Info-Mac-Request@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (The Moderators) (12/20/90)
Info-Mac Digest Wed, 19 Dec 90 Volume 8 : Issue 211
Today's Topics:
A/UX
Compactor vs. StuffIt 1.6
data analysis wanted!!
Iraq attack
Macwrite text reader
MICROPHONE II capture buffer size
PC ---> Mac file transfer
PC --> Mac transfer
Princeton Font
Prodigy/PBX question
Selecting files w/in Finder
SPSS for Mac?
Stuffit 1.6 'disk related error' - SOLVED
Stuffit 1.6 / Stuffit Deluxe - Slower Than Stuffit 1.5.1
StuffIt 1.6 vs Compactor
Stuff Stuffit
Stuff StuffIt (Classic) 1.6
System 6.0.7
Thanks and more questions
wanted utilities
Your Info-Mac Moderators are Bill Lipa, Lance Nakata, and Jon Pugh.
The Info-Mac archives are available (by using FTP, account anonymous,
any password) in the info-mac directory on sumex-aim.stanford.edu
[36.44.0.6]. Help files are in /info-mac/help. Indices are in
/info-mac/help/recent-files.txt and /info-mac/help/all-files.txt.
Please send articles and binaries to info-mac@sumex-aim.stanford.edu.
Send administrative mail to info-mac-request@sumex-aim.stanford.edu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 90 18:39:16 GMT
From: hamilton@kickapoo.cs.iastate.edu (Jon Hamilton)
Subject: A/UX
Geoffrey Parsons <SGPARSON%WKYUVM.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu> writes:
> Jeeze, $950 bucks for an upgrade? The list out of MacUser was $600 for
>the CD version and $800 for the floppy/tape version. Does this include
>all of the manual updates too? That's just too damn expensive! I don't
>understand why Apple has to charge so much for A/UX.
The $950 included the cd-rom distribution, all of the manual updates (the
manuals have a ridiculously high retail price), the one month free
support junk, etc. It does sound like a lot of money, but it's worth every
cent. It's not version 1.1.1 with a few bug fixes, it's a MUCH enhanced
upgrade. They've done so many things right with 2.0 that I'd probably pay
twice what I did and not be too upset (hope they don't take me up on that!).
-jon
> Well maybe I can get it somehow through the educational purchase
>program.
>Geoff
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 00:54 EST
From: <BELSLEY%BCVMS.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> (DAVID A. BELSLEY)
Subject: Compactor vs. StuffIt 1.6
Given the occasional demur to my last message extolling the virtues of
Compactor over StuffIt 1.6, and having nothing better to do, I decided to
put aside casual empiricism in favor of a more systematic, scientific
endeavor.
Here, then, are the results comparing StuffIt 1.6 in both its "fast" and
"better" mode, versus Compactor for four files of varying type, size, and
composition.
StuffIt 1.6 Compactor
----------------------------- -------------
File original fast mode better mode
Description size time size time size time size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excel Appl
& help file 1,003K 1'50" 842K 2'40" 659K 0'45" 667K
ThinkC folder 2,442K 7'45" 1,293K 13'28" 1,020K 2'53" 986K
580 page Word
manuscript 1,616K 1'40" 801K 6'40" 679K 1'11" 652K
Communications
folder 500K 0'55" 359K 1'42" 289K 26" 292K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I grant that different people can give the same data different
interpretations. But as I read it, Compactor always does better than
StuffIt's best time and produces a file that is not significantly larger,
but can be significantly smaller, than StuffIt's smallest file. Furthermore,
the time advantage is typically a factor of two or better when comparing it
to StuffIt's best time and is closer to a factor of 6 when comparing it to
the time StuffIt takes to produce a comparably small archive. So I come to
the following summary:
StuffIt 1.6, fast mode moderate and ineffective
StuffIt 1.6, better mode pokey and effective
Compactor fast and effective
I have not taken the trouble to be so systematic in comparing the time
needed to unstuff an archive, but, reverting again to casual empiricism,
Compactor seems to have an edge here also of roughly a factor of two.
