chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/09/89)
This is a truly obscure kudos to Symantec on Think C 4.0, but it's something
I noticed when I started reading the new documentation and it's an
indication of how much detail is going into the product.
The Think C documentation in 4.0 uses the new Ottabind binding technology.
So what? I hear you ask?
Ottabind is a relatively new way of binding trade paperbacks. It is somewhat
more expensive than the traditional perfect binding technique normally used,
and it reduces the number of volumes than can be bound per hour.
The *advantage* of Ottabind is that you can finally take a paperback and lay
it flat without using paperweights or breaking the spine of the book. Try
it: open the Think C book on the table. It lays flat (take a look at the way
the cover is bound onto the back spine of the book and compare it to other
computer manuals, you'll see what I mean).
Symantec spent a little more money where it didn't have to. The number of
people who will notice a little feature like are minimal. They could have
used a traditional binding like everyone else and nobody would have
complained.
They didn't. This is one more indication of what the company really thinks
of its customers -- it's willing to do things for you that you'll never even
notice, even though it costs them a few bucks (and it won't hype it,
either).
This is the sort of "do it for the customer" detail-work deserves some
notice. Good job, Symantec!
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> AppleLink: CHUQ
[This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]
Perhaps I should say Dr. *Von* Rospach, Dr. Rospach? (Gasp)keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (09/09/89)
In article <34593@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >This is a truly obscure kudos to Symantec on Think C 4.0, but it's something >I noticed when I started reading the new documentation and it's an >indication of how much detail is going into the product. > >The Think C documentation in 4.0 uses the new Ottabind binding technology. > >So what? I hear you ask? > >Ottabind is a relatively new way of binding trade paperbacks. It is somewhat >more expensive than the traditional perfect binding technique normally used, >and it reduces the number of volumes than can be bound per hour. > >The *advantage* of Ottabind is that you can finally take a paperback and lay >it flat without using paperweights or breaking the spine of the book. Try >it: open the Think C book on the table. It lays flat (take a look at the way >the cover is bound onto the back spine of the book and compare it to other >computer manuals, you'll see what I mean). Unfortunately, I have the opposite feelings about this, Chuq. First of all, I think that they used the same technique on their 3.0 manuals. It looks that way to me. But also, the binding tends to fall apart on me. The cover becomes separated from the rest of the book, and it looks like it's all torn apart. I agree that it's nice that they took the time and care to do this nice binding. But I'm just wondering what shape my manuals would be in if I had the luxury of using Think C more often than I do right now (I'm in the unenviable postion of supporting MPW and MacApp in DTS, and spend most of my time in that). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (09/09/89)
In article <34593@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >This is a truly obscure kudos to Symantec on Think C 4.0, but it's something >I noticed when I started reading the new documentation and it's an >indication of how much detail is going into the product. > >The Think C documentation in 4.0 uses the new Ottabind binding technology. >... So did 3.0, and so did LSP 2.0. >Symantec spent a little more money where it didn't have to. The number of >people who will notice a little feature like are minimal. They could have >used a traditional binding like everyone else and nobody would have >complained. Well, true, I wouldn't have complained, but I sure DID notice, and I have always thought it was nifty. I think it is superior to almost any alternative, e.g., normal binding, spiral binding, etc., with the possible exception of 3-ring binding (which is somewhat harder to package). I really, truly appreciate this feature. I may complain from time to time about "features" of various Symantec products, but I have never found any other software company (with the exception of Digital) that responded, in any way, to the concerns of individual users. I only complain because I think it will do some good. Count me a very satisfied customer. Have you, Chuq, noticed the 60-day warranty (on the software!) in the license agreement? A very rare thing indeed, nowadays. v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (09/09/89)
> Have you noticed the 60-day warranty (on the software!) in the > license agreement? A very rare thing indeed, nowadays. hmmm, one would expect that they extend a free upgrade to all those people who bought LSC-3.0 up to 60 days before the announcement of 4.0 ... :-) -- -----------> PREFERED RETURN-ADDRESS FOLLOWS <-------------- (ARPA) werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet: 128.83.144.1) (UUCP) ..!utastro!werner or ..!uunet!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!werner
