sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) (10/15/87)
flames on ... I just looked carefully at my Visa statement. On September 8th I was charged $105 by Ann Arbor Softworks. I'm assuming that the charge is for FullWrite. However, it's more than a month later and to the best of my knowledge, not a single copy has shipped. We are not amused .... flames off ... Has anybody else been charged? What's going on here? Jan Harrington, sysop Scholastech Telecommunications ihnp4!husc6!amcad!stech!sysop or allegra!stech!sysop
fisher@elxsi.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) (10/17/87)
I called Ann Arbor Softworks on Tuesday (October 14th) and was told that they had once again missed their ship date, the latest being October 8th. They claimed that the documentation and packaging are completed, but yet another bug was found and that the programmer was trying to fix it. No estimate was given for when they would ship, but it will be by UPS rather than by snail mail. I also received a PR letter last week thanking me for my patience and support, etc. The bottom line was that I would receive a *free* update to the product when it became available. Incidentally, I sent in my check last June, which was promptly cashed. But then again it was for their $100 deal that I couldn't resist... Chuck
cheeser@dasys1.UUCP (Les Kay) (10/20/87)
In article <171@stech.UUCP> sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) writes: >I just looked carefully at my Visa statement. On September 8th I was charged >$105 by Ann Arbor Softworks. I'm assuming that the charge is for FullWrite. >However, it's more than a month later and to the best of my knowledge, not >a single copy has shipped. I have just heard from a reliable source that FullWrite Professional will NOT be shipping till sometime in January. NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS I have also been told that: "It is MORE, MUCH MORE than worth the wait! Like going from vi to MSWORD. . . ." So what can I say? -- =============================================================================== Jonathan Bing, Master (cheeser) ...ihnp4!hoptoad!dasys1!cheeser Time flys like an Arrow, Fruit Flies like Bananas! ===============================================================================
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/21/87)
>NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS >I have also been told that: >"It is MORE, MUCH MORE than worth the wait! Like going from vi to MSWORD.. . ." Yes, I simply cannot tell you how glad I am I didn't buy Word 3.0 9 months ago, waiting for a Real Word Processor. I can't tell you how glad I am that I was able to default on those book contracts, save all the time on those articles I was supposed to write. I couldn't do it. I don't have a Real Word Processor. I'm glad my publisher is so understanding. At least I still have macwrite, so I can write letters to my mother. She Wouldn't Understand.... [The proceeding was an unpaid satirical announcement. Anyone who can say that waiting over a year for a product after the initial (missed) ship date ought to have their head examined. I don't care HOW good it is -- my writing doesn't wait for a software house to get its act together. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" -- Ben Franklin "I'll believe it if I ever see it" -- Me] Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
macbeth@artecon.artecon.UUCP (Beckwith) (10/23/87)
In article <31502@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
<
< ...
<
<[The proceeding was an unpaid satirical announcement. Anyone who can say
< that waiting over a year for a product after the initial (missed) ship date
< ought to have their head examined. I don't care HOW good it is -- my
< writing doesn't wait for a software house to get its act together.
<
Not quite a followup, but what the hey...
Anyone know if MS Word supports Multifinder? Seems a good bet that that's
what's holding up the folks at Ann Arbor. I worked for a Mac software house
way back in '84 and Apple was big on pressuring us to support the latest
and greatest, no matter how buggy the flippin' thing was. Fullwrite Pro may
have been ready to go and the folks up Cupertino way said. "Hey, wait a
minute...". Microsoft could tell Apple to shove off, but I doubt that Ann
Arbor could.
'Course, neither side will admit if this is true, but it's worth considering.
Gad, first an apologist for the new Star Trek and now this. As if I don't
have products of my own to defend...
--
+ David Macy-Beckwith Artecon, Inc. {sdcsvax,hplabs}!hp-sdd!artecon!macbeth +
+ The Company has enough on its plate || "Let's see what's out there..." +
+ without supporting the crazed postings || - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard +
+ of its newsaholic minions. || +cheeser@dasys1.UUCP (10/28/87)
In article <31502@sun.uucp> Chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >I can't tell you how glad I am that I was able to default on those book >contracts, save all the time on those articles I was supposed to write. I >couldn't do it. I don't have a Real Word Processor. I'm glad my publisher is >so understanding. >At least I still have macwrite, so I can write letters to my mother. She >Wouldn't Understand.... >[The proceeding was an unpaid satirical announcement. Anyone who can say > that waiting over a year for a product after the initial (missed) ship date > ought to have their head examined. I don't care HOW good it is -- my > writing doesn't wait for a software house to get its act together. Gee, Chuq, glad to hear your publishers are so understanding -- wish mine were! B^) Too bad about your having to use MacWrite to write those letters to your mother...You could have phoned, though. Of course, you did understand full well that I meant that i would rather wait and receive a more thoroughly debugged product, with enhanced features than what seems to be the standard these days: Products that do not have most of the features that the 'eventual' completed product will have and, with what is there, most of it doesn't work as advertised, or doesn't work at all... MSWord comes to mind...bought version 1.0, now, long YEARS later, it is, at what, 3.01? 3.05, 3.1, 69.000284645? still a peice of sh.. Of course, some people enjoy watching a program, one basically incompatible with most of the rest of the software available for the Mac, 'evolve' into something pretty near to functional. I don't have that kind of time or patients. . . . As for missing the release date, even by a year, so? At least this makes them no worse than most, and from what I've seen of the software, to quote myself, "It was worth the wait!" I have enough broken software on my Amiga, enough deadbeat, slow and clumsy software on my IBM (compatible), junk on my CP/M systems and almost really good, but not quite, on my Apple //gs. On my Mac II I want something a little better. FullWrite does it for me, or will shortly. Different (key)stokes for different folks. . . . cheeser -- =============================================================================== Jonathan Bing, Master (cheeser) ...ihnp4!hoptoad!dasys1!cheeser "Pereant, iniquit, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt!" also "Non illegitimus carborundum!" crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-carolina!cheeser
lazarus@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU (11/05/87)
Charging credit cards for orders not sent within 30days is simply illegal. The law requires that you be informed of the delay and allowed to choose between continuing to wait and a refund. The same holds true for checks. I recommend anyone who encounters this practice challenge the charge. By law, instructions on how to do so are on the flip side of your credit card statement.
dlt@csuna.UUCP (Dave Thompson) (02/16/88)
I noticed that the spelling checker doesn't properly recognize
words that are separated by a double hyphen, in effect treating
both words and the double hyphen as one. The Microsoft Word
spelling checker works properly. Also, if you specify that a
word like "Vax" is ok in the document it will not then accept
"Vax's"--surely a trivial special case that could be checked.
--
Dave Thompson uucp: {ihnp4|hplabs|psivax}!csun!dlt
CSUN Computer Center phone: (818) 885-2790
18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330macbeth@artecon.UUCP (Beckwith) (04/01/88)
A friend and fellow Mac-oid just dropped a photocopy from Monday's Commerce
Business Daily on my desk. Seems that NASA had a bid out for WP software for
Mac IIs.
"NASA has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the following
software products: FullWrite Professional, MacWrite, Word (v. 3.01)
and WordPerfect. NASA has determined that FullWrite Professional
meets the requirements... NASA will issue a purchase order to Aston-
Tate (sic) to acquire 110 copies of FullWrite Professional."
Now if we can just get A-T to ship the darn thing.