These timings were done on a IIfx. The relative times will, of course, be
similar on all machines, but the absolute advantage of Compactor will be
drastically more apparent on the slower machines.
Once again, I provide the disclaimer that I have no relation to either
Compactor or StuffIt other than that of a user trying to figure out where
best to put his registration fees.
david a. belsley
------------------------------
Date: SUN DEC 16, 1990 10.54.11 EST
From: "Phil Williams" <PMW0%LEHIGH.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
Subject: data analysis wanted!!
I'm looking for a software package to analyze my data. I have Igor now
but it is not as versitile, or I haven't figured it out yet, enough for
what I want to do.
Features that I want include: Abiltiy to write my own bseline fitting
routines. I've attempted to use the macros in Igor but there slow. I
also want to be able to use a gaussian smoothing routine. I can only
seem to get Igor to fit one line at a time.
Any help would be appreciated. I'm running on a Mac IIsi with
coprocessor. Thanks.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 17:25 EST
From: PMSC08AV%SEMASSU.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Subject: Iraq attack
- I'm really at Lotus, 15-DEC-1990
I have heard of a game called Iraq Attack and can't get my greedy
little hands on it. Does any of you folks out there have the game? And if
you do could you pleeeaaazzzee post it if it is not commercial. I'd love
to try this one out.
Alex "Zav" Zavatone
123 Mac - Lotus
- Zav B!-]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 11:16:25 EST
From: George <ST701640@brownvm.brown.edu>
Subject: Macwrite text reader
All,
Is there a MacWrite text reader out there which will read Mac Write files,
but also create other types of files. What I want is a program which will read
all text files, including those MacWrite files. It's plenty annoying to have
to go into MS Word and translate the MacWrite file into a Word file. If McSink
could translate it, or just read the file, that would be ideal.
Thanks ahead of time...
George Lai
ST701640@BROWNVM
------------------------------
Date: 14 DEC 90 16:15:45 CDT
From: Z4648252 <Z4648252%SFAUSTIN.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: MICROPHONE II capture buffer size
A few days back, I requested information on how to increase the size
of the capture buffer for Microphone II version 3.0. I had several letters
of help, including one from Leonard Rosenthal, one of the programmers.
In summary, the solution is to increase the application size of
MicroPhone II. Silly me, I knew that and I have no idea why I didn't
try it on my own.
So folks, please excuse my wall-bumpings. I'm emulating the Mac
Plus with the host computer being an Atari ST. On the Atari ST "side",
the terminal programs typically just check for the upper limit of
free memory and adjust the capture buffer accordingly and automatically.
When I switch to the "Mac side", some of my habits migrate over and in
this case, I was expecting MicroPhone II to do the same, adjust the
capture buffer's size automatically.
Apologies and I'll rethink before I ask next time... grin
Larry Rymal: |East Texas Atari 68NNNers| <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 01:28:42 EST
From: Murph Sewall <SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: PC ---> Mac file transfer
On Friday, 14 Dec 1990 11:02:26 EST you said:
>trying to transfer an ASCII text file (tab deliminated numbers) from a PC to a
>Mac. What I need to do is run simulations on MS-DOS machines and plot the
The simplest solution is Access PC and Vantage. Both are available
by mail order. I happen to have a MacConnection catalog (other vendors
may be just as good, I happen to have had good experience ordering from
MacConnection 1-800-800-2222) handy.
7557 Access PC 1.0 $82 (literally makes MS-DOS disk appear to be Mac disks)
4781 Vantage 1.5 $52 (a nice general purpose editor with nice features for
adding or deleting LF's, tabs, and other things).
You can "test drive" Vantage by downloading McSink 7.0 from the info-mac
archive (a $45 shareware version with fewer features). McSink alone may
be capable of cleaning up the files AFE transfers.
Access PC is an AMAZING product! Once you have it, you'll wonder how
you ever got along with MeSsy DOS disks without it.
/s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet]
or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP]
+ Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 13:40 CST
From: <MPARK%UTMEM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: PC --> Mac transfer
> I played around
> with Apple File Transfer, but it seemed to have problems with the tabs and
> CR/LF's.
