scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine) (05/12/91)
In article <12659@sybase.sybase.com> eallen@mercury.UUCP (Ed Allen) writes: >the use of paint tools, and while we have been installing custom fonts in stacks >for awhile, Apple DTS says this is a no-no and will break in System 7 and could >cause potential problems with font number conflicts even without Sys 7. Other Hah! This kills me! I just got an _Apple_ stack called Intro to System 7, and it has A FONT IN THE STACK!!! They can't even resist doing it themselves. Doesn't that tell them something? Sheeesh! :-) -- scasterg@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu Stuart M Castergine "Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive." -- Bugs Bunny
weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) (05/12/91)
In article <1991May11.214029.8405@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine) writes: >>for awhile, Apple DTS says this is a no-no and will break in System 7 and could >>cause potential problems with font number conflicts even without Sys 7. Other > >Hah! This kills me! I just got an _Apple_ stack called Intro to System >7, and it has A FONT IN THE STACK!!! > >They can't even resist doing it themselves. Doesn't that tell them >something? See, the only rule Apple obeys is this: All Apple rules apply to everyone else BUT Apple. This HAS to be true. Why else is it that whenever a new Mac comes out, a new version of System software comes out, too? If they were following their own rules, the System software, like everything else should be compatible with all future versions. And what about the ROMs? In every 68030 machine, the ROMs were supposed to be 32-bit clean. But were they? No. So now, the machines that Apple has touted as being ablt to address memory as a 32-bit clean machine would won't. (sounds a bit difficult, but you know what I mean). I would like to see, once and for all, Apple obey the rules that THEY THEMSELVES started. I don't mind additions (like pop-up menus, and the like), because they are supersets to the original rules. I hate it when they completely and unabashedly violate the rules TO THE LETTER (do exactly what the rules say DON'T DO). Sorry. Enough flaming of Apple. (turning off acetylene tank) -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael Weiss weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering and - - izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | Applied Science, UCLA - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) (05/18/91)
Michael Weiss writes in a message to All MW> See, the only rule Apple obeys is this: All Apple rules apply MW> to everyone else BUT Apple. This HAS to be true. Why else is MW> it that whenever a new Mac comes out, a new version of System MW> software comes out, too? If they were following their own rules, MW> the System software, like everything else should be compatible MW> with all future versions. And what about the ROMs? In every 68030 MW> machine, the ROMs were supposed to be 32-bit clean. But were MW> they? No. So now, the machines that Apple has touted as being MW> ablt to address memory as a 32-bit clean machine would won't. MW> (sounds a bit difficult, but you know what I mean). I would like MW> to see, once and for all, Apple obey the rules that THEY THEMSELVES MW> started. I don't mind additions (like pop-up menus, and the like), MW> because they are supersets to the original rules. I hate it when MW> they completely and unabashedly violate the rules TO THE LETTER MW> (do exactly what the rules say DON'T DO). MW> Sorry. Enough flaming of Apple. (turning off acetylene tank) As far as Apple following its own rules, the only thing Apple has to do is guarantee that if someone follows the rules, Apple won't gratuitously break their code, a promise that for the most part Apple has kept. The System and ROM code implement the rules so they can't, in themselves, obey the rules. * Origin: White Mailer Test Point (1.0d6) (1:282/22.510)