--
+ David Macy-Beckwith Artecon, Inc. {sdcsvax,hplabs}!hp-sdd!artecon!macbeth +
| The Company has enough on its plate || "I didn't come here to argue!" |
+ without supporting the crazed postings || "Yes, you did!" +
| of its newsaholic minions. || "No, I didn't!" |flash@ee.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) (05/13/88)
In article <5838@bunny.UUCP> ps01@bunny.UUCP (Paul Suh) writes: >In article <6332@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: >>On the box it said something like "Not for export, for distribution in >>the US and Canada only." > >>The only reason I can think of for this is if it uses technology on the >>"not to be exported" list. Does Fullwrite include a DES encryption > >The reason for thisis that software companies often put out a "quick and >dirty" release for US markets, which don't support the full set of Nope, I think it's just so foreign distributors can charge more for it without worrying about competition from US retailers. The current European ripoff factor seems to be 1.75. We're discussing this under subject "Export Only" From: flash@ee.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) Reply-To: sheridan@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk or_perhaps_Reply_to: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk
) (05/18/88)
Hi everyone,
After reading all the enthusiasm about FullWrite Professional:
It sounds nice, but...
DOESN'T IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY UNLESS
THE CODE RESOURCES ARE PACKED????!!!!?!?!?
I've seen the demo version and it doesn't look THAT much more capable
than Word to justify an executable of that size.
I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T
THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!?
Seems like it could use just a little code optimization. :-).
Rich
//===\\ (=====) ((====\ // // (=====) ((===== :: MOTTO:
// )) // // // // // // ::
//===// // // //====// // //===== :: No Matter Where
// \\ // // // // // // :: You Go, There
// \\ (=====) ((====/ // // (=====) ((===== :: You Are!!chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/18/88)
> DOESN'T IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY UNLESS >THE CODE RESOURCES ARE PACKED????!!!!?!?!? Nope. But then I outgrew floppies long ago. Large, complex, powerful programs are why they invented hard disks. If you want the power, you've got to pay for it somewhere. I happen to own a number of programs that don't work (or don't work practically) on floppies. It doesn't bother me at all.... > I've seen the demo version and it doesn't look THAT much more capable >than Word to justify an executable of that size. It is. You have to really beat on it for a while to see why. I'm sure that when they have a chance to sit and clean it up rather than trying to get it out the door, they'll be able to tighten it up a fair amount. I've heard rumors of significant code shrinkage and speed improvements for the next release, but I won't pass them along because they ARE just rumors... > I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T >THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? Nope. That's why God invented memory upgrades. Please note that System release 7.0 (due out somewhere near the end of the year) is rumored to only be supported on Macs with at least two megs. If Apple is pushing past the megabyte barrier, why should others beware? If you want state-of-the-art stuff, you have to stay on the edge. Staying on the edge isn't necessarily cheap. Computers are investments. If you want to keep it at the leading edge, you have to be willing to keep investing. If you're happy with what you have, fine, but don't try to hold back folks who are willing to push forward. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
jfbrule@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Jim Brule) (05/18/88)
In article <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> long@colors.dec.com writes: > DOESN'T IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY UNLESS >THE CODE RESOURCES ARE PACKED????!!!!?!?!? Not particularly. I have a hard disk (as do most MacUsers, I suspect), and the fact that it is large does not throw me into CAPITAL hysterics... > I've seen the demo version and it doesn't look THAT much more capable >than Word to justify an executable of that size. I use both FW and Word extensively, and while I still find FW to be just a little too slow sometimes, I cannot compare Word with it in terms of features in any way that allows Word to come out on top overall. It simply has a great many more features than Word, most of which I require as a professional writer. > I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T >THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? Not at all, since it runs fine on a 1MB Mac. In fact, the only complaint I have in regards to its size has to do with not being able to run much else on my 2MB Mac under multifinder. But then, I really don't =need= much else when I'm using FW. (BTW, I own both, so I am speaking from experience when I say it runs fine under 1MB). Check your facts, friend! -- //\//\\ //\//\\ //\//\\|"Soon we'll sliding down \// // \\// // \\// // \| the razor blade of life." T Lehrer // //\\ // //\\ // //\\ |------------------------------------- /\// \\//\// \\//\// \\/|Jim Brule' jfbrule@amax.npac.syr.edu
sarrel@kazoo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Sarrel) (05/18/88)
In article <53610@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T >>THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? > >Nope. That's why God invented memory upgrades. > >Please note that System release 7.0 (due out somewhere near the end of the >year) is rumored to only be supported on Macs with at least two megs. If >Apple is pushing past the megabyte barrier, why should others beware? I agree with you in principle, Chuq, but there are practical considerations here. Aside from the cost of memory upgrades, because of trade problems (please don't start _that_ debate again) it can take many months to get the SIMMs. I have a friend who ordered his memory upgrade back in November _before_ his Mac II arrived. He's had his Mac II for about six months now. He _still_ hasn't gotten his memory upgrade. I put in an order to expand my Plus to 2.5 Meg about a month ago. I really wonder if it will arrive before I graduate. I will probably graduate in Decemeber. My friend and I may not be getting the best service because we ordered through Apple's university consortium program. (It costs ~$430 to go from 1 Meg to 2.5 Meg.) If you know of any way to get SIMMs in a reasonable amount of time, please let me know. (Don't tell anyone else, though, until my order comes in. :-) ) A very perturbed camper, -=- Marc Sarrel The Ohio State University 611 Harely Dr #1 Department of Computer and Information Science Columbus, OH 43202-1835 sarrel@cis.ohio-state.edu In San Francisco, you can bay at the moon or moon at the Bay, but it doesn't make much difference which. Disclaimer: Hey, what do I know? I'm only a grad student.