Hmmm. You shouldn't have had too much problem. Tabs come across just fine
with AFT. Are you sure that your PC program is outputting tab characters
and not runs of spaces? Linefeeds are another matter:
Macs and PCs differ in their newline conventions and this is something that
you always have to pay attention to. DOS ascii files end lines with a
carriage return plus a linefeed--Macs only the former. Those linefeeds appear
as square boxes in most Mac editors, and I suppose that Cricket Graph might
not be happy dealing with them. Most mac programs, however, don't seem to
mind the linefeeds. Nonetheless, I routinely use Vantage, the desk accessory
editor, to strip linefeeds. In fact I select Vantage's Strip Control menu
item now to remove all possible non-printing characters, including linefeeds,
that might have come across in the transfer. McSink is in the info-mac
archives and is a share-ware brother to Vantage.
I use both Apple File Exchange and Tops to transfer files between mac and PC.
Tops is a network that operates over LocalTalk or Ethernet connections and
gives the allusion that one machine is a disk to the other. From the mac
side, you transfer files by clicking and dragging. Tops also has a file
copy utility, that has just as unappealing an interface as AFT, that
transfers files and also automatically strips, or adds, the lifefeeds
according to the direction of transfer.
Mel Park
University of Tennessee, Memphis
I have no affiliation with the Vantage people. They just live in my town.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 18:50:54 PST
From: Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca
Subject: Princeton Font
Does anyone have a copy of the Princeton font that works properly?
Mine does not find the downloadable Princ file (which is in my System
folder) and just prints as a bitmap. The downlaodable portion works
fine on its own with the LaserWriter Font Utility (ie. it downloads
and prints on the sample sheet).
I'm not sure where this font came from, so if it is commercial, please
let me know who sells it.
Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca
userlsf@ubcmtsg
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 00:20 CDT
From: JB6541A@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Prodigy/PBX question
Hi all:
We recently got access to Prodigy here in Des Moines, and I'm trying to
figure out how to connect through our PBX system. We're on a ROLM
system with a modem bank, so I need to call the modem bank before
dialing the Prodigy number. Prodigy's custom software doesn't seem to
allow for this, and so far I haven't been able to find anyone else on
campus with an interest in Prodigy.
I realize that Info-Mac may not be the appropriate list for this
posting, so if there is a better list, please let me know. Any and
all help will be appreciated.
John Bykowski
BITNET: JB6541A@DRAKE
INTERNET: JB6541A@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 11:19:34 EST
From: "Henry M. PIta" <HMPQC%CUNYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: Selecting files w/in Finder
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 01:09:50 est From: Alan D Danziger
> <aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> Subject: Retraction of : A 'new
> feature' in 6.0.7!
>
> (Well, I'm very embarrassed. This is what happens when you use
> someone else's machine without knowing what software is involved.)
>
> If you type in the finder you can select fileio > 'yt tsae
> sd .
>
> At leatuotn e
>
> Sorrybwx fh
>mda'k.
Not to worry, this is a feature in System 7.0
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 02:10:31 EST
From: Murph Sewall <SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: SPSS for Mac?
On Fri, 14 Dec 90 14:32:46 EST John Goldin said:
>I am interesting in hearing from anybody who has actual experience with
>SPSS for Mac.
I've owned SPSS Mac, Advanced Statistic, Tables, and Crickets for several
months (use it a LOT). I sent John a detailed reply. I suspect this
question is rather specialized. Rather than bore the majority of the
Digest's readers, I'll email a copy of my (75 lines) to John to anyone
who asks (between now and say, Jan 3).
/s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet]
or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP]
+ Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 02:14:09 EST
From: Murph Sewall <SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: Stuffit 1.6 'disk related error' - SOLVED
On Fri, 14 Dec 90 1:25:11 EST you said:
> Apparently the Aladdin Installer program is very intolerant of
>non-standard INITs, at least for some hardware/software configurations.
>...The INITs which had to be
>removed included some very respectable characters: Disinfectant, SuperClock,
>InitCDEV, etc.
