moore@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Doug Moore) (08/20/88)
I just received S.U.M. from Symantec. I ran DeskCheck right after installing S.U.M. and found that S.U.M. was shipped with a couple of defective bundles. Namely, Shield INIT's bundle refers to a nonexistent icn# and Disk Clinic's bundle refers to two nonexistent icn#'s. The associated file types are GLON, RTST, and RTLE. This sort of thing does not reassure me about their quality control. Anybody know what these file types are for, or whether they can be deleted from the BNDL and FREF's of the respective programs? Doug Moore (moore@svax.cs.cornell.edu)
dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) (08/20/88)
In article <20369@cornell.UUCP> moore@cs.cornell.edu (Doug Moore) writes: > > I just received S.U.M. from Symantec. I ran DeskCheck right after installing > S.U.M. and found that S.U.M. was shipped with a couple of defective bundles. > Namely, Shield INIT's bundle refers to a nonexistent icn# and Disk Clinic's > bundle refers to two nonexistent icn#'s. The associated file types are > GLON, RTST, and RTLE. This sort of thing does not reassure me about their > quality control. Anybody know what these file types are for, or whether > they can be deleted from the BNDL and FREF's of the respective programs? Hmmm. I have another tidbit of information that suggests that Symantec isn't being as careful as they might. I've just opened Get Info boxes on the two replacement INITs (HD Partition and Shield) that came across comp.binaries.mac earlier this week; these are supposed to be the ones that fix the (serious) bugs reported on the net last month. HD Partition: created Jul 5 1988 10:31 PM modified Jul 5 1988 10:54 PM Version: HDPI VERSION 1.0 -- May 15, 1988. Sheld: created Jul 5 1988 10:52 PM modified Jul 19 1988 8:26 AM Version: GLON VERSION 1.0 -- Dec 15, 1987. From the creation and modification dates, I assume that these are in fact newer versions than the ones shipped in the S.U.M. package. However, it doesn't make me feel all that good to see that Symantec didn't bother to update the Version information (from the signature resource in the INIT file) to reflect the actual status of the software. It would have been so easy to change the version number to 1.1, or 1.0.1, and to change the text of the creation date. Sigh... one more little detail that didn't get attended to. DeskCheck still complains about Shield, too... ICN# -8066 is still missing. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303 UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@sun.com, ...@uunet.uu.net
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (08/20/88)
In article <8143@coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: >Hmmm. I have another tidbit of information that suggests that Symantec >isn't being as careful as they might. I've just opened Get Info boxes on >the two replacement INITs (HD Partition and Shield) that came across >comp.binaries.mac earlier this week; these are supposed to be the ones >that fix the (serious) bugs reported on the net last month. > >HD Partition: created Jul 5 1988 10:31 PM > modified Jul 5 1988 10:54 PM > Version: HDPI VERSION 1.0 -- May 15, 1988. > >Sheld: created Jul 5 1988 10:52 PM > modified Jul 19 1988 8:26 AM > Version: GLON VERSION 1.0 -- Dec 15, 1987. > >From the creation and modification dates, I assume that these are in fact >newer versions than the ones shipped in the S.U.M. package. However, it >doesn't make me feel all that good to see that Symantec didn't bother to >update the Version information (from the signature resource in the INIT >file) to reflect the actual status of the software. It would have been >so easy to change the version number to 1.1, or 1.0.1, and to change the >text of the creation date. DON'T CHANGE THEM! There's a good (bad?) reason why they didn't change them. I went in and changed them to 1.01. Guess what happened? Shield options no longer recognized it as a Shield file. I don't know HOW shield options checks for a valid Shield INIT, but it sure doesn't seem like the right way! *sigh* I must agree though...seems really silly (sort of like Word Perfect Mac) to have different version with the same version number. Whereas the user interface has been cleaned up ENORMOUSLY from MacZap (which stunk as far as user interfaces go) to SUM, it seems it's still lacking that professional crispness of things being the way they should. Well, guess we just have to hope for a complete update soon. Ken Ken Hancock '90 | BITNET/UUCP/ Personal Computing Ctr Consultant | INTERNET: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER? I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.
markw@kinetics.UUCP (Mark Wittenberg) (08/22/88)
In article <8143@coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: >Hmmm. I have another tidbit of information that suggests that Symantec >isn't being as careful as they might. I've just opened Get Info boxes on >the two replacement INITs (HD Partition and Shield) that came across >comp.binaries.mac earlier this week; these are supposed to be the ones >that fix the (serious) bugs reported on the net last month. OK, I got the replacement INITs, but never saw the report of what the serious bugs are that are being fixed. I'd like to know before I install the replacements; anyone care to re-issue the bug report? Thanks. Mark Wittenberg Kinetics, Inc. 2500 Camino Diablo Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (415) 945-3645 UUCP: ucbvax!mtxinu!kinetics!markw
ted@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ted Jardine) (08/24/88)
In article <9875@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: > In article <8143@coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: > ... > >From the creation and modification dates, I assume that these are in fact > >newer versions than the ones shipped in the S.U.M. package. However, it > >doesn't make me feel all that good to see that Symantec didn't bother to > >update the Version information (from the signature resource in the INIT > >file) to reflect the actual status of the software. ... > > DON'T CHANGE THEM! There's a good (bad?) reason why they didn't change > them. I went in and changed them to 1.01. Guess what happened? > Shield options no longer recognized it as a Shield file. I don't > know HOW shield options checks for a valid Shield INIT, but it sure > doesn't seem like the right way! ... > > Ken Hancock '90 | BITNET/UUCP/ > Personal Computing Ctr Consultant | INTERNET: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu Hmmm! Have had Symantec's utility package on my Mac II for a few weeks now. Everything was going just fine. Then I read someone's article about being able to determine the order in which INITs were loaded at boot time by changing their names. So, I figured out what order I wanted and prefixed the name of each INIT in my system file with 'Amm ' (where mm is a two digit number). Fortunately I have been playing with computers since the days of the IBM 704, and I don't trust any of them, so I did a restart. And what to my wondering eyes did appear, but at the time that Shield was about to display its icon, I get a Bomb message instead! At first I thought that the desktop needed rebuilding (per Disk Clinic diagnostic suggestions). Got things to work only after suppressing all INITs. File system was intact, so I reversed my most recent change (INITs back to original names) and now things are fine. Whew! Hope this sad tale of woe helps someone else avoid the same trap. No flames to Symantec (as long as they get me my copy of MacSQZ that works with MultiFinder and the Mac II). -- TJ {With Amazing Grace} The Piper aka Ted Jardine CFI-ASME/I Usenet: ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ted Internet: ted@boeing.com