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (05/18/88)
> DOESN'T IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY UNLESS >THE CODE RESOURCES ARE PACKED????!!!!?!?!? ... > I've seen the demo version and it doesn't look THAT much more capable >than Word to justify an executable of that size. Microsoft programs are compiled to Pcode to save space. If you look at Word with resedit, you will see that there are about 30k of native code for booting and interpreting the Pcode, and a ~400k Pcode resource. The reason Word is not as slow as you would expect Pcode to be is that the compiler has the ability to fully compile pieces of code at the programmer's request. This means that the bulk of the code, which is very rarely executed or not time-critical, takes up only a little space, and the stuff which has to run fast is given the space it needs to do so. Reducing the code size also cuts down on the disk accesses, which is a speed-up in itself. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "In retrospect, no one should have been surprised by the discovery that Harvard Business School was being supported by a consortium of large Japanese companies." -- 1993, The Year In Review
dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) (05/19/88)
| If you want state-of-the-art stuff, you have to stay on the edge. Staying on | the edge isn't necessarily cheap. Computers are investments. If you want to | keep it at the leading edge, you have to be willing to keep investing. If | you're happy with what you have, fine, but don't try to hold back folks who | are willing to push forward. There is no way that a "state-of-the-art" word processor needs more than a megabyte of memory on the Mac. Properly segmented, FWP should be able to run on a one meg Mac Plus. Those with larger memories would experience better performance due to less purging of segments, but everyone with at least a meg should be able to use the program. Duane Williams -- uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!me.ri.cmu.edu!dtw arpa: dtw@cs.cmu.edu
ecs165s052@deneb.ucdavis.edu (0000;0000015000;4000;250;216;ecs165s) (05/19/88)
>Microsoft programs are compiled to Pcode to save space. If you look >at Word with resedit, you will see that there are about 30k of >native code for booting and interpreting the Pcode, and a ~400k >Pcode resource. > > David Palmer > palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu I noticed the PCOD resources and guessed that was what they were. Anyone know why Microsoft doesn't use P-code for Excel? My hunch is that the speed penalty, while not noticeable in a word processor, would be to great on a calculation intensive program like Excel. Anyone at Microsoft got a comment? (yeah, right) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Registrar: from the latin "registrarum" meaning "screw the student" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeMichillie |{ucbvax, lll-crg, sdcsvax} lgdemichillie@ucdavis.edu | !ucdavis!lgdemichillie or ecs165s052@ucdavis.edu | AppleLink : ST0178 | ----------------------------------------------------------------
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/19/88)
In article <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> long@colors.dec.com (Now HE will ask the questions!) writes: >Hi everyone, > DOESN'T IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY UNLESS >THE CODE RESOURCES ARE PACKED????!!!!?!?!? No, big powerful programs shouldn't have to constrain themselves to the size of a floppy. PageMake 3.0 doesn't fit on a floppy either, does that mean I shouldn't use it if it does the things I need it to do. > I've seen the demo version and it doesn't look THAT much more capable >than Word to justify an executable of that size. That's because you've only SEEN it, you haven't USED it. Have word keep track of digagram numbers, and the pages that they are on, oh and don't forget to do the bibliography at the end of the document. > I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T >THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? It runs on a 1 meg machine, it's just not very comfortable, it like some more room than that, most of the sophisticated software these days requires more than a Meg of RAM. No one seems to mind any of the CAD/CAM systems chomping on memory. And besides if they limited it to 1 meg of RAM it's wouldn't be as powerful as it is. David M. O'Rourke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer: All opinions in this message are mine, but | | | if you like them they can be yours too. | | | Besides I'm just a student so what do I | | | know! | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign | | that there are TOO many Lawyer's. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (05/19/88)
> I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T > THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? It bothers me a lot. I tried using FullWrite on a 1Mb SE and I had many "low memory" warnings and errors, and it ran very, very, very slow. Too slow. Granted, I had a few INITs, but I *need* those INITs (I couldn't live without Suitcase!). As it is now, I find I can't recommend FullWrite to anyone who has only 1Mb of memory. And with the way memory availability is these days, my guess is that FullWrite sales will not be up to expectations. The program *isn't* perfect either. I find there are several weak areas in its design (although I still don't have my official release version yet--am I going to have to call Ashton-Tate?). -- Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121 UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}dalcs!aucs!Peter BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
fisher@gazelle..UUCP (Chuck Fisher) (05/19/88)
It's true that FullWrite is big, but it *does* work on a 1MB MacPlus, not too swiftly however. And yes you're right that it barely fits on a double-sided floppy (of course the System File barely fits on a double-sided as well!) Ashton-Tate already has a new basic editor for FullWrite which is one-fifth the size of the current and it is faster. We're all hoping that it makes the next release due this fall. Chuck P.S.: Remember when you could fit the entire System Folder, MacWrite, and MacPaint on a single-sided floppy? Gone are those days!
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/19/88)
>There is no way that a "state-of-the-art" word processor needs more than a >megabyte of memory on the Mac. Properly segmented, FWP should be able to >run on a one meg Mac Plus. Um, hate to sound snotty, but how do you know this? Have you, for instance, implemented one? It's very possible that this might be true. But I wouldn't taken it for a given. There may well be very good reasons why the FullWrite code is the way it is. There are some programs that I've seen that simply can't segment cleanly. And there may be other factors you aren't aware of. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh) (05/20/88)
In article <1713@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) writes: > >...............................Properly segmented, FWP should be able to >run on a one meg Mac Plus. Those with larger memories would experience >better performance due to less purging of segments, but everyone with at >least a meg should be able to use the program. > FWP _does_ run just fine on a 1 Meg Mac Plus! I've been using it for a week and a half now. It won't run under Multifinder, and if you use a lot of memory-grabbing INITs you may have problems, but otherwise it's not a problem. It does load an entire chapter into memory, so in 1 Meg you are limited to chapters about 30 pages long, less with lots of graphics. It needs about 700k of free memory to run. If you set up your preferences to do so, it will even warn users on machines with more than 1 Meg when their chapter is about to become too large to open on a 1 Meg machine, very handy if you don't know what machine a recipient of your document might be using.
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (05/20/88)
In article <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> long@colors.dec.com (Now HE will ask the questions!) writes: >Hi everyone, > DOESN'T IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY UNLESS >THE CODE RESOURCES ARE PACKED????!!!!?!?!? Err... no. Frankly, I think it would have been better to simply admit that it won't run off of a floppy and get rid of the compression -- speeds up boot-up. Double Helix II works that way, as do other big programs. Frankly, until Apple starts putting out 1.6 Meg quad-density disks, I think you can pretty well assume that the Mac is becoming a hard-disk machine for business and graphics/desktop publishing applications. You can still run it on floppies for games, WriteNow/MacWrite style work, etc. But we did an impromptu poll at a Mac dBUG (downtown Business User Group) meeting, and 90% of the people using the Mac had a hard drive with it. Of course, we have fewer "home computer" members than most groups, due to the nature of dBUG's charter, so that may not be a fair percentage for *all* Mac users. I realize there are a lot of students on the net who bought it through their campus's educational program, and many of them use it without a hard drive. But the business market does seem to consider the hard drive a requirement. Of the 20 or so Macs at Fluke, I can think of only one old 512K model we have that doesn't have a hard drive -- and it's hooked into a file server via TOPS. Bottom Line: Fullwrite Professional NEEDS a hard disk. In my opinion, it also needs 2 Megs to work efficiently. Ann Arbor (along with many others) figured 1 Meg SIMMs and hard drives would be cheap and plentiful when FullWrite came out. They were half right... :-) > I've seen the demo version and it doesn't look THAT much more capable >than Word to justify an executable of that size. Major difference of opinion there, but I think FW's features have been documented well enough elsewhere. > I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T >THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? If I were in Ashton-Tate's marketing group, it'd bother me. As someone who has 2.5 Megs and wants the power word processing FW can supply, no, it doesn't. If I were someone with 1 Megabyte of RAM (and a hard disk!), it'd be time to ask myself a question: is the increased functionality of FullWrite worth the cost of more RAM? > Seems like it could use just a little code optimization. :-). Ah, the hardware engineer's answer to everything. :-) "Write it in assembly code -- that'll do it!" "But like the Good Book says... There's BIGGER DEALS to come!" --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
ogil@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Wesley Harding) (05/20/88)
In article <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> long@colors.dec.com (Now HE will ask the questions!) writes: >Hi everyone, > > After reading all the enthusiasm about FullWrite Professional: > > It sounds nice, but... [...] > I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T >THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? >Rich It runs fine on my 1 MB SE and a 20 MB SCSI drive (how's that for acronyms?) Lest anyone say that I may be able to run it but can't do much work, I have a 41,000 word novel in one FWP file right now. I expect it to be 80,000 or so when finished, and I think I won't have many problems. My chapters are about 10 pages of single-spaced 12 point Palatino each. The only speed problem I've noticed is that it takes a few seconds to swap memory when I scroll between chapters. Of course, I plan to get a memory upgrade this summer :-) I'm also going to write a fairly long essay on experimental biology during the summer. FWP looks right now like it's going to do the job quite well. The sidebars and pictures will be wonderful for diagrams and tables. Much nicer than Word or Word Perfect. -- Brian "My middle name is Wendell" Ogilvie ogil@sphinx.uchicago.edu "Home of the Goofy Nicknames" "Cartesianism is the most popular `popular science' ever created." --Noel Swerdlow
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mr Jack Campin) (05/20/88)
> I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T > THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? I have run the demo version on a 1 Meg Mac Plus and it seems to work OK ... what's going on? This is important, as we have dozens of Macs here and no chance of most of them being upgraded to more memory in the foreseeable future. It would be nice if it could run in 512K too, as we would like to go on using those machines. Surely it would be possible for the program to gracefully degrade and not load code for the more esoteric features if the memory to run them wasn't there? A pity. FullWrite looks like the best Mac word processor yet. But if it can't run in 1 meg, forget it. -- ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878
derek@eleazar.dartmouth.edu.UUCP (05/20/88)
In article <1713@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) writes: >There is no way that a "state-of-the-art" word processor needs more than a >megabyte of memory on the Mac. Properly segmented, FWP should be able to >run on a one meg Mac Plus. Those with larger memories would experience >better performance due to less purging of segments, but everyone with at >least a meg should be able to use the program. Umm...excuse me...I'm not sure if I'm getting the gist of this discussion or not. Are you all saying that FullWrite *doesn't* run in 1 meg? My 1 meg SE will be surprised to hear that. I think the problem here is that people are expecting it to run *under Multifinder* *and* with all the neat gizmos they have running with their Systems. If I run FWP with my usual mega- system, a few features of FWPare unavailable; if I use a plain vanilla system, it works fine. Let's not let the tide of rising expectations caused by all this new stuff sweep away a product like FWP just because it takes the lion's share of your Mac's power to run. Derek [23 days] LeLash '88 Derek LeLash '88 |"People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles Derek.LeLash@Dartmouth.EDU | of my shoes ----------------------------| Well, that's one way to lose these walking blues (Grand Old Senior at last) | Diamonds on the soles of my shoes."