I am glad you found a way to get the progam installed, but I didn't
experience any problem under MultiFinder with SuperClock, Disinfectant,
After Dark, Eyes, The Grouch, Finder Sounds, Access PC, and MANY, MANY
other things so numerous I can't remember them all installed.
I looked up error -39 today and it's an "end of file error" (premature
or missing EOF, I think). One difference that might have a bearing; because
I have SPSS installed I have maxfiles open set to 50 (my memory -- risk of
error here - is that the default is 20). Aladdin's installer DOES have a
bunch of files open while it's writing the application, help system, and
a bunch of other bits and pieces, maybe that has something to do with the
problem?
Aladdin has email boxes on AppleLink, America OnLine, Compu$erve, and
the Well. I've had good luck getting replies from them before. I sent
an inquiry about the -39 error a day or two ago. I'll pass along the
reply if I get one.
/s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet]
or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP]
+ Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 12:23:59 EST
From: jeffrey templon <templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Stuffit 1.6 / Stuffit Deluxe - Slower Than Stuffit 1.5.1
Hi All,
After posting the solution to my 1.6 installer error, I got some
mail from people suggesting that I was a bit off in my conclusion.
Apparently, the installer program has lots of files open at the same time,
and if you have this going along with multifinder (and lots of INITs?)
you may exceed the system limit on the max number of open files.
Some other people commented on my suggestion that the new version
was slower than the old. One fellow reported a test where Stuffit Deluxe
was four times _slower_ than Stuffit 1.5.1 at decompressing a fairly large
(~500 k) archive. I conducted my own test comparing Stuffit 1.5.1
and Stuffit 1.6, decompressing a 1.5.1-type archive that contained a large
(~460 k) application, a folder, and about 10 small support files (Teach
Text docs, etc.). The result with 1.5.1 was 100 seconds. The result
with 1.6 was 135 seconds. This shows a definite degradation in the new
program. What's going on, Aladdin? Programs should only get better.
Jeff Templon
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 03:26 PST
From: Robert Front <T121267%TWNCU865@ricevm1.rice.edu>
Subject: StuffIt 1.6 vs Compactor
On 13 Dec 90 13:37 EST, David A. Belsley writes:
> I thought I would test it [StuffIt 1.6] against Compactor, which, as
> shareware, has certainly quite properly insinuated itself into StuffIt's
> one-time monopolistic domain. In several jobs, large and small, I found
> Compactor to be faster and somewhat more effective in compacting. And we
> are not talking just a little bit faster; in some larger jobs it is more
> than three times faster! ...Compactor's three-times speed always produced
> a slightly smaller archive file. So just what are we talking here? The
> only significant facility that StuffIt 1.6 seems to offer over Compactor is
> the BinHex translators.
There's no doubt that Compactor is by far the more powerful compacting tool and
as such, probably should replace StuffIt (just as StuffIt replaced PackIt) as
the standard for uploading to the Mac-Info archives. Files are not only
smaller (which saves downloading time and phone charges $$) but take, in the
case of larger files, 50-70% less time than StuffIt to unpack.
If you have a lot of files already in StuffIt archives there is an application
called SitToCpt which quickly changes StuffIt files into Compactor files and
can be downloaded from the Mac-Info archives. What's nice about it is that
after you've converted your files you can see how much disk space youYve saved.
I have no affiliation with the author of Compactor.
The finest and most inventive small tools and resources for the Macintosh have
come out of shareware and it seems the best way to encourage and support the
continuation and growth of shareware products is by using them, and paying the
reasonable shareware fee. Shareware (and of course, Happyware) is perhaps the
most effective way to keep down the greed of commercial companies.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Robert E. Front
English Department
National Central University
Chung-Li Taiwan
BITNET : T121267@TWNCU865
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 16:07:46 -0500
From: tdh@po.cwru.edu (Thomas D. Halter)
Subject: Stuff Stuffit
>I, like many others, downloaded StuffIt (Classic) 1.6 -- twice. I did so
>twice because I found that the application (which installed quite nicely)
>did not produce the proper icon when it created a new archive. The new
>archives have only the generic "document" icon. Thinking this may be due
>to a faulty downloading, I tried again, but the same problem occurs. Has
>anyone any idea what's going on?
