blm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (07/17/89)
In article <2801@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au> rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen) writes: |One for whoever maintains ResEdit. While we're talking about ResEdit, I have a question for everybody. How many think ResEdit should just use SF{PutFile, GetFile} like everybody else? I do, and here's why: 1. About the only time I want to see all of the files available are when I'm going to actually work with one, and then SFGetFile shows them to me. If I need to see a list of all files, I can use DiskTop (or any of the other DAs of the same type), which shows me more information, and lets me do more with the files than ResEdit anyways. And in the worst case, I can always do an open, look at the list of files, and then cancel the open. 2. With a number of volumes, a lot of real-estate is taken by windows, which then must be activated/deactivated and updated whenever they are uncovered or covered. This wastes a lot of space and time to show me information I don't even want. This is particularly annoying when flipping back and forth between ResEdit and another application under MultiFinder. 3. SFVolInit, SFScrollInit, Boomerang and other INITs that make additions to the Standard File dialogs can't be used in ResEdit. This means that ResEdit's windows actually make it more difficult to find something, because I have to open all of the folders from the volume down to the one I actually want (each taking more space and time), and then look for the file I want, instead of just selecting it from Boomerang's menu. Any comments? -- Brian L. Matthews Six Sigma CASE, Inc. +1 206 854 6578 blm@6sigma.UUCP
jackiw@cs.swarthmore.edu (Nick Jackiw) (07/21/89)
In article <239@6sigma.UUCP> blm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: > While we're talking about ResEdit, I have a question for everybody. How > many think ResEdit should just use SF{PutFile, GetFile} like everybody > else? > I do, and here's why: [Many good reasons deleted] > Brian L. Matthews Six Sigma CASE, Inc. Right on! I'm usually connected to my campus' several massive Vax file servers by AlisaShare. Run ResEdit and even on my SE/30 it takes a good 20 seconds (_after_ having loaded) to scan all those remote, read-only volumes and give me their unwanted contents. On the other hand, it's nice to have a bit of diversity... -- _ _|\____ Nick Jackiw | Visual Geometry Project | Math Department / /_/ O> \ ------------+-------------------------+ Swarthmore College | O> | 215-328-8225| jackiw@cs.swarthmore.edu| Swarthmore PA 19081 \_Guernica_/ ------------+-------------------------+ USA
enk@noddy (Edan Kabatchnik) (07/21/89)
>While we're talking about ResEdit, I have a question for everybody. How >many think ResEdit should just use SF{PutFile, GetFile} like everybody >else? I agree that it should; however, I have a bunch of friends who like ResEdit the way it currently stands. If there is going to be a new version addressing this problem, it should probably give the user the option to either use SF{PutFile, GetFile} or the current file selection interface. (If you are going to do the work to make some people happy, might as well do a little more work and make everybody happy.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOMAIN: enk@sj.ate.slb.com, enk@wheaties.ai.mit.edu INTERNET: sj.ate.slb.com!enk@slcs.slb.com, enk%sj@slcs.slb.com UUCP: {amdahl,decwrl,uunet}!sjsca4!enk PHONE: (408) 437-5178 USMAIL: Edan Kabatchnik c/o Schlumberger Technologies 1601 Technology Drive San Jose, CA 95110
tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) (11/15/89)
It was a dark and stormy night... and I was ftping all over the place and I found a copy of ResEdit which purported to be version 1.3d1. So, I in the depths of my naivety downloaded it and put it together. A friend of mine had just returned from a visit with Apple Sunday, and he says that Apple knows nothing of a version 1.3d1 ResEdit. I, of course, was horrified and rushed home to see if my computer was covered with some disgusting fungus. Digging through the resourses I found that the RSED resourse contained a note to the effect that it was version 1.2d4, though the about box and the vers resource all claimed to be 1.3d1. The creation date, however, was after the modification date! Imagine that! So how about it guys. Is this ResEdit a Trojan horse or what? I've swept it with Disinfectant 1.2 with no results. I would be grateful for any information or advice. Terry Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (11/15/89)