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (05/23/88)
> >> I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T >> THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!? from the side of my fullwrite box System Requirements: Mac+, SE, or II 1 800KB minimum capacity disk and a hard disk (in Bold face)(HARD DISK REQUIRED) 1MB RAM required 2MB recocmmend. 2MB required to run under multiFinder Supportst LaserWriter, LaserWriter+, LaserWriter II (NT, NTX and SC) and imagewriter II printers. (Here's something cute: according to the notice just below that, Ashton Tate remains the owner of this product at all times. I Guess I'm just renting it) Pierce ---------------------------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu Race For Space Grand Prize Winner. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Useless Advice #986: Never sit on a Tack.
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/23/88)
> (Here's something cute: according to the notice just below that, Ashton Tate > remains the owner of this product at all times. I Guess I'm just renting it) No, you're licensing it. And, if you look at any of the agreements on any of the other pieces of software you have, you'll see (except in rare cases) that you're licensing them, too. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
) (05/24/88)
OK, OK, after all the flamage, I decided to beat on the FullWrite Demo package a little more. It does look pretty nice, actually, but riddle me this, caped crusader :-) : How does one create a document using a right margin larger than 6.6-odd inches?? The demo version doesn't have this capability that I can see - I sure hope the release version does. Rich
fnf@fishpond.UUCP (Fred Fish) (05/24/88)
In article <54125@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >No, you're licensing it. And, if you look at any of the agreements on any of >the other pieces of software you have, you'll see (except in rare cases) >that you're licensing them, too. That is what most producers of "shrink-wrapped-licensed" software would like you to believe. However, to my knowledge, the validity of these "licenses" has never truely been established in a court of law, except for a few test cases in some states. A license is a contract, and in order to have a valid contract, there must be some opportunity for negotiation of the terms by both parties. Also, many states have laws which, in effect, explicitly make you the owner of any item for which you simply walk into a store, plunk down your money, and walk out with the goods. This does not mean that you can make copies to your hearts content and give them away to all your friends, that is prohibited by the copyright laws. But you are free to do whatever you wish with the ORIGINAL copy, including transfering it to a third party for whatever consideration you mutually agree is appropriate (though if you keep a COPY you are violating copyright laws unless you also have the original in your possession). Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a rather ornery individual who does not necessary believe everything he sees written down in black and white. -Fred -- # Fred Fish hao!noao!mcdsun!fishpond!fnf (602) 921-1113 # Ye Olde Fishpond, 1346 West 10th Place, Tempe, AZ 85281 USA
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (05/24/88)
>No, you're licensing it. And, if you look at any of the agreements on any of >the other pieces of software you have, you'll see (except in rare cases) >that you're licensing them, too. > > It also says I can't modify my copy. However, when I typed in my name, rand rank and serial number, the program went and modified itself. Therefore, I have already caused my copy of FullWrite to be modified and am in violation of my license agreement. (Sigh) Pierce ---------------------------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu Race For Space Grand Prize Winner. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Useless Advice #986: Never sit on a Tack.
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (05/24/88)
In article <8805231714.AA01887@decwrl.dec.com> long@rainbo.dec.com (Now HE will ask the questions!) writes: >caped crusader :-) : How does one create a document using a right margin >larger than 6.6-odd inches?? The demo version doesn't have this capability >that I can see - I sure hope the release version does. Bat man was unavailible for comment, and I think he owns an IBM anyways, you know all that blue he used to where. ;-) I don't know about the Demo version but if you go to the page setup you should be able to change the page margins that will allow a margin greater than 6.6 inches. It's a new button call "Set Margins" -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (05/24/88)
In article <6653@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Pierce T. Wetter) writes: > It also says I can't modify my copy. However, when I typed in my name, rand > rank and serial number, the program went and modified itself. I think you just contradicted yourself there, old man. :-) Key words: THE PROGRAM MODIFIED ITSELF. *You* did not modify it; the change in the program was made at the program's own request and executed by the program itself. So, you still haven't violated anything. However, using ResEdit to change some menu command-key equivalents *would* be a modification by you, and that's in violation of the license agreement. Neat, isn't it? --Rich Useless advice #987: I'm lying. Rich Siegel Quality Assurance Technician THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (05/24/88)
In article <8805231714.AA01887@decwrl.dec.com>, long@rainbo.dec.com (Now HE will ask the questions!) writes: > OK, OK, after all the flamage, I decided to beat on the FullWrite Demo package > a little more. It does look pretty nice, actually, but riddle me this, > caped crusader :-) : How does one create a document using a right margin > larger than 6.6-odd inches?? The demo version doesn't have this capability > that I can see - I sure hope the release version does. It will allow you to create a document up to a fraction of an inch in width of the paper width chosen in Page Setup. If, for example, you tell it landscape you will be able to get close to 11 inch width. If you have an ImageWriter LQ and choose Computer Paper, you can get close to 14.875 inches, etc. You also set the margins from the Page Setup dialog. This is the "frame" around the area on which you may print -- everything done from "Layout..." is within the printable area defined in Page Setup. If you hadn't explicitly posted that this came from using the Demo that was given out at MacWorld, I would have said "RTFM" as it is explained clearly enough there that my poor, usually befuddled mother was able to comprehend it; however, it is not clear what is going on unless you stumble across the "Set Margins" button in the Page Setup dialog. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _mine_!