Stuffit Classic 1.6 has the same file creator type (SIT!) as previous versions
of Stuffit, but has some new document types (SIT2 for new archives, as well as
SIT! for old ones). If you already have the old Stuffit on your hard drive,
and who doesn't, the desktop file doesn't get updated for the additional
document types and their associated icons. The only way to fix this that I
know of is to rebuild your desktop. To do this, simply hold down the command
and option keys whenever the finder is launched. The best time to do this is
at startup, or whenever you quit an application if you are not running
MultiFinder.
--
----- _________ __ __ __
---/___ ___/__ \ / /__/ /
-----/ / / \ \/ __ /
-------/_/ /____/_/_/ /_/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 02:24:48 EST
From: Murph Sewall <SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: Stuff StuffIt (Classic) 1.6
On Thu, 13 Dec 90 13:37 EST you said:
>I, like many others, downloaded StuffIt (Classic) 1.6 -- twice. I did so
>twice because I found that the application (which installed quite nicely)
>did not produce the proper icon when it created a new archive. The new
Oh good! I was wondering if there was something amiss with my Mac.
Have you tried copying one of those archives to a floppy (Voila the
icon appears on the floppy!)? I don't know nearly enough about how
icons get assigned to documents, but that sure seems WEIRD to me -- AND
when the document is copied back to the HD (where StuffIT Classic
resides) the icon disappears again. OK wizards and gurus, what's going
on?
>archives have only the generic "document" icon. Thinking this may be due
>to a faulty downloading, I tried again, but the same problem occurs. Has
>anyone any idea what's going on?
>
>...I found Compactor to be faster and somewhat more effective
>in compacting. And we are not talking just a little bit faster...
My System file has become so bloated that's it's hard to copy to a 1.44
Mbyte floppy so I let StuffIT 1.6 and Compactor both take a crack at it.
I didn't time either one, but it took both programs awhile to complete
the job. Both archives came out nearly the same size (less than 2%
difference). The StuffIT archive happened to be the smaller one.
>...The only significant facility that StuffIt 1.6 seems to
>offer over Compactor is the BinHex translators.
I've noticed one other feature. LOTS of other utilties (FileList for
example) recognize StuffIT archives and will "look" inside them. If
Compactor grows to similar popularity, maybe it's archives will be
accorded the same treatment, but for now they are "opaque."
>commercialization of a product is driving it right off the market. For
According to the letter I received from Aladdin, StuffIT Classic REMAINS
a shareware product (I could not have posted it otherwise). What puzzles
me is, now that version 1.6 creates Deluxe archives and self-extracting
archives, what's the advantage of StuffIT Deluxe (which costs somewhat
more)?
>those of you who, in past messages, are raving about StuffIt 1.6, give
>Compactor a try, and save yourself a bit of time and effort. And if you
>are going to spend the money to register, consider doing it for Compactor
>instead.
I've registered for BOTH (I liked Compactor's speed and 'sea' feature).
There's so much already in the archives in StuffIT (not self extracting)
format, that it's difficult to justify not registering for StuffIT.
I sent a check in for BinHQX too, StuffIT's BinHex encode/decode can't
touch the DA for speed.
/s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet]
or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP]
+ Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 21:37:48 EST
From: Murph Sewall <SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: System 6.0.7
On Thu, 13 Dec 90 10:14:05 EST you said:
> Is there any place I can get System 6.0.7? I'm running on a Mac SE/30,
>and currently on System 6.0.4. SHould I even bother upgrading the system? I
>have heard some bad things about System 6.0.7 (e.g., system bombs), and I was
>wondering if these things were true. Like, is System 6.0.7 especially
>designed for the higher Macs (Mac II's)?
You can get the disks from your local user group (assuming they've elected
to pay Apple's modest license fee for authorization to redistribute the
updates).
If you have LOTS of time an patience, you can ftp it from Apple.Com
Dealers are authorized (but NOT required) to let you copy the disks on-site.
