amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (03/19/89)
I have this mental image of Chris Espinosa sitting around with a bunch of people at Apple and saying, "OK, what we need is a program that does something useful but is old enough that the authors weren't trying to second-guess the ROMs yet." And you know, there's a moral to that story... -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170 -- C combines the flexibility of assembler with the power of assembler.
andyp@gvgpvd.GVG.TEK.COM (Andy Peterman) (02/27/90)
In article <5562@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F Vita) writes: > >Indeed. At the Macworld Expo in Boston last August, Randy Battat from >Apple performed a neat little stunt that really drove this point home. >He had a Mac IIcx running System 6.0.3, and stuck in a 400K floppy >containing a vintage (circa 1984) copy of Microsoft Multiplan. He did >a Get Info to show that the creation date was sometime in early 1984. >Then he double-clicked on it, and... IT RAN. I was impressed. > ..... >Perhaps most surprising of all was that the program was a Microsoft >application :-). (Though I suppose Multiplan was written back in the >days when Microsoft was really doing Mac development, as opposed to >now, when all their code is bastardized so it will run under Windows, >OS/2, and other such bogosities...) Something that never ceases to amaze me is that I still use an OLD version of Microsoft File (created Jan. 4, 1985) for some old inventory databases. Not only does it work perfectly on my current system (a IIcx with System 6.0.3 and all sorts of INITs and cdev's) but it uses the full 13" screen size flawlessly! Sounds like Microsoft followed the rules, even those that didn't exist back then. I think I still have my original copy of Multiplan around somewhere. I guess it must still be worth something. :-) Andy Peterman
davidl@leonardo.intel.com (David D. Levine) (02/28/90)
In article <1508@gvgpvd.GVG.TEK.COM>, andyp@gvgpvd.GVG.TEK.COM (Andy Peterman) writes: > Something that never ceases to amaze me is that I still use an OLD > version of Microsoft File (created Jan. 4, 1985) for some old inventory > databases. Not only does it work perfectly on my current system (a IIcx > with System 6.0.3 and all sorts of INITs and cdev's) but it uses the > full 13" screen size flawlessly! Sounds like Microsoft followed the > rules, even those that didn't exist back then. You must not have very many fonts. I still use MS-File for some old databases, and when I went to make a LaserWriter printout of one and tried to change the fonts to laser fonts, I discovered that the font list (a scrolling list in a dialog box) consisted of some small number of real fonts and a lot of BLANK entries! The real fonts were apparently randomly chosen (probably the ones with the lowest IDs). I managed to find (blank) Times and (blank) Helvetica by click-and-hope, but it was a real pain. Don't you know by now that Microsoft NEVER follows the rules? - David D. Levine, Intel IMSO Tech Pubs davidl@leonardo.intel.com "Fo'tunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered, for just such an emergency."
ml10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael A. Libes) (03/14/90)
Bob Ebert writes: > I have limited good results, but often hang when trying to attach > a file. It's amusing to read the 'inits have compatibility problems' > statement when the proposed 'compatible' application isn't. Not even > With itself. This is too bad, because I think _Launch is a great > concept... now if only it would work! After all the problems of _Launch crashing on Pluses, IIci's, and occationally on IIcx's, I understand why few people write Macintosh software. To insure compatibility with all Macs, I need one of every type of Mac and every version of System software Apple has ever produced. What happened to the great Macintosh ideal of compatibility across machines. I follow all the guidelines when I write my software, but all that insures me is that it'll hopefully run on MY OWN machine when System x+1 is released. To all those people who crashed their Macs running _Launch: I guarantee that it'll run on a Mac IIx w/ 2meg, and no useful INITs. That's my setup. - Lunarmobiscuit
dudek@ai.toronto.edu (Gregory Dudek) (03/17/90)
In article <0ZzPOY_00WBMI3GY92@andrew.cmu.edu> ml10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael A. Libes) writes: >Bob Ebert writes: >> I have limited good results, but often hang when trying to attach >> a file. It's amusing to read the 'inits have compatibility problems' >> statement when the proposed 'compatible' application isn't. Not even >> With itself. This is too bad, because I think _Launch is a great >> concept... now if only it would work! > >After all the problems of _Launch crashing on Pluses, IIci's, and >occationally on IIcx's, I understand why few people write Macintosh >software. > >To insure compatibility with all Macs, I need one of every type of Mac > ..... The problem with Launch appears to be with faulty code, not compatibility across all Macs. It's true that testing a program on several models can help catch bugs, but this is clearly not a prerequisite for functional code. The assertion that "few people write MacIntosh software" seems like a pretty arrogant one to me (aside from being highly contentious).