phil@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Phil Sohn) (07/31/88)
In article <429@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: >The other thing about the new version is that the manual seems very good. You obviously have not tried to use the index. The numbers are often off by a page, and several of the important entries are not even in the table of contents. Try looking up what changes you need to make to compile 68881 code. Or what is the name of the file that should contain all your resources. (I constantly for get if it is .rsrc or .rcrs) phil@ems.media.mit.edu
shane@chianti.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker) (08/01/88)
In article <2863@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> phil@media-lab.media.mit.edu.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Phil Sohn) writes: > You obviously have not tried to use the index. The numbers >are often off by a page, and several of the important entries are not >even in the table of contents. Try looking up what changes you need > phil@ems.media.mit.edu You obviously have never tried to use a Microsoft Manual. Their index numbers are often not even in the right galaxy. Shane Looker Looker@um.cc.umich.edu
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (08/01/88)
In article <2863@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, phil@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Phil Sohn) writes: > In article <429@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: > >The other thing about the new version is that the manual seems very good. > > You obviously have not tried to use the index. > phil@ems.media.mit.edu I read the manual all the way through once. I liked its attitude. I doubt if I'll ever spend much time with it again. I know I very rarely need to reference the old manual. But I'm sure a poor index can be annoying. /alastair/