takahash@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) (08/21/90)
I've finally gotten a copy of the Norton Utilities for the Mac!!
It seems to work okay, except...
When running Microsoft Excel 1.5, I've run across the following
problems:
1) Disk access seems to be alot slower. (Actually may not be
a problem...could be FileSaver doing something...not quite
sure about this one yet).
2) Chart files that used to run in Excel now seem to generate
"Out of Memory" errors. This message is random, and cannot
be reliably reproduced.
3) The Mac crashes randomly (ID=02).
Of the Norton Inits running, I have the FileSaver, the "Activity
Light", and the init that puts up options in Open Dialog boxes.
(Sure wish I could remember the names of all of them...)
As of this point, I haven't isolated the cause of these problems
yet, but I was wondering if anyone had already run into similar
problems using Norton Utils and Excel 1.5.
I hope the solution isn't to upgrade to Excel 2.2... :-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Takahashi ! hplabs amdahl
Northern Telecom Inc. ! \ /
Mountain View, CA !UUCP: ...!{-----}!ntmtv!takahash
! |
"When you need to knock on wood is when ! ames
you realize the world's composed of !INTERNET:
aluminum and vinyl." -- Flugg's Law ! ntmtv!takahash@ames.arc.nasa.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------------wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) (08/22/90)
In article <1538@ntmtv.UUCP> takahash@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) writes: >I've finally gotten a copy of the Norton Utilities for the Mac!! >It seems to work okay, except... >When running Microsoft Excel 1.5, I've run across the following >problems: > 1) Disk access seems to be alot slower. (Actually may not be > a problem...could be FileSaver doing something...not quite > sure about this one yet). It sounds like you might be REALLY filling up your memory with lots of inits and causing lots of thrashing. How many inits do you have loaded? Which ones are they? I would suggest that you try removing a few of the Non-Norton inits and see if the problem goes away. > 2) Chart files that used to run in Excel now seem to generate > "Out of Memory" errors. This message is random, and cannot > be reliably reproduced. Again, this sounds like maybe you have just overloaded your system with inits. What's the situation here? > 3) The Mac crashes randomly (ID=02). I had a similar problem with DiskLight for a while which turned out to be a bad version of Backgrounder in my system folder (it had a different version than the rest of my system stuff). Try checking that out. >Of the Norton Inits running, I have the FileSaver, the "Activity >Light", and the init that puts up options in Open Dialog boxes. >(Sure wish I could remember the names of all of them...) >As of this point, I haven't isolated the cause of these problems >yet, but I was wondering if anyone had already run into similar >problems using Norton Utils and Excel 1.5. Another experiment you should try is changing the order in which your non-norton inits are loaded. Remember, some inits out there do nasty things that can be revealed by "good citizen" inits like Norton's. I am also curious about whether you are running multifinder. Does the problem persist when you are running "unifinder"? Good luck!
cy@dbase.A-T.COM (Cy Shuster) (08/22/90)
In article <1538@ntmtv.UUCP> takahash@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) writes: >When running Microsoft Excel 1.5, I've run across the following >problems: > 1) Disk access seems to be alot slower. FileSaver shouldn't be doing anything until you shut down. > 2) Chart files that used to run in Excel now seem to generate > "Out of Memory" errors. This message is random, and cannot > be reliably reproduced. > > 3) The Mac crashes randomly (ID=02). > How much memory do you have in total? All of these problems could be due to not enough memory. Also, remember Excel is sensitive to how much memory is available in the first meg, regardless of total size. Can any Excel weenies shed further light? --Cy-- cy@dbase.a-t.com
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (08/23/90)
cy@dbase.A-T.COM (Cy Shuster) writes: >In article <1538@ntmtv.UUCP> takahash@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) writes: >>When running Microsoft Excel 1.5, I've run across the following >>problems: >> 1) Disk access seems to be alot slower. >> 2) Chart files that used to run in Excel now seem to generate >> "Out of Memory" errors. This message is random, and cannot >> be reliably reproduced. >> 3) The Mac crashes randomly (ID=02). >How much memory do you have in total? All of these problems could be >due to not enough memory. Also, remember Excel is sensitive to how >much memory is available in the first meg, regardless of total size. >Can any Excel weenies shed further light? Excel 1.5's memory management was very poor. It accessed only the first 1MB of available RAM, and in my experience was crashing constantly (in particular, it did not seem to be on good terms with MultiFinder). Excel 2.2 has no memory-management-related problems that I know of, is functioning reliably in my heavy-use environment, and is 32-bit-clean (i.e. compatible with System 7). Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software. I understand upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features. The computer industry is all about progress; it doesn't make sense to try to freeze its development by refusing to take advantage of its new offerings. At any rate, once a company has fixed a program's problems in an upgrade (as Microsoft has done in Excel 2.2), users who do not avail themselves of it in all decency should stop whining about the bugs in the now-obsolete version of the program they're running. It's also not the responsibility of the publishers of well-behaved programs such as Norton Utils to accomodate outdated, ill-mannered software such as Excel 1.5 just because some NUM customers insist on running this relic. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
man@vali.cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) (08/23/90)