jackd@copper.TEK.COM (Jack Decker) (05/25/88)
Okay FullWrite seers, tell me this: can FW import ASCII files with embedded codes containing formatting information? My boss wants a package that will let writers use vi, Wordstar, EMACS or whatever to enter text containing formatting codes that the word processor will understand. Of course non-WYSIWYG packages like JustText and TeX support this but as far as I know, Interleaf is the only WYSIWYGer that does. How about FullWrite? Thanks. jack "the drudge" decker
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (05/25/88)
In article <2730@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: >In article <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> long@colors.dec.com (Now HE will ask the questions!) writes: || I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac. DOESN'T | It runs on a 1 meg machine, it's just not very comfortable, it like some |more room than that, most of the sophisticated software these days requires |more than a Meg of RAM. No one seems to mind any of the CAD/CAM systems |chomping on memory. And besides if they limited it to 1 meg of RAM it's |wouldn't be as powerful as it is. What ever happenned to the concept of demand paging (virtual memory) or segmented code (non-virtual memory)? With hard disks being ever easier to come by (at least no global shortage of them), swapping to/from hard disk and the like could help alleviate the 1 Meg memory shortage, too. For instance, do I really need to have ALL of the system and finder be memory resident? Do I really need to have Cyrillic fonts (useless example, but you get the point) take up valuable memory if I only need them occasionally? And, no, loading them occasionally with the font/da mover is not a solution, just a workaround. -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (05/25/88)
In article <537@aplcomm.UUCP> gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (John R. Gersh) writes: >FWP _does_ run just fine on a 1 Meg Mac Plus! I've been using it for a >week and a half now. It won't run under Multifinder, and if you use a >lot of memory-grabbing INITs you may have problems, but otherwise it's >not a problem. It does load an entire chapter into memory, so in 1 Meg >you are limited to chapters about 30 pages long, less with lots of >graphics. It needs about 700k of free memory to run. > >If you set up your preferences to do so, it will even warn users on >machines with more than 1 Meg when their chapter is about to become too >large to open on a 1 Meg machine, very handy if you don't know what >machine a recipient of your document might be using. Can this be right? Does this mean that it's possible to create a document on a 2 meg machine that can't be opened on a standard Mac Plus or Mac SE? If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Even MacWrite no longer limits document length to available memory. Can anyone who knows for sure confirm this?
han@Apple.COM (Byron Han, Licensed To Dream) (05/25/88)
In article <416@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >In article <537@aplcomm.UUCP> gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (John R. Gersh) writes: >>FWP _does_ run just fine on a 1 Meg Mac Plus! >> >>If you set up your preferences to do so, it will even warn users on >>machines with more than 1 Meg when their chapter is about to become too >>large to open on a 1 Meg machine, ... > > ... Does this mean that it's possible to create a document on a 2 meg > machine that can't be opened on a standard Mac Plus or Mac SE? > > ... Even MacWrite no longer limits document length to available memory. The operative feature is that FullWrite will warn the user if the document is too large to open in a 1M partition. The original MacWrite (2.2 and before) stored all of the document in memory so it was possible to create a document on a FatMac (remember them? 512K) that could not be opened on a think mac (128K). The restriction for FullWrite is not too bad since it is on a chapter by chapter basis. Although in the future it would be nice to have FullWrite be completely VM/paged. It would be even nicer to have the Macintosh be virtual memory/paged so that all of these problems would go away. :-) I have no connection with Claris except as a customer. I have no connection with Ashton Tate except as a hugely satisfied customer of FullWrite Professional. -- Byron Han, Licensed to Dream. Macintosh - One Small Step For Apple. Apple Computer, Inc. MS 27Y ----One Giant Leap for Humankind.---- ATTnet:408-973-6450 applelink:HAN1 domain:han@apple.COM MacNET:HAN GENIE:BYRONHAN COMPUSERVE:72167,1664 UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!han
dudevoir@bernoulli.Stanford.EDU (Glen P. Dudevoir) (05/25/88)
In article <537@aplcomm.UUCP> gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (John R. Gersh) writes: >FWP _does_ run just fine on a 1 Meg Mac Plus! I've been using it for a >week and a half now. It won't run under Multifinder, and if you use a >lot of memory-grabbing INITs you may have problems, but otherwise it's >not a problem. It does load an entire chapter into memory, so in 1 Meg >you are limited to chapters about 30 pages long, less with lots of >graphics. It needs about 700k of free memory to run. Well I have tried the demo version on my 1 meg MacPlus and a 1 meg Mac II and as far as I can tell even a single picture will cause you to be limited to a page or two in the chapter. In fact one of the sample documents that has a picture consistently causes warnings about being low on memory if I try to create a second picture and this document is only a single page long. The only inits I am running are QuicKeys and Suitcase. So unless you are only planning on doing text this could be a serious limitation for those of you still awaiting your memory upgrades from apple. ( I don't think my thesis can wait that long.) Glen
cooper@odin.ucsd.edu (Ken Cooper) (05/26/88)
In article <4849@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: > ... > ... >For instance, >do I really need to have ALL of the system and finder be memory resident? Do >I really need to have Cyrillic fonts (useless example, but you get the point) >take up valuable memory if I only need them occasionally? And, no, loading >them occasionally with the font/da mover is not a solution, just a workaround. Try using Suitcase. ARPA: cooper%cs@ucsd.edu UUCP: ...!ucsd!sdcsvax!cooper COMPUSERVE: 71571,407
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (05/26/88)
In article <4971@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> cooper@odin.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Ken Cooper) writes: (In article <4849@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: (>For instance, (>do I really need to have ALL of the system and finder be memory resident? Do (>I really need to have Cyrillic fonts (useless example, but you get the point) (>take up valuable memory if I only need them occasionally? And, no, loading (>them occasionally with the font/da mover is not a solution, just a workaround. ( (Try using Suitcase. Nah, you don't need Suitcase for that. No matter how much stuff you have in your System file (Fonts, DAs, etc.) none of it is memory resident if you don't use it. Only the fonts you are currently using are in memory. What Suitcase does is let you mess around with your fonts and DAs without having to touch the System file. Also it lets you add or remove Fonts and DAs just by asking it to open or close "suitcase" files. There too, these things are only memory resident when in use. /JBL UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin USPS: BBN Communications Corporation ARPA: levin@bbn.com 50 Moulton Street POTS: (617) 873-3463 Cambridge, MA 02238
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (05/26/88)
In article <4849@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: >What ever happenned to the concept of demand paging (virtual memory) or >segmented code (non-virtual memory)? Nothing, but Until the macintosh II and the 68851 most personal computers haven't had any sort of virtual memory like you're used to on a Larger System. The programmer has to make an effort to swap out segments of code and Data. The Macintosh does allow segmentation of code segment, and resources do allow limited swapping of data structures. the programmer has to be aware of what's going on and can't quite program blindly like you can on a true VM system. In answer to your question about the system file things are read in based on demand, and aren't typically preloaded. So where computer software says it need's 1 meg of memory it normally because the software needs that much data space which it harder to swap than code on the Macintosh. Flame retardant: I know VM isn't this simply and the Macintosh does offer a primative form of VM. But I don't think it's the same as what the original poster meant. If anyone feels my explanation isn't sufficent I'll be happy to cover the gory details for them via e-mail. But I don't this the net really wants to know. But if they do I'll do my best to answer, and I would appreciate any help any informed netlanders have to offer. -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (05/26/88)
In article <2041@copper.TEK.COM> jackd@copper.UUCP (Jack Decker) writes: >Okay FullWrite seers, tell me this: can FW import ASCII files >with embedded codes containing formatting information? My boss Not as far as I know. Sorry! -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (05/26/88)
