)
In article <1796@tekgen.TEK.COM> sytek@tekgen.UUCP (Mike Ewan) writes: > >The way I figure it, the softbound manuals are an insidious copy protection >scheme. As hard to hold open as they are, they are even harder to run >through a copy machine. And who wants a compiler without documentation. While copy protection may well be one of the results of a perfect bound, soft cover manual, I'm pretty sure that the real reason they are used is cost. Binding a softcover book is a little less expensive than a 3-ring binder alone, without even considering the extra labor costs involved in putting the loose-leaf type manual together, an operation which pretty much must be done manually. >Anyway, I agree that it is a terrible pain to try and use one of those manuals >while developing code. I've been tempted to dismember either the MASM or >Turboc manuals many times. So go ahead! I've done this several times, most often with bigger (8-1/2 - 11) manuals, which have a tendency to fall apart by themselves anyway. Much easier to use, and much, much easier to replace pages that coffee has spilled all over. -- ---------------- Mike Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
caf@omen.UUCP (09/29/87)
In article <1796@tekgen.TEK.COM> sytek@tekgen.UUCP (Mike Ewan) writes:
:The way I figure it, the softbound manuals are an insidious copy protection
:scheme. As hard to hold open as they are, they are even harder to run
:through a copy machine. And who wants a compiler without documentation.
My first impression of the TurboC manuals was that they had advertisements
where the index should have been. And it is more of a pain than should
be required to locate a given piece of information (TC is is in the second
or third dozen of different compilers I have worked with over the years)
relating to TC's unique aspects.
If the bound manuals provide a slight degree of copy protection, fine,
why not? I don't find the binding to be any problem, and the manuals
do take up less space on the shelf.
To be truthful, with all the problems I've been having lately with pirated
and hacked copies of my DSZ prograa, with the resultant loss of registration
revenue, I may be more willing to support reasonable anti-ripoff tactics
than might otherwise be the case.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX Author of Pro-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix
...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V Northwest Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 VOICE:503-621-3406:VOICE
TeleGodzilla BBS: 621-3746 19200/2400/1200 CIS:70007,2304 Genie:CAF
omen Any ACU 2400 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp
omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourlydick@plx.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (09/30/87)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <1651@killer.UUCP> tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: > >My Micrsoft Macro Assembler 5.0 was the last straw! For program >documentation, especially compilers, I find that there is nothing more >aggravating than softbound manuals. [...] I agree! Someone at Borland (a long time ago) told me that the Turbo Pascal manuals were originally softbound to make them more difficult to xerox ('scuse me, that should have been ". . . to Xerox(tm) *8-) Anyway, take your miserable soft-bound MASM 5.0 manual to one of the photocopy shops that sprout up around college campuses everywhere. For a couple of bucks they will neatly slice off the binding, punch the approprite row of little rectangular holes, and then put on one of those plastic spiral bindings. Voila! They lie flat and spit in the eye of those at MS and Borland who think we have to put up with whatever crap they toss our way! -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD I'll take a drug test when UUCP: ...!ucbvax!sun!plx!dick Reagan takes an IQ test. GEnie: FLANAGAN
johnl@ima.UUCP (09/30/87)
In article <599@uthub.toronto.edu> stevec@uthub.UUCP (Stephen Curran) writes: >I suspect the reason for using softbound books rather then binders is >to make photocopying a pain on cheap software. I bought TC for $75 ... The most likely reason is the lower cost of perfect binding. You'd be surprised how much difference it makes. The original version of Javelin had nice ring-bound binders, the second version had perfect bound. The price to manufacture a copy of the program dropped from $30 to $20, which is a lot when the whole program sells for under $100. I like ring bound manuals as much as the next guy, but I'd rather have cheaper software. Besides, judging from a lot of the support calls, nobody ever reads the manual anyway. ( :-), sort of.) -- John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, +1 617 492 3869 { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something The Iran-Contra affair: None of this would have happened if Ronald Reagan were still alive.