In article <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com>, boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: |>Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain |>users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software. I understand |>upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can |>fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features. |>The computer industry is all about progress; it doesn't make sense to try to |>freeze its development by refusing to take advantage of its new offerings. That's easy. I'm still using Excel 1.5 because (1) It's too expensive for me to upgrade to 2.2 (2) Excel 1.5 does everything I need done (3) The _only_ features of 2.2 that I would find at all useful are the file-handling functions (I read the whole manual which is more than probably most owners of 2.2 can say). (4) There were reports that 2.2 did some things very slowly with databases. I use databases a lot and things are already slow enough, thank you. (5) If and when MS comes out with another release of Excel that either has things I want or that I'm sure won't set me back, I'll consider buying another upgrade. In my experience, most companies charge the same amount for an upgrade no matter what previous version you're upgrading from, so it's probably cheaper to leapfrog 2.2. BTW, I've been using Excel 1.5 under MF with no problems. I just always start it first if I'm going to use it. --Mark
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (08/24/90)
man@vali.cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) writes: >In article <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com>, boris@world.std.com >(Boris Levitin) writes: >|>Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain >|>users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software. I understand >|>upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can >|>fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features. >|>The computer industry is all about progress; it doesn't make sense to try to >|>freeze its development by refusing to take advantage of its new offerings. >That's easy. I'm still using Excel 1.5 because > (1) It's too expensive for me to upgrade to 2.2 $99 is expensive? Not compared to what Excel retails for (~$249 mail-order). > (2) Excel 1.5 does everything I need done There is in fact a problem with rampant featuritis in Mac software, where programs undertake functionalities that arguably are the proper domain of other classes of software (eg, worksheets and word-processors with drawing tools). The consensus among serious users of Excel 1.5, myself included, was that it was not afflicted by that disease, and is in fact quite limited (every time I had to do a string replace or import data from other systems I was reminded of the mindless failure to include a replace or a parse function, respectively). Functions that did exist worked s-l-o-w-l-y. Version 2.2 fixed all that; the major problem area remaining is the dreadful charting facility, and that will be fixed in the next release. > (3) The _only_ features of 2.2 that I would find at all useful are the >file-handling functions (I read the whole manual which is more than >probably most owners of 2.2 can say). Well, these are your specific needs. There are users who never exchange data with other types of machines, who don't need to make their work presentable, and who wouldn't miss even a single feature added/ improved in Excel 2.2. Microsoft cannot engineer a separate version for every user, and with Excel's having a 90% market share it wasn't about to direct its product towards the low end (for one thing, virtually all users in need of a serious worksheet/database owned it because until a year ago it was the only real choice in that category). > (4) There were reports that 2.2 did some things very slowly with >databases. I use databases a lot and things are already slow enough, >thank you. I am not aware of that. The database part of Excel was significantly enhanced in 2.2. Maybe you are right about the speed of *certain* functions, but my observations show the general tendency to be the reverse. > (5) If and when MS comes out with another release of Excel that either >has things I want or that I'm sure won't set me back, I'll consider >buying another upgrade. In my experience, most companies charge the >same amount for an upgrade no matter what previous version you're >upgrading from, so it's probably cheaper to leapfrog 2.2. 3.0 will take full advantage of System 7 and have full charting capabilities. By the way, were you aware that Excel 2.2 and Word 4.0 have a rudimentary interapplication link ("QuickSwitch") already in place? >BTW, I've been using Excel 1.5 under MF with no problems. I just always >start it first if I'm going to use it. If you're running little else while Excel is active, you might just get away with it (you'll still be limited to 1MB though). Try running QuickMail in the background, though, and you'll be crashing daily -- I garrrontee it, as Justin Wilson would say. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain >users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software. I understand >upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can >fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features. . . . . . . >of the publishers of well-behaved programs such as Norton Utils to accomodate >outdated, ill-mannered software such as Excel 1.5 just because some NUM >customers insist on running this relic. >Boris Levitin >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com >Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >(The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide >with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.) Perhaps the expense of upgrading ($99 for Excel, up to $125 for some programs) isn't too bad whn you are upgrading 1 or even 2. But when you have a department full of people, even a small one with only 30 or so, and you don't have a lot of money availible it quickly adds up. let's see, 30 users times an upgrade price of $100 times maybe 5 packages a year.. (Excel, Cricket Graph,MacDraw->MacDraw II, Word, PageMaker the list goes on and on) just that quick example is $15000. just for upgrades. No thank you, I think I'll struggle along and instead use old system version that won't crash the software. (and free/share ware to replace commercial packages whenever possible) -- Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. InterNet: Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu isr@rodan.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (08/29/90)