In article <416@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >>If you set up your preferences to do so, it will even warn users on >>machines with more than 1 Meg when their chapter is about to become too >>large to open on a 1 Meg machine, very handy if you don't know what >>machine a recipient of your document might be using. > >Can this be right? Does this mean that it's possible to create a >document on a 2 meg machine that can't be opened on a standard Mac >Plus or Mac SE? >If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Even >MacWrite no longer limits document length to available memory. Can >anyone who knows for sure confirm this? FullWrite handles it's documents in a little more complex manner than MacWrite does. It breaks a document into user defined chapters. A document can be larger than memory allows. But a Chapter can not! So the warning that FullWrite issues indicates that your current chapter will be too large to load into a 1 meg machine. Besides with all the things full write does it's very easy to imagine the internal data structure necessary to keep it all in order. Quite frankly after having programmed the Mac for the past three years I'm impressed with what FullWrite is able to accomplish!! Although MacWrite documents aren't the example of simlicity, MacWrite's author's do have an easier time of "paging" a document in and out of memory. So I wouldn't call it riduiculous until you could write something better. And if you look at the magnitude of difference between FWP and MacWrite I don't think you should complain. Apple put the ability to expand the Macintosh beyond 1 meg there for a reason {now if we only had the chips to do it}. So why limit all of the software to 1 meg. Don't you remember when things were "better" on the 512 than they were on the 128. If you don't push the limits, then people wouldn't have a reason to upgrade to anything better. I personally don't want my 2 meg machine limited by someone who isn't willing to buy anything more than a 128. So I enjoy being on the "Bleeding Edge" of technology. -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/26/88)
>>What ever happenned to the concept of demand paging (virtual memory) or >>segmented code (non-virtual memory)? > Nothing, but Until the macintosh II and the 68851 most personal computers >haven't had any sort of virtual memory like you're used to on a Larger System. Just as a point of information, when the Macintosh was designed (and for a few years after it had started shipping) there was NO working MMU available for the 68xxx. Un*x systems that implemented a VM typically did it by designing their own MMU, usually in something really neat like TTL or even sometimes ECL. Besides being a custom hardware hack, MMU's were expensive as all get out. When the Mac II first came out, the 68851 was still in short supply, as a matter of fact, and most Mac II's didn't have them. To have implemented a full VM system with MMU in the original mac (remember, the Macintosh was designed to be a single-user, single thread, 512K system [Yes, I'm ignoring the 128K on purpose]) would have been major overkill, added lots of complexity to the Operating system, lots of hardware to the logic boards, and would have required adding a fan to keep the machine from melting down. I'm pretty sure it was the latter reason why it wasn't done... (hehe-hehe) Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
) (05/26/88)
Chuq Von Rospach recently posted about not making comments based on the MacWorld demo version, stating that the released version has "many enhancements and improvements". Could someone (maybe Chuq) post a synopsis of what those are? Might be useful for those of us still trying to decide. Rich
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (05/27/88)
In article <2041@copper.TEK.COM> jackd@copper.UUCP (Jack Decker) writes: >Okay FullWrite seers, tell me this: can FW import ASCII files >with embedded codes containing formatting information? My boss >wants a package that will let writers use vi, Wordstar, EMACS >or whatever to enter text containing formatting codes that the >word processor will understand. Of course non-WYSIWYG packages >like JustText and TeX support this but as far as I know, Interleaf >is the only WYSIWYGer that does. How about FullWrite? I'm almost certain that the answer is "no", but it depends on what you mean by "formatting information". Do they conform to some kind of a text formatting standard, or are they associated only with Interleaf? Interesting concept, at least from the workstation standpoint. However, I think I prefer FrameMaker's solution, i.e. you can save a document in the MIF format, which is basically all-text and can be editted in any text editor. Neither method is particularly attractive, but control-code formatting commands would be particularly nasty... "This Dec. 7th, the summit which will ban all medium-range nuclear missiles has already run into its first snag: The National Rifle Association has officially protested the treaty, and says its members will continue to own and carry nuclear missiles -- but only for hunting and self-protection, of course." -- Dennis Miller, SNL News --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/27/88)
>Chuq Von Rospach recently posted about not making comments based on the >MacWorld demo version, stating that the released version has "many enhancements >and improvements". Could someone (maybe Chuq) post a synopsis of what those >are? Might be useful for those of us still trying to decide. Well, I didn't use the demo version a LOT, so I'm going to miss some stuff, but here's a first cut on what I see as differences. o It's somewhat faster. o It doesn't crash. o There are enhancements to the spelling checker o It now reads Word 3.x documents (it doesn't write them, however. But you can write MacWrite files that Word can read. And the conversions do work pretty cleanly, from my experience. [As a side note, FullWrite conversions seem to be more complete than a lot of WP's conversions. Headers end up as headers, instead of as text or simply disappearing. And sidebar pictures and text are shifted over as well at the end of documents. Formatting conversion works pretty well, too.] That's off the top of my head. Someone who worked with the demo version more (Jeff?) can probably add to it. The big things are stability and bugfixing. Fullwrite Pro is very solid -- I haven't crashed it yet. In fact, I've crashed Word 3.01, the BugFix version, more than I've crashed FullWrite. And I generally do things that bring Word Processors to their knees, especially if the memory management isn't quite up to snuff. (To really see how a word processor memory management is set up, try this: o download 50K from a Unix box. o load into word processor o go through and convert all <cr><cr> pairs to random text. o convert <cr> to space. o convert random text back to <cr> This converts stuff to paragraphs. It also raises major havoc with internal memory management because it chops up 50K of text into about 15,000 very tiny chunks. If the garbage collector isn't very good, or the chunks aren't efficient in space, the word processor gets VERY unhappy. There are tools that can help you do this outside of the word processor (I use McSink and Macify for a lot of stuff these days) but as a worst case test of a word processor, it works great. Another fun thing is to leave your system alone for a while, and have your cockatoo go play on the keyboard. My bird crashed Word a couple of times that way with lots of really weird, random keyboard typing. (she also occasionally turns my mouse into a hamster, which isn't recommended.... :-() Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/27/88)
>Okay FullWrite seers, tell me this: can FW import ASCII files >with embedded codes containing formatting information? My boss Part of the problem is that there isn't really a good standard format for embedding information. Every word processor seems to have their favorite (non-standard) one, with DCA and RTF being two of the more common ones. Interleaf does it's own thing, as usual. There are ways of working with the information to some degree. Macify, for one, will help you convert some codes. And if the coding is reasonably regular, you can use the find/change with style capabilities to convert strings to bold or italic or something. About the ONLY thing I haven't been able to do with the find/change is take a given string like "FOO" and convert it to "Foo" with bold. But I CAN do it in two steps by doing the case conversion with McSink, so it's not that big a deal. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (05/27/88)
In article <4971@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> cooper@odin.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Ken Cooper) writes: >In article <4849@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: || ... || ... ||For instance, ||do I really need to have ALL of the system and finder be memory resident? Do ||I really need to have Cyrillic fonts (useless example, but you get the point) ||take up valuable memory if I only need them occasionally? And, no, loading ||them occasionally with the font/da mover is not a solution, just a workaround. | |Try using Suitcase. Yes, but even that's a workaround! (I assume) you have to still open the font file manually every time you want to work on that file(s), or else you are forced to place the fonts in the appropriate folder so that Suitcase loads the fonts into the system heap at boot time anyway. That is, unless Suitcase was smart enough to figure out that a used font was not system resident and go out and look for it. Of course, that really belongs in the domain of the system software anyway. My point is that the operating system should take care of shielding these sort of interactions from the user (and it does now, although in a memory-hungry manner). Tools like suitcase, f/da juggler+, et al. are very useful tools, but are really patches (workarounds) since they don't solve this original (memory-usage) problem. (They do address OTHER, problems, of course!) -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (05/27/88)