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/30/87)
There is a very good reason (from their point of view) why Borland and now Microsoft use softbound manuals instead of binders. Piracy. If I wanted to pirate a language with all the docs in a binder, I can walk over to the office copier drop the stack of pages in the "in" bin, punch for double sided copies and walk off a few minutes later with two manuals. Many people don't have such fancy copiers, but most print shops (Pronto Print etc) will do the job _and_ drill the holes in the pages for around $20. (assumming _thick_ docs) There is no practical way to copy a softbound manual. Sorry, but that _is_ the way the world works. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
root@uwspan.UUCP (09/30/87)
|> extra for binders. After all, how much *can* they cost? ... | |You'd be surprised. Production of square-bound softbound books is very |highly automated and hence quite cheap. Almost anything else means manual |operations and the price skyrockets. There was an article in a computer magazine a while back where Philipe Kahn (Mr. Borland :-) told how "perfect" bound books were made. These manuals are literaly untouched by human hands! They are printed, cut, bound, drilled, shrink-wrapped, and crated by machines. Adding a 3 ring binder requires a PERSON to pick up each manual and place it in the binder. If you want them to actually put it on the rings it takes even more time! Time is money. I think he said that his order of 1000 manuals cost $500 for "perfect" bound, but > $5000 if 3-ring bound! I know from experience that a 250 page book SPIRAL bound costs $3.50 in qty 500 to 750, so the $5.00 for 3-ring sounds like it is in the ballpark.
parris@mit-caf.UUCP (Patrice Parris) (09/30/87)
Granted that the materials to make 3-ring binders is more expensive than
that to make the current crop of bound manuals, the cost of the former
(or formah, as we say around here) can be reduced even further. The
concensus seems to be that the additional labor is the major part of the
difference. Why not have the machines print the pages, stack them in order,
place them on top of the binder and shrink wrap the whole package. Voila,
no humans! If you can buy a computer and use it, you can unwrap shrink wrap
and place the pages in the binder.
Me, I think it's copy protection (easily defeated and not subtle).
--
It's better to burn out than fade away -- The Kurgan "Highlander"
Patrice Parris parris@caf.mit.edu
I don't represent MIT in any wayrick@uwmacc.UUCP (09/30/87)
In article <1796@tekgen.TEK.COM> sytek@tekgen.UUCP (Mike Ewan) writes: >The way I figure it, the softbound manuals are an insidious copy protection >scheme. As hard to hold open as they are, they are even harder to run >through a copy machine. True, except for the "insidious" part; the Turbo manual has always been referred to as the "copy protected" part of this package in the trade press. However, most copy shops will (1) slice off the spine of the manual and (2) three-hole punch it to fit into the binder of your choice. Where do you get the binder? Well, what else do you do with your "Guide To Operations" manual, anyway.... -- Rick Keir -- one floor up from the Oyster Tank -- UWisc - Madison {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick Wisconsin: Live Free Or Die -- or Eat Cheese
woan@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald S. Woan) (09/30/87)
In article <453@mit-caf.UUCP> parris@mit-caf.UUCP (Patrice Parris) writes: >Granted that the materials to make 3-ring binders is more expensive than >that to make the current crop of bound manuals, the cost of the former >(or formah, as we say around here) can be reduced even further. The >concensus seems to be that the additional labor is the major part of the >difference. Why not have the machines print the pages, stack them in order, >place them on top of the binder and shrink wrap the whole package. Voila, >no humans! If you can buy a computer and use it, you can unwrap shrink wrap >and place the pages in the binder. I think that IBM and many other major companies have been doing this for years, so the major argument that remains is the the binders cost a little extra and "perfect binding" serves as a form of copy protection... ****************************************************************************** * * * Time will only tell what destiny holds for the future of man * * * ******************************************************************************
johnk@auscso.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <104@uwspan.UUCP> root@uwspan.UUCP (Admin) writes: >shrink-wrapped, and crated by machines. Adding a 3 ring binder requires a >PERSON to pick up each manual and place it in the binder. If you want them uh oh, you mean they actually have to TOUCH them???? ooooooohhhhh..... that's bs, my ms-dos 3.11 manual came with all the paper with holes punched already wrapped in plastic and stored inside the binder, inside the box. all ya hadda do was take off the plastic and put the manual in the rings. I also preferred their old method of rings. the rings were attached to the back cover and the side of the rings facing the spine were straight which made using it and putting it away MUCH easier. Now they use those dumb plastic type binder things like you see on just about every old better homes and gardens cookbook. if you thought the "perfect" binding was bad, you can't even open these damn manuals. -- John Knutson {ihnp4,allegra,ut-sally}!ut-ngp!auscso!johnk Spies report that sea mines actually ARE an Iranian delicacy. The Pentagon however maintains that they are some sort of fast food. Communicating, like in the good ol' days.