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (09/10/89)
In article <34593@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >This is a truly obscure kudos to Symantec on Think C 4.0... >The Think C documentation in 4.0 uses the new Ottabind binding technology. In article <34598@apple.Apple.COM>, keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > Unfortunately, I have the opposite feelings about this, Chuq... > ...the binding tends to fall apart on me. The cover becomes > separated from the rest of the book, and it looks like it's all torn apart. What Chuq said. I think it's excellent behavior on Symantec's part. Keith, you sound too busy to be very appreciative :-). I've never had a Symantec manual fall apart on me, and I'd rather have a book that lays flat and then has to be punched and 3-hole-bound than a perfect-bound manual that doesn't lay flat (and I'm fed up with spiral binding, too). Way to go, Symantec--of course, it helps that THINK C 4.0 is so good as software, too. /alastair/
pnm@goanna.oz (Paul Big-Ears Menon) (09/10/89)
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >In article <34593@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Ottabind is a relatively new way of binding trade paperbacks. It is somewhat >>more expensive than the traditional perfect binding technique normally used, >>and it reduces the number of volumes than can be bound per hour. >> >>The *advantage* of Ottabind is that you can finally take a paperback and lay >>it flat without using paperweights or breaking the spine of the book. Try >>it: open the Think C book on the table. It lays flat (take a look at the way >>the cover is bound onto the back spine of the book and compare it to other >>computer manuals, you'll see what I mean). >Unfortunately, I have the opposite feelings about this, Chuq. First of all, I >think that they used the same technique on their 3.0 manuals. It looks that >way to me. But also, the binding tends to fall apart on me. The cover becomes >separated from the rest of the book, and it looks like it's all torn apart. Err, yup! I haven't said anything about this on the net before (I thought my manual was a one off case), but now must speak. I flick through this manual on a daily basis - admittedly it sees a lot of action. But I have never seen another book/manual/magazine fall apart as easily as the Think C user's manual in my life. This is no exaggeration. No I have not abused the thing, and the only photocopying I have done is a blowup of the Think C class library hierarchy diagram on page 197 [I freely admit this, I have it stuck on a wall in front of my desk. Apologies to Symantec for not getting permission, but this as well as the diagrams on the next couple of pages were the most frequently used. Now specific classes get a thrashing]. Pages have already separated from the binder. Now there is a split in the middle of the book - the CButton chapter, and the gap twixt pages and cover/binder just gets wider. It's gotten to the stage where I am seriously considering drilling some holes through it and sticking it in a ring binder/folder. I have not used Think 3.0 so couldn't comment on their manuals. I have, however used their Pascal manuals, and am happy to say they withstood my onslaught. A suggestion: unless these were just hiccups, don't stay with this binding method. Paul Menon, Dept of Computer Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 124 Latrobe Street, Melbourne 3001, Victoria, Australia. PH: +61 3 660 3209 CSNET: pnm@goanna.rmit.oz BITNET/ARPA: pnm%goanna.rmit.oz@uunet.uu.net UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!goanna.rmit.oz!pnm
joe@gistdev.UUCP (Joe Brownlee) (09/13/89)
>In article <34593@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > [likes the THINK C manual binding] >keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > [doesn't like the THINK C manual binding] >In article <2363@goanna.oz> pnm@goanna.oz (Paul Big-Ears Menon) writes: > [also doesn't like the THINK C manual binding] I have said before that I am a "casual" THINK C user for the most part, but I really do like the style of binding they now use. I liked it when 3.0 came out, and my manuals are still all in one piece. Please continue it! Joe Brownlee | Captain, please -- not in front of the Klingons. GIST, Inc. | -- Mr. Spock, Star Trek V 1800 Woodfield Dr. | Pay attention to what I say, and you might start a trend. Savoy, IL 61874 | ARPANET: joe%gistdev@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (217) 352-1165 | UUCP : {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!gistdev!joe
dwt@well.UUCP (dwt) (09/14/89)
I am sorry to report that my manual has also fallen to pieces. The concept was a really good one that seems to have suffered from some cheapness at the printers. Compare the overall quality of the 3.0 manual set and you will notice that what was 2 color is now 1 color, the paper quality is much in- ferior etc. Too bad. Symantec obviously thought that they could get away with a slightly less expensive printer. Go back to the old one guys!