jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) (05/20/91)
When installing minimal System 7.0 software on a floppy disk (I haven't
tried it on my hard drive yet) the Installer fails to include the Chooser.
Be sure to copy this into your system folder if you want to print.
I'm using this disk to double check the status of my "incompatible" ("must
upgrade") and unkonwn ("not.avail.") applications and INITS. Many
applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work
fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers...
--
Jonathan Helton
jah@casbah.acns.nwu.eduweiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May20.040754.28511@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes: >I'm using this disk to double check the status of my "incompatible" ("must >upgrade") and unkonwn ("not.avail.") applications and INITS. Many >applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work >fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... I sure hope you know what you're doing...I, for one, would trust the Compat Checker. After all, you haven't tried all possible combinations of things that one might do under Sys7. It's distinctly possible that one of these days when you least expect it, your system gets corrupted or something. But, hey, it's your computer... -- \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | / - Michael Weiss weiss@watson.seas.ucla.edu | School of Engineering and - - izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu | Applied Science, UCLA - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May20.040754.28511@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes: > I'm using this disk to double check the status of my "incompatible" ("must > upgrade") and unkonwn ("not.avail.") applications and INITS. Many > applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work > fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... This is very true. I was quite surprised to discover that many of the major applications I had been using with no problems for many months under 7.0 beta releases were supposedly "incompatible". The checker is very conservative. I think what happened is that when developers were asked to say which version of their product was compatible, they told Apple the current shipping version number. Older versions of products may indeed be compatible also, but they didn't bother checking. I know I did this. I told Apple that Disinfectant 2.4 was compatible. The Checker flags any older version as incompatible, but I'm pretty sure they work fine. I just didn't have the time to go back and thoroughly test all of them just to make certain. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University j-norstad@nwu.edu
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (05/20/91)
In article <1991May20.040754.28511@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes... >When installing minimal System 7.0 software on a floppy disk (I haven't >tried it on my hard drive yet) the Installer fails to include the Chooser. >Be sure to copy this into your system folder if you want to print. Minimal means MINIMAL. This is not a "BUG". >I'm using this disk to double check the status of my "incompatible" ("must >upgrade") and unkonwn ("not.avail.") applications and INITS. Many >applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work >fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... This is not a ploy either. They are simply serving notice that you use unsupported software at your own risk. I have also found that I can get away with using many "must upgrade" applications. I plan to upgrade anything that I use for serious work. -- Bill Johnston (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) -- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) (05/21/91)
In article <54105@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes: >In article <1991May20.040754.28511@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, >jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes... > >>When installing minimal System 7.0 software on a floppy disk (I haven't >>tried it on my hard drive yet) the Installer fails to include the Chooser. >>Be sure to copy this into your system folder if you want to print. > >Minimal means MINIMAL. This is not a "BUG". The "minimal" installation includes basic system software and the imagewriter printer driver. Why include the driver if "minimal" printing isn't supported? >>I'm using this disk to double check the status of my "incompatible" ("must >>upgrade") and unkonwn ("not.avail.") applications and INITS. Many >>applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work >>fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... > >This is not a ploy either. They are simply serving notice that you >use unsupported software at your own risk. I have also found that >I can get away with using many "must upgrade" applications. I plan >to upgrade anything that I use for serious work. I forgot the smiley face and question marks after my last statement. Upgrading applications used for serious work sounds like a good idea. >-- Bill Johnston (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) >-- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949 -- Jonathan Helton jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (05/21/91)
jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes: > [...] > upgrade") and unkonwn ("not.avail.") applications and INITS. Many > applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work > fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... I knew someone was bound to say this eventually. The "must upgrade" flag in the Compatibility Checker doesn't necessarily spell a ploy by software manufacturers, but rather an attempt to save their customers unnecessary frustration by that one fatal bug their application may have under 7.0. If you don't want to upgrade, don't. Just don't flame them when you get bitten. John -- John A. Starta Internet: tosh!starta@asuvax.eas.asu.edu Chief Technologist UUCP: ...ncar!noao!asuvax!tosh!starta Micro Orchard Co. AOL: AFA John; CompuServe: 71520,3556
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) (05/22/91)
jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes: >In article <54105@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes: >>In article <1991May20.040754.28511@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, >>jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes... >> >>>When installing minimal System 7.0 software on a floppy disk (I haven't >>>tried it on my hard drive yet) the Installer fails to include the Chooser. >>>Be sure to copy this into your system folder if you want to print. >> >>Minimal means MINIMAL. This is not a "BUG". > >The "minimal" installation includes basic system software and the >imagewriter printer driver. Why include the driver if "minimal" printing >isn't supported? If you don't change printers, you don't need the Chooser, right? Sounds minimal to me. You can still print, you just can't change printers. -- Geoff Allen \ What's the difference between a garden slug and uunet!pmafire!geoff \ a two-inch long, living booger? geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \ -- Calvin
klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) (05/22/91)
I fail to see how it would be a "bug" not to include the chooser, which is virtually functionless w/o a network or printer(s). Steve Klingsporn
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (05/23/91)
weiss@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) writes: >I'm using this disk to double check the status of my "incompatible" ("must >upgrade") and unkonwn ("not.avail.") applications and INITS. Many >applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work >fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... MW> I sure hope you know what you're doing...I, for one, would trust MW> the Compat Checker. After all, you haven't tried all possible MW> combinations of things that one might do under Sys7. Neither has, for example, Aldus with PageMaker 3.0x. And no doubt they aren't excited about the idea of supporting their 3.0 under Apple's 7.0. So, officially, the Aldus party line is "3.0 doesn't work, 4.0 is required, 4.01 is recommended." However, my nickel says that 3.0 does indeed work just fine. (I hope so. I won't go to 4.0 until I get a machine that's significantly faster than my Plus.) --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
richs@microsoft.UUCP (Rick SCHAUT) (05/25/91)
In article <1991May20.040754.28511@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes: >Many applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work >fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... Or, a latent crash waiting to kill some of your data. Caveat emptor. -- Rick Schaut ...{uunet | uw-beaver}!microsoft!richs ";jkalshdg ;algh a;'ga;o rgha'rg 'aer g" <- Developer's Chicken Scratch
chma@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Michael Antolovich) (05/26/91)
In article <72557@microsoft.UUCP> richs@microsoft.UUCP (Rick Schaut) writes: >In article <1991May20.040754.28511@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jah@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jonathan Helton) writes: >>Many applications tagged "must upgrade" by the Incompatibility Checker work >>fine. An obvious ploy by software manufacturers... > >Or, a latent crash waiting to kill some of your data. > >Caveat emptor. > >-- >Rick Schaut Umm, isn't this the risk you take with ANY software ? This way it isn't "really their fault" :-) Michael -- _______________________________________________________________________________ \ Michael Antolovich in sunny North Queensland (where it's bloody hot!) / \ chma@marlin.jcu.edu.au / \_________________________________________________________________________/