csz@well.UUCP (10/01/87)
> >If you want to go to the trouble, you can sand or saw off the book's >spine, and since all these manuals have "perfect bindings" all the pages >will neatly come apart. Now just three-hole punch them and put it in >a binder. > >Tom Almy >toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM Except that the inner margins usually aren't big enough to prevent the holes from going through the text.
karl@haddock.UUCP (10/01/87)
In several articles, several people have been complaining about the binding of
certain manuals, how difficult it is to read them while holding them open with
one hand and typing with the other, and discussing whether this is a form of
copy protection or just a cost-saving device.
Now, while this is evidently a very interesting topic for those who are
participating in the discussion, I suspect that most have failed to notice
that it is being posted to four newsgroups, of which few (if any) are
relevant. The only possible connection with comp.lang.{c,pascal} is if you
are talking about {c,pascal} manuals, and even if you are, I doubt that this
is within the charter of these newsgroups.
I am cross-posting this to alt.flame and redirecting followups there, because
[0] This is a mild flame, and
[1] It's not a bad choice for the "Aggravating manual" discussion, either.
(Another good alternative is misc.misc; I don't think this has enough computer
content to justify comp.misc.)
Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Linttad@killer.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <823@qiclab.UUCP>, leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > There is a very good reason (from their point of view) why Borland and now > Microsoft use softbound manuals instead of binders. Piracy. . . > Many people don't have such fancy copiers, but most print shops (Pronto > Print etc) will do the job _and_ drill the holes in the pages for around > $20. (assumming _thick_ docs) > > There is no practical way to copy a softbound manual. Sure there is...take the manual to the copy shop to copy it, and pay them an extra couple of bucks to shave off the spine and bind the thing. I'll probably end up having this done to my manuals, but now I'll have the inconvienence of a rag-tag collection of binders. (this is half-sarcastic :-) Actually, there is a problem with this...the MASM 5.0 manuals are just under 7.5" wide...too wide to fit in any small binder without shaving off some info. :-( Tad =============================================================================== Tad Marko at UNIX Connection BBS AT&T 3B2, Dallas, Texas North Texas State University ACM C/UNIX SIG Chairman Snail: UUCP: ihnp4!killer!tad 2829 Sagebrush Drive or ihnp4!convex!ntvax!tad Flower Mound, Texas 75028-2721 BitNet: IG45@NTSUVAX 214-539-0080 214-539-7776 TEXNET: NTVAXB::IG45 "Hi there!" -- Peter Gabriel InterN: IG45%NTVAXB.DECNET@UTADNX.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
elg@usl (Eric Lee Green) (10/02/87)
in article <1651@killer.UUCP>, tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) says: > to be typing an unfamiliar instruction with one hand while struggling > to keep the manual on the right page with the other. ACK! Am I the > only one this picky, or are there others who are just as aggravated? > Borland has a bad habit if softbinding manuals, Turbo C, Turbo Pascal > (and most likely the 4.0 release of Turbo Pascal), and Turbo-every- > thing-else, and now apparently Microsoft has caught this disease. Borland soft-binds their manuals in an attempt at copy protection. It is hard to copy a manual that you have to manually place every page. Most modern copy centers have auto-feeders, that you just stuff your source document into and out pops a copy of the document, all without you having to manually place any pages at all. Probably Microsoft has come to the same conclusion (also, it's cheaper than their previous attempt at manual copy protection, that is, making the #@$%@#$% manual 2000 pages long!). Still, if they must bind, I sure do wish that they'd use spiral (wire) binding. Sure a dedicated copy-freak can get the pages out of the binding if he wants. But most people are NOT going to destroy their manual just for the benefit of some turd-brain who just wants a copy for free, and as far as convenience goes, for a moderate-size manual, it's even more convenient than a three-ring binder (if you fold it to the page you want to see, it takes up only half the desk space -- quite a consideration, considering that I have two walls covered with computer worktables, and not an inch of it bare!). -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET from BEYOND nowhere: {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg, P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {akgua,killer}!usl!elg "there's someone in my head, but it's not me..."