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >In article <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >>Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain >>users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software. I understand >>upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can >>fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features. > . . . . . . >>of the publishers of well-behaved programs such as Norton Utils to accomodate >>outdated, ill-mannered software such as Excel 1.5 just because some NUM >>customers insist on running this relic. >>Boris Levitin >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com >>Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>(The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide >>with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.) >Perhaps the expense of upgrading ($99 for Excel, up to $125 for some programs) >isn't too bad whn you are upgrading 1 or even 2. But when >you have a department full of people, even a small one with >only 30 or so, and you don't have a lot of money availible >it quickly adds up. let's see, 30 users times an >upgrade price of $100 times maybe 5 packages a year.. >(Excel, Cricket Graph,MacDraw->MacDraw II, Word, PageMaker >the list goes on and on) >just that quick example is $15000. just for upgrades. >No thank you, I think I'll struggle along and instead use >old system version that won't crash the software. >(and free/share ware to replace commercial packages whenever >possible) >-- >Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. >InterNet: Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu isr@rodan.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE To the best of my knowledge, there are no viable public-domain alternatives to the programs you've listed. Your point about the expense of upgrading (which could be made about the expense of purchasing software in the first place), however, is quite correct. The high prices of software, along with the fact that (with the exception of a very few copy-protected titles) it's infinitely copiable and the license conditions - unenforceable, are responsible for most software piracy. That's why many major publishers are offering site licenses and site upgrades (unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't seem to feel that way). Still, while there will always be organizations that can barely afford the electricity bill, most serious Excel users, especially at work, would find that $99 is a reasonable price for the improvements and increased productivity provided by version 2.2 (the same goes for most other major upgrades). And when you choose to "struggle along" with old applications and system software, you're acting inconsistently with the significant additional investment you made when you first bought Macintoshes. Surely if money was *that* tight, and quality - a priority definitely subordinated to it, DOS and Windows (or just plain old DOS) would have been even better choices? At the risk of sounding like one of those screw-the-rest-of-the-world Mac elitists led by John Dvorak, what's the point of buying a Maserati and ruining its engine on low-octane fuel, which is essentially what you're doing? At any rate, to get back to the discussion that started all this: when you choose to run obsolete programs and system software, you have to know the risks of doing so: that they will clash with Apple's guidelines, each other and guideline-compliant new software. I feel that as a customer, you do not have a moral right to ask publishers to support outdated versions ad infinitum (or, since the computer industry moves so fast, even ad a couple of years from now). When your no-longer-supported programs interfere with each other, you might seek assistance on Usenet or elsewhere; it would be a brave but ultimately ineffectual attempt, reminiscent of one of those movies about survival after a nuclear holocaust. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (09/01/90)
< At any rate, once a company has fixed a program's problems in an upgrade < (as Microsoft has done in Excel 2.2), users who do not avail themselves of < it in all decency should stop whining about the bugs in the now-obsolete < version of the program they're running. It's also not the responsibility Sure they should keep whining. If enough people whine about Microsoft having screwed up Excel 1.5 so badly, maybe Microsoft will do something about it, like make a cheap or free upgrade available. I don't use spreadsheets, but if I needed one, I would take Wingz or Full Impact over Excel 2.x anyday, until I see evidence that I don't have to worry about major bugs requiring me to have to update my software. If I had seen Microsoft respond to the 1.5 memory problem with a quick free update, Excel would be in the running if I had to chose a spreadsheet. People "whining" about 1.5 might cause Microsoft enough sales that it would be worth their time to do something about it. It is possible to write software that works well and survives the evolution of the Mac family. I just wish more companies would do so. (Note: Microsoft does do this sometimes. Wasn't one of the early demos of MultiFinder's ability to not break old things to have it run the original MultiPlan? They just need to be more consistent). Tim Smith ps: has anyone looked to see *why* Excel 1.5 barfs in memory above a meg? I'm having a hard time imagining how one could make a Mac program do this. I could understand, sort of, if the program was ported over from DOS, but that's not the case with Excel, right?