In article <2904@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: >>Can this be right? Does this mean that it's possible to create a >>document on a 2 meg machine that can't be opened on a standard Mac >>Plus or Mac SE? > >>If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Even >>MacWrite no longer limits document length to available memory. Can >>anyone who knows for sure confirm this? > > Although MacWrite documents aren't the example of simlicity, MacWrite's >author's do have an easier time of "paging" a document in and out of memory. > > So I wouldn't call it riduiculous until you could write something better. >And if you look at the magnitude of difference between FWP and MacWrite >I don't think you should complain. Well, I don't think you have to be a programmer to criticize a weakness of a program, do you? > Apple put the ability to expand the Macintosh beyond 1 meg there for a >reason {now if we only had the chips to do it}. So why limit all of the >software to 1 meg. Don't you remember when things were "better" on the 512 >than they were on the 128. If you don't push the limits, then people wouldn't >have a reason to upgrade to anything better. I personally don't want my >2 meg machine limited by someone who isn't willing to buy anything more than >a 128. So I enjoy being on the "Bleeding Edge" of technology. Why should we be "bleeding"? People have been writing word processors that allow manipulation of documents larger than available memory for years. Hell, WordStar used to work fine in 48K, and it placed *no* limitation on document length. Maybe I just don't understand the "chapter" concept correctly. FullWrite seems like a superior product in every other way, so I'm certainly not suggesting that people use that abominable MS-Word instead. But I hope all the FullWrite people remember when MS-Word 3.0 was first released and it's defenders said "Well, the interface does suck, but for this kind of power, I can understand it. Don't criticize the program unless you can write/buy a better one." I think that it's important to be able to make full use of a product on a standard machine (1 meg is still standard). Hypercard (also a huge program) doesn't allow creation of stacks on a 5 meg machine that can't be opened on a 1 meg machine. As far as I know, there's no such limit in MS-Word, either. Designing a word processor any other way is to my mind just sloppy programming. - Steve
edmoy@violet.berkeley.edu (05/28/88)
In article <2041@copper.TEK.COM> jackd@copper.UUCP (Jack Decker) writes: >Okay FullWrite seers, tell me this: can FW import ASCII files >with embedded codes containing formatting information? Well, sort of. There is a public domain program MakeWrite written by Paul DuBois that can take a text file with user defined formatting commands and create a MacWrite file, which could be read into FWP. It doesn't do really fancy formatting things, but it's a start. MakeWrite is available anonymous ftp from sumex-aim.stanford.edu in the <info-mac> directory. Source code is included, so maybe someone can make it produce FWP output directly. Edward Moy Workstation Software Support Group University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 edmoy@violet.Berkeley.EDU ucbvax!violet!edmoy
barad@tulane.tulane.edu (Herb Barad) (05/28/88)
In article <54660@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >o It doesn't crash. Well, I've been able to make it crash and I was able to repeat it about 12 times in a row. yes, this is the released version I'm using and I have a 2 Meg Mac. I'm still not sure what the problem was. I was begining to think that the document I was working on was a little corrupted, so I created a new one, copied the material from one to the other, and then deleted the problem document. Now it doesn't crash. Well, I should have kept the problem document around and sent it off to Ashton-Tate. I'd like to see them figure out what was wrong. -- Herb Barad Electrical Engineering Dept., Tulane Univ. INTERNET: barad@tulane.edu USENET: barad@tulane.uucp
benjamin_kuo@pedro.UUCP (Benjamin Kuo) (05/29/88)
<4849@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Yes! That's what the Mac world needs--especially with the SIMM shortage. If anyone could program a utility to convert a reasonable fast hard drive to a virtual memory device (at least parts of it), it would save alot of money, memory problems, and hassles with huge programs. I recall someone telling me once that the problem with the Macintosh is that all the applications load EVERYTHING in a data file into memory, and swamping the RAM. On the contrary, most other computers make do by loading each part in one at a time, when you need the data.
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (05/31/88)
In article <4879@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: >Yes, but even that's a workaround! (I assume) you have to still open the >font file manually every time you want to work on that file(s), or else >you are forced to place the fonts in the appropriate folder so that >Suitcase loads the fonts into the system heap at boot time anyway. That is, >unless Suitcase was smart enough to figure out that a used font was not >system resident and go out and look for it. Of course, that really belongs >in the domain of the system software anyway. Suitcase solves two problems. Allows you to use Font's with out installing them in the system file using the Font/DA mover, & allows you to use more than 15 DA's at once. Suitcase still does not pre-load the information into the system heap. If you would take the time to read the resource manager in Inside Macintosh you would discover that the Macintosh uses an on-demand memory Managerment scheme for System Resources like Font's & DA's. That means the memory is not allocated until the user requests their presence. I'm not triing to be-little Suitcase {I mean I haven't tried to write it and I'm sure there are some traps} but all Suitcase does is "hook" some of the more important resource calls so that they not only check the normal files but any additional files suitcase wants them to see as well. Notice that all this does it allow the application to find additional resources, it doesn't require them to be in memory. When the user wants them in memory the resource manager allocates the necessary memory and reads them in at that time, or if they are already there it simply returns the handle to that memory. >My point is that the operating system should take care of shielding these >sort of interactions from the user (and it does now, although in a >memory-hungry manner). Tools like suitcase, f/da juggler+, et al. are very >useful tools, but are really patches (workarounds) since they don't solve this >original (memory-usage) problem. (They do address OTHER, problems, of course!) There was no memory-usage problem since the Macintosh doesn't allocate memory in the way that you think it does. When you get a chance pick up the "Technical Introducation to Macintosh" from Apple, it goes over Memory Management & Resources. I think you'll find the information enlightning. -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (05/31/88)
In article <418@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >Why should we be "bleeding"? People have been writing word processors that >allow manipulation of documents larger than available memory for years. >Hell, WordStar used to work fine in 48K, and it placed *no* limitation on >document length. Is this for real, you're comparing a worderful text editor with FWP. Of course it worked find in 48K, if was only dealing with TEXT, and as far as the User interface, well ...... >Maybe I just don't understand the "chapter" concept correctly. FullWrite >seems like a superior product in every other way, so I'm certainly >not suggesting that people use that abominable MS-Word instead. But >I hope all the FullWrite people remember when MS-Word 3.0 was first released >and it's defenders said "Well, the interface does suck, but for this kind >of power, I can understand it. Don't criticize the program unless you >can write/buy a better one." I'm not clear do you stand by this assertion, or are you saying that's just as stupid. >I think that it's important to be able to make full use of a product >on a standard machine (1 meg is still standard). Hypercard (also a huge >program) doesn't allow creation of stacks on a 5 meg machine that can't >be opened on a 1 meg machine. As far as I know, there's no such limit >in MS-Word, either. Designing a word processor any other way is to my >mind just sloppy programming. You can use FWP on a standard machine. But are you saying that you should be able to everything a 2 meg or 2.5 meg Macintosh can do on a 1 meg Machine. If you could do this then why have memory upgrades? If you want to be able to do really big stuff it requires memory, even if the memory required isn't the standard size. No one seems to mind that a lot of the graphics packages work better and faster if they have more memory, and yes I've created a document on my 2 meg machine with Adobe Illustrator that wouldn't load on a 1 meg machine, and it didn't even warn me like FWP will. -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
wiedmann@aurora.uucp (Christian Wiedmann) (06/01/88)
In article <2979@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: > You can use FWP on a standard machine. But are you saying that you should >be able to everything a 2 meg or 2.5 meg Macintosh can do on a 1 meg Machine. Most definitely! I think one of the tenets of the Macintosh is configuration independence. I don't think memory size should limit the things you can do, just how fast they are done. >If you could do this then why have memory upgrades? If you want to be able to >do really big stuff it requires memory, even if the memory required isn't the >standard size. Why buy a floating point processor? The situation is the same. I want to be able to do anything I can do on a 5 meg mac with FWP on a 1 meg mac. I don't care if it accesses the disk drive every time I scroll a line, as long as I can at least look at the document. > >-- >David M. O'Rourke > >Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine! I can't think of any convincing reason to limit any user size because of lack of memory. Such things should be hidden from the user. Why is it my responsibility to adjust the chapter size when the program has much more information about the problem, and could do it in such a way that I don't have to worry about it? -Christian net address: wiedmann@aurora.arc.nasa.gov UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax,nike,lll-crg}!ames!aurora!wiedmann disclaimer: Any resemblance of this opinion to anybody else's is purely co- incidental.