In article <1989Nov14.204614.18246@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu.UUCP (Terrell Drinkard) writes: >It was a dark and stormy night... and I was ftping all over the >place and I found a copy of ResEdit which purported to be version >1.3d1. ... >A friend of mine had just returned from a visit with Apple Sunday, >and he says that Apple knows nothing of a version 1.3d1 ResEdit. ... >So how about it guys. Is this ResEdit a Trojan horse or what? >I've swept it with Disinfectant 1.2 with no results. This thing appeared on a number of ftp sites a few months ago, and then abruptly disappeared a few days later. Afterwards, there was a message here from MacDTS to the effect that the program had been released by mistake, and would you please delete all copies in your possession please? This is a real copy of ResEdit, but you are not supposed to have it. Version 1.2 of ResEdit is the current release version, to my knowledge. Earle R. Horton
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (11/15/89)
In article <16925@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >In article <1989Nov14.204614.18246@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> > tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu.UUCP (Terrell Drinkard) writes: >>It was a dark and stormy night... and I was ftping all over the >>place and I found a copy of ResEdit which purported to be version >>1.3d1. >... >>A friend of mine had just returned from a visit with Apple Sunday, >>and he says that Apple knows nothing of a version 1.3d1 ResEdit. >... >>So how about it guys. Is this ResEdit a Trojan horse or what? >>I've swept it with Disinfectant 1.2 with no results. > >This thing appeared on a number of ftp sites a few months ago, and >then abruptly disappeared a few days later. Afterwards, there was a >message here from MacDTS to the effect that the program had been >released by mistake, and would you please delete all copies in your >possession please? > >This is a real copy of ResEdit, but you are not supposed to have it. >Version 1.2 of ResEdit is the current release version, to my knowledge. I wouldn't want to put it those terms, Earle. Propogates the Thought Police fears...I hate that, because I'd like people to like Apple, and I do everything in my power to promote that. I was one of the people who posted about the genesis of ResEdit 1.3d1. At the time, what I wanted to get across was that given 1.3d1 and 1.2, you should WANT to use 1.2. 1.3d1 came about when someone took a version of 1.2d4, and slapped in a public domain (I think) fancy menu editor. They then renumbered it to 1.3d1 and passed it around. The differences between 1.2 final and 1.3d1, therefore, are a) 1.2 doesn't have the fancy menu editor, and b) 1.2 doesn't have all the bugs that 1.3d1 does. No one that I know has reported any problems with crashed disks or corrupted files when using 1.3d1, but if you're as cautious as I am with your data (and you should be given the Mac's propensity to crash all the time), you'll stick with 1.2. I know that I do. But then, I use Rez to define my menus anyway... I hope that this clears things up, once and for all. (By the way, I think that I've heard references to a 1.3d2. My guess would be that this is a version of 1.2 final with the fancy menu editor in it, but I don't know for sure. What I DO know is that it is not an Apple release). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (11/16/89)
In article <36499@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: [about the theoretically existent ResEdit 1.3d1] >The differences between 1.2 final and 1.3d1, therefore, are a) 1.2 >doesn't have the fancy menu editor, and b) 1.2 doesn't have all the >bugs that 1.3d1 does. >No one that I know has reported any problems with crashed disks or corrupted >files when using 1.3d1, but if you're as cautious as I am with your data (and >you should be given the Mac's propensity to crash all the time), you'll stick >with 1.2. I know that I do. But then, I use Rez to define my menus anyway... Hypothetically speaking, I have had trouble with ResEdit 1.3d1. Like MDEF proc IDs not getting set correctly in the fancy menu picker, and the curious ability to paste multiple copies of a resource with identical names, types and ids into a resource file (i.e. I sometimes can get 5 INIT 1234's in one file). Weird. Seems like this multiple copy property of ResEdit 1.3d1 could concievably cause file corruption, but it hasn't yet. Hypothetically, of course. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)