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (09/02/90)
It's not easy being a very large software publisher. For one thing, there's no statute of limitations on bad decisions you've made years ago. For example, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes, referring to my defense of Microsoft from users who want a well-behaved Excel not limited to 1MB RAM, but who refuse to upgrade to version 2.2, released a year and a half ago at an upgrade cost of $99 to fix just these problems and add a great many really useful features: >< At any rate, once a company has fixed a program's problems in an upgrade >< (as Microsoft has done in Excel 2.2), users who do not avail themselves of >< it in all decency should stop whining about the bugs in the now-obsolete >< version of the program they're running. >Sure they should keep whining. If enough people whine about Microsoft >having screwed up Excel 1.5 so badly, maybe Microsoft will do something >about it, like make a cheap or free upgrade available. Enough people whined in 1987-88, so after what seemed like an eternity (esp. to users like me with MultiFinder and a Radius accelerator, neither of which worked well with Excel 1.5), Microsoft finally released 2.2 in April 89. In addition to solving the memory and compatibility problems, version 2.2 also added many new features which serious users needed badly. It then charged $99 for the upgrade, not an unreasonable price given the amount of improvement (other than bug and design-flaw fixes) in the new version, and given Microsoft's knowledge that it had a 90% share of the spreadsheet market and most users, therefore, would have to upgrade even at that price. If you say that taking advantage of market hegemony is not a nice thing to do, keep in mind that the world is not a nice place, and that for a company that dominates the market so utterly, Microsoft usually acts more like a saint than like - what's a similar organization in the news - OPEC. In its attention to customer needs, especially in the design of its software and technical support, Microsoft is one of the best (and I say that as someone who has dealt with many, many publishers). Guy Kawasaki in _The Macintosh Way_, after railing against Microsoft's elephantine domination of DOS and Mac software, does describe its chairman, Bill Gates, taking down user suggestions at an Excel user-group meeting. This is not something a company that doesn't care about its users would do, even as a PR pose. Compare Microsoft policies and upgrade prices with other market-dominating companies': Pagemaker publisher Aldus and 4th Dimension publisher ACI/ACIUS, for example. Both, I believe, have higher upgrade prices, and, unlike Microsoft, after they throttle you with their exorbitant pricing, they make you pay large fees for tech support (actually, ACIUS was just threatening to do that, last I've heard). While I believe that Microsoft was way too late in fixing Excel's memory problems, no company in its right mind would release a separate version that provided that fix but no new features to 1.5 users who chose not to upgrade, once version 2.2 was ready. Not only would Microsoft be cutting itself off from a crucial revenue stream (the major-version upgrade fee), but it would perpetuate the need to support an obsolete product and create, in effect, a second current version of Excel (1.5 and 2.2 are substantially different, and even use different file formats). Again, there's no question that the memory problems should have been fixed earlier and, arguably, in a maintenance upgrade, but since the other elements of 2.2 were ready by the time the memory problems were fixed, Microsoft could release everything in one package or release them separately and undermine its own financial interest in Excel. >I don't use spreadsheets, but if I needed one, I would take Wingz or >Full Impact over Excel 2.x anyday, until I see evidence that I don't >have to worry about major bugs requiring me to have to update my >software. I own and use Wingz. On paper, when you match its capabilities, features and speed, it embarrasses the hell out of Excel. Up and running, it's *much* more difficult to use, and much less intuitive. You can do very few things without reading the manual, and even the scripting language, supposedly resembling English commands in the manner of HyperTalk, is much less predictable than Excel's. Of course, if you're a real power-user, you would overcome Wingz's eccentricities, but then a real power-user would embrace Excel 2.2 and take particular pleasure in trashing the ill-mannered 1.5 from his/her system. The memory problems of Excel up to and including version 1.5 were not due to a bug but to Microsoft's decision to do its own memory management rather than use the relevant toolbox routines, as far as I understand. When this decision was made back when the original Excel was being designed in 1985, the largest Mac had 512kB RAM, MultiFinder was but a dream, and accelerator boards were hardly a factor. In retrospect, the do-it-yourself approach (motivated, as far as I understand, by a desire to gain speed) was probably wrong, and, while Excel's appearance to replace MultiPlan was a welcome surprise, Microsoft did not pay sufficient attention to the program's development in the first couple of years after it was first published (that's the feeling of some Microsoft employees I talked to, who felt that a new urgency to "catch up" was created by Wingz' and Full Impact's arrival). Version 2.2 isn't substantially more buggy than the current versions of Wingz or Full Impact, to the best of my knowledge. Microsoft is very good about providing free maintenance upgrades (for example, version 2.2a, which fixed a data-corruption problem for large files shared over Tops). You will, however, be required to pay a reasonable fee for the next major upgrade; it won't be until the next major upgrade that Excel will get a decent charting facility, while Full Impact and Wingz make beautiful charts right now. If you were buying a spreadsheet right now, it would certainly be one factor to consider. However, unless you're willing to freeze your entire system at the current level of development, you will never avoid upgrades, regardless of your choice of software. Over the next two years, publishers will be adding support for the advanced features of System 7, and farther into the future, for System 8. Later this decade there will probably be a move to a RISC-based hardware platform. As new technologies emerge, developers gradually stop supporting old ones; in the computer industry, progress just happens quicker than elsewhere. >If I had seen Microsoft respond to the 1.5 memory problem >with a quick free update, Excel would be in the running if I had to >chose a spreadsheet. People "whining" about 1.5 might cause Microsoft >enough sales that it would be worth their time to do something about it. Version 1.5 is fading rapidly into distant history. Nowadays people are whining about 2.2's inferior charting, and Microsoft will do something about it (and support at least some System 7 goodies) in the next major version. I am confident that Microsoft will keep Excel competitive with Wingz and Full Impact, but don't hold your breath for it to do anything to allow 1.5-owning upgrade refusers to deprive it of revenue (especially now that a year and a half has passed since 2.2 was released). >It is possible to write software that works well and survives the >evolution of the Mac family. I just wish more companies would do >so. Agreed. Few companies did that back when Excel appeared, though (I don't need to refer to the horizontal-scroll-bar-less MacWrite, which, several versions later, still broke down on the Mac II). Besides, the old Excel did last until about 1987-88 with no major problems... While conformity with Apple's guidelines will seriously increase new packages' compatibility with future software, such coexistence cannot be extended forever because the guidelines themselves, and hardware platforms, are bound to change. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
an12280@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu (David Gutierrez) (09/04/90)
In article <33436@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: > ps: has anyone looked to see *why* Excel 1.5 barfs in memory above > a meg? I'm having a hard time imagining how one could make a Mac > program do this. I could understand, sort of, if the program was > ported over from DOS, but that's not the case with Excel, right? The story I heard a while back was that the development system used at Microsoft used 20 bits for addressing. This was all that was needed, since no computer had more than 640K of RAM. David Gutierrez an12280@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu "Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
takahash@ntmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) (09/06/90)
Regarding this problem, I'd like to thank all who have Emailed or posted
suggestions. They're much appreciated.
My problem appears to have been that my files were too big! Previously,
I had enough memory available on my 1 meg Mac Plus to handle it, but the
addition of Norton Utilities was enough to push it over the edge.
Breaking up the files seems to have done the trick. Fun solution, eh?
As to why I haven't upgraded to the latest version of Excel, it's
because 1.5 was quite enough for me in terms of features. I did
know about the memory problems and Multifinder, but since I was on
a 1 meg Mac and didn't use Multifinder, I thought I shouldn't have to
spend $100 to get something that I didn't need.
This was, of course, before INIT mania hit the Mac world... :-)
Thanks again for all the input!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Takahashi ! hplabs amdahl
Northern Telecom Inc. ! \ /
Mountain View, CA !UUCP: ...!{-----}!ntmtv!takahash
! |
"When you need to knock on wood is when ! ames
you realize the world's composed of !INTERNET:
aluminum and vinyl." -- Flugg's Law ! ntmtv!takahash@ames.arc.nasa.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------------