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (10/05/87)
In article <453@mit-caf.UUCP>, parris@mit-caf.UUCP (Patrice Parris) writes: > Why not have the machines print the pages, stack them in order, > place them on top of the binder and shrink wrap the whole package. Voila, > no humans! If you can buy a computer and use it, you can unwrap shrink wrap > and place the pages in the binder. > > Me, I think it's copy protection (easily defeated and not subtle). The perfect bound manuals will still be cheaper. I think you underestimate the amount of $ tied up in the binder itself. Besides, you would have to build a machine to do that; there are already machines to put out perfect bound manuals (for cheap books and magazines) so you don't have to pay to develop the machine. I wouldn't be surprised if the difficulty of copying them were considered a sort of minor additional benefit, but I doubt that it's the major consideration. I can say that for one product I have been involved with recently, the lower cost of the perfect bound manuals was the _only_ major consideration in the decision to go perfect bound. Bruce C. Wright
archer@elysium.SGI.COM (Archer Sully) (10/05/87)
In article <104@uwspan.UUCP>, root@uwspan.UUCP (Admin) writes: > > There was an article in a computer magazine a while back where Philipe Kahn > (Mr. Borland :-) told how "perfect" bound books were made. These manuals are > literaly untouched by human hands! They are printed, cut, bound, drilled, > shrink-wrapped, and crated by machines. Adding a 3 ring binder requires a > PERSON to pick up each manual and place it in the binder. If you want them > to actually put it on the rings it takes even more time! Time is money. > I think he said that his order of 1000 manuals cost $500 for "perfect" bound, > but > $5000 if 3-ring bound! > > I know from experience that a 250 page book SPIRAL bound costs $3.50 in qty > 500 to 750, so the $5.00 for 3-ring sounds like it is in the ballpark. If you've ever been to Borland, you'll realize that Philippe was engaging in another of his famous 'exagerations'. The manuals are indeed created by machine, but the disks are put inside the manuals, and then shrink wrapped, by genuine human guine...um, beings. By the way, never, ever, ever believe anything you hear Philippe Kahn say. archer
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (10/06/87)
Keywords: A dissenting opinion: I LIKE perfect-bound manuals. I like the 3-hole punched kind too, but I don't really care. The bound ones fit flat into my bookshelf (where most of my manuals sit, collecting dust after a few weeks.) They look a little more professional too. They don't tear out their holes or get folded so bad. If you use a cheap round ring binder this is a big problem. I hate spiral binding and that plastic multi-pronged binding too. The pages get totally torn up after awhile and the thing doesn't close neatly. Sure perfect bound manuals are less expensive (because they are easy to manufacture and also because they don't include a $5 slip cover and slope-ring binder. Sure perfect bound manuals are copy protection. People have been recommending this for about the last five years now as the best form of copy protection. I guess we can soon look for those "How to use 1-2-3 books (that strangely seem to be a good substitute for the manual if you pirated the disk) to start coming in a ring binder soon. Look guys, what do you want? The whole package for free? It costs about $5 per disk to copy and store floppies. It costs about $5 for the binder and slipcover. It probably costs another $5 for the manual. A regular-sized company can't even keep it's doors open unless it can sell the product for about 3 times the cost of manufacture, and that doesn't count any return on the design investment. That's just to sustain the manufacturing, distribution and bookkeeping. Then there's the profit for the distributor and retailer. You get a lower limit of about $50 for a mail order product and about $80 for one distributed through retail. Games can be a bit cheaper since they don't need a manual and thus have a lower manufacturing cost. The very high volume products can also get by with a little less, as can old products that have paid back their engineering costs. Perfect-bound manuals permit lower cost software to be sold to you the end user. That $5 savings in manual cost permits a $15-20 decrease in price to you. (Sure, it could also mean $15 more profit to the maker, but in the market place, a situation like that gets corrected soon by a new competitor.) And if you don't like copy protection, make users ethical. Bound manuals are a major improvement over not being able to copy the program.
alang@masscomp.UUCP (Alan Groupe) (10/09/87)
Originally, Turbo C was a perfect-bound 8.5x5.5 manual. By taking the manual into any large printer, you could have the spine sliced off and the manual punched. Then it would fit into a 6x9 three ring binder (that is a standard size, although hard to get in larger than 1" rings). With Turbo C, Borland decided to try to stop this, too, so they printed the manuals in some "funny" size like 8.5x7. However, being too smart for themselves, they printed the manuals with very wide margins, which can easily be cut down to 8.5x5.5, losing nothing but their own ads lnurprne cix!