If you'd like to avoid having Finder Sounds keep The Grouch from singing his
song or Sound Manager's idle talk from crashing (literally) into an After
Dark module with sound effects, install 6.0.7 I have several colleagues
running 6.0.7 (under Finder not MultiFinder) on their SE/30 without noticeable
bombing. It's NOT JUST for Mac II's (ships with the Classic :-)
On my Mac IIci it's no worse (actually it *should* be better) than 6.0.5.
These System updates presumably fix more bugs than they introduce :-)
I have seen a demo of System 7.0. It adds LOTS of new conveniences and
capabilities, but it SHOULDN'T have the kinds of "growing pains" that
6.0 did. Practically anything that will run on a IIci (which already uses
some memory management) should run under System 7.0.
The distinction between Apps and DA's vanishes for all intents and purposes.
You'll no longer need Suitcase, Juggler, and the like (you won't need DA/Font
Mover either). You really CAN run more than one application in *ahem* ONLY
2 Mbytes of memory (with more difficulty on the 68000 Macs than the 68030
ones).
Recent rumors are that the beta version of System 7.0 is proving so stable
that it may well be introduced at January MacWorld (as once-upon-a-time
scheduled) after all (hurray! :-)
/s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet]
or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP]
+ Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 02:41:31 EST
From: Murph Sewall <SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: Thanks and more questions
On Fri, 14 Dec 90 08:21:16 EST you said:
>1) Our macs currently have Disinfectant 2.1 installed. Is this adequate, and
>if not what would anyone recommend as an alternative?
Download version 2.4 (posted to the archive on 12/4/90) as 2.1 doesn't
protect you against several potential infections that 2.4 recognizes.
As far as I know, Disinfectant is as adequate (nothing is foolproof) as
the more expensive alternatives. A number of products recommend you
remove protection inits whil installing, but Disinfectant's init does
not seem to have caused any difficulty when I've chosen to ignore directions
and installed with it active. I've seen (first hand on a colleague's Mac)
Disinfectant detect a virus when I floppy was mounted (Disinfectant
succeeded in removing it without apparent damage to the disk or the real
files too). For the latest version of Disinfectant as soon as it becomes
available, follow the info-mac digest :-)
>with the issue, as i suspect many of you are, of potentially having to develop
>some systems to perform on both the Mac and PC platforms. It appears that
>Omnis 5 has this kind of capability, but.....
You may be just a tad ahead of your time. As Windows becomes the dominant
PC environment, I think you'll see LOTS more cross-porting of software
(both Windows software to the Mac and vice-versa). Microsoft's Word for
the Mac is already nearly seamless with the Windows 3.0 version and Lotus
is making noises about trying to stem the losses to Excel by introducing
both Windows and Mac versions. So far, relational database compatibility
between MeSsy DOS and Mac applications has lagged, but that probably will
change.
/s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet]
or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP]
+ Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 18:10 EST
From: "if it is down, it is not up" <KIP@albion.bitnet>
Subject: wanted utilities
Merry Christmas Netters,
I was just doing a little bit of Christmas shopping and started looking at all
of the great PD and shareware programs in the Archives. I then started
looking at an "encyclopedia" of PD and Shareware programs (mainly because this
had brief descriptions) and found that many of the titles that they offerd
did not exist in the archives.I have included ones that I was interested in
below. If these files do exist then they must fall under different
titles. In this posting I have only included those that were in the utilities
part of the catalog. I understand that the archives are getting full so if
these are programs that you don't feel are useful to other people please send
them directly to me. Otherwise it would be nice if they could be posted so
that everyone could have access to them. If you do post directly please let me
know as I do not get a chance to read mac digest that often.
Erase Fix Data
Laser reset (this is a report) Backgrounding (also a report)
Mighty Finder DeRSRC
Purge Icons Macify
MCS Immortality
sysalerts Fontsie
Lunar Crack Renumber Disks
Clarity DA The Ripper (FKEY)
Flash Formatter (FKEY) Laser Key (FKEY)
HalEdit Overwood
OpenFont Arc Set
Teller Phone Imposter
Max Files
Thanks in Advance,
Kip@Albion.bitnet
------------------------------
End of Info-Mac Digest
******************************