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (06/02/88)
>In article <2979@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: >> You can use FWP on a standard machine. But are you saying that you should >>be able to everything a 2 meg or 2.5 meg Macintosh can do on a 1 meg Machine. In article <807@eos.UUCP> wiedmann@aurora.UUCP (Christian Wiedmann) writes: >Most definitely! I think one of the tenets of the Macintosh is configuration >independence. I don't think memory size should limit the things you can do, >just how fast they are done. >I can't think of any convincing reason to limit any user size because of >lack of memory. Such things should be hidden from the user. Why is it my >responsibility to adjust the chapter size when the program has much more >information about the problem, and could do it in such a way that I don't >have to worry about it? Gosh! Why should it be the program's responsibility when the operating system could do it in such a way that the program doesn't have to worry about it? This is known as virtual memory. It probably requires a hard disk, since you can't swap very much to an 800KB floppy :-). Of course, it would also require Apple to offer virtual memory capability ... Howard A. Landman landman@hanami.sun.com UUCP: sun!hanami!landman
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (06/03/88)
In article <241@pedro.UUCP> benjamin_kuo@pedro.UUCP (Benjamin Kuo) writes: > I recall someone telling me once that the problem with the Macintosh is >that all the applications load EVERYTHING in a data file into memory, and >swamping the RAM. On the contrary, most other computers make do by >loading each part in one at a time, when you need the data. Well as far as I know this is wrong. As on most personal computers it is the programmer that decides, what, how much, and when Data is read into memory. Now since you don't have virtual memory which allows programmers to "pretend" they have lots of memory. Most software that tends to get written reads all of the data into memory so that it can easily be manipulated, otherwise the programer has to figure out how to deal with segmenting the data. And the computers that you refer to aren't considered personal computers. If you think the Mac is bad just take a look at MS-Dos, it's even worse than the Macintosh at dealing with memory. There's no support for heaps, relocatable objects, code segments, ectt. Although the 80X86 series processor's all have wonderful support for these concepts, none of the 80X86 series features are in MS-Dos. Looking at the Macintosh Memory Model is should be possible to extend the OS so that it does VM and keep some compatibility. -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
blknowle@uokmax.UUCP (Bradford L Knowles) (06/07/88)
A hard disk is NOT required. It is simply very handy if you want to do
any significant work.
My current setup:
Mac+, 1MB, 2-800K floppies.
FullWrite (on it's own disk).
Two system disks--one for LaserWriter use, one for ImageWriter
use. The LaserWriter disk has VERY few fonts, and
absolutely nothing extra than the LaserWriter 4.0 driver
and anything else that is NEEDED to work. The
ImageWriter version is set up similarly, but I have the
BOSTON-II-NY font set up on it (if you have it, use
9 pt. where you would normally use 12 pt., and similarly
scale things down, and you will be ok).
In both cases, I MUST leave about 250K or more free on the
system disk (where I TEMPORARILY store my small working files),
otherwise FullWrite Professional complains (loudly).
FYI
-Brad Knowles
UUCP: ...!ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!blknowle ARPA: blknowle@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
SNAIL: 1013 Mobile Circle
Norman, OK 73071-2522
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philosophy of Boris Yeltsin: "If one wants to be unemployed, one will
criticize ones' boss. If one wants to be sent to Siberia, one
will criticize the wife of ones' boss."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer: (The above opinions are my own. They have nothing to do with the
Univeristy of Oklahoma nor intelligance of any sort. :-)stiber@cs.ucla.edu (Michael D Stiber) (07/06/89)
I just recently received a free demo version of this software, and am
initially impressed. However, I would be interested in the opinions
of those who have experience working with the program. Good and bad
experiences are solicited, and if you send me mail, I will summarize
to the net. Thank you.
--
Michael Stiber
stiber@cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Dept.
...{ucbvax,ihpn4}!ucla-cs!stiber Machine Perception Laboratory
3564 Boelter Hall,Los Angeles, CA 90024awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (07/09/89)
In article <STIBER.89Jul5155311@maui.cs.ucla.edu>, stiber@cs.ucla.edu (Michael D Stiber) writes: > ...I would be interested in the opinions > of those who have experience working with [FullWrite]. > Michael Stiber Email always bounces--I don't want to send things twice <shrug>. FullWrite is an Ashton-Tate product, but of a different division, so I'm responding as a user. I think the sense of comments on the net a few months ago was "Great program, needs a Mac II with significant memory." I agree, with emphasis on "Great program." I just wrote a book using FullWrite--it's a fantastic tool, better than anything I've ever seen (which does not include Word 4.0). However, I have a Mac II with 5MB. I've used FW on other people's 1MB Mac IIs and its okay, but I sure wouldn't recommend it to those with lesser Macs. FullWrite's neat features include wrapping to irregular objects, built-in drawing program, oh, heck--it has lots of neat features. In the course of writing this book, I got it to crash a couple of times (version 1.0-- version 1.1 is the current release), but it is generally very stable. From the comments on the net, only Word 4.0 approaches FullWrite in power--Word 4.0's big thing is managing tables like a spreadsheet. Yeah, but can Word place a 50% gray PICT under the text? Anyway, those are a few comments from a happy FullWrite user. /alastair/ Disclaimer: I work on PCs not Macs for Ashton-Tate, but you do have to factor in that I didn't pay for my copy of FullWrite. Anyway, my comments are personal and unofficial.
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (05/08/90)
In article <38158@brunix.UUCP> cs004049@cslab3a.cs.brown.edu (Tameem Ebrahim) wr
ites:
<I have a brand-new copy of Ashton-Tate's FullWrite Professional for sale.
<
<The package is still sealed in its shrink wrapper, contains all
<registration cards, and is in completely unused, virgin condition. It
<costs over $300 normally.
<I don't know if they still are, but MacConnection was selling version
<1.0 for $55 not long ago, and you get the upgrade to 1.1 (newest
<version?) for free. Does anyone know if this deal is still on, and
<why it was even on in the first place?
And I have a brand new copy from MacWarehouse for $49. Now, MacConnection
is selling all three AT products (FullWrite, Full Impact, and dBASE Mac)
for $99.
But also note that the newest MacWarehouse catalog includes some new prices,
like $50 more for PageMaker and 4th Dimension than other mail order houses.
Shirley Kehr