andy (07/13/82)
it a shame that my gripes are relegated to the silly-bantering category, but if that is your interpretation, henry, so be it. i would like to point out, though, that it is not ME that goofed--it is the MACRO package. in the case of .KE/.EK, i won't argue because you, henry, have already decided what is best for us users. but this is not the only bug. dotfill, especially with a page offset, .PG/.P1 and .TA in certain combinations, titling and footer traps are just a few of the other bugs that must be worked around. and waiting a day or more for a diagnosis on the file in question doesn't help when one needs the final copy immediately. we are forced to kludge in order to get that final copy when we need it. regarding the length of time the macros have been misbehaving, i believe that you, henry, were responsible for them before you assumed your present position. we all have long to-do lists, so you won't find any sympathy from me there. in short, i repeat that the last two years saw practically no improvement in the macro package. yes, i agree that perhaps this gripe is better done via mail, but since practically no one will read it anyway (the lack of documentation for news and other things has almost guaranteed that) it makes little difference. besides, at least the news program (which appears to be the focal point of our system) can be used for more than just spreading information on wines, games, jokes, cars, etc. (yes, i know there are some useful, work-related groups too--i am not opening that can of worms. although the thought has occured as to why i never saw any mention of bugs or bug fixes for format or the macro package anywhere there.) i am not judging the sanders on the basis of hearsay, and definitely not on its specifications. i am commenting on the actual output of the machine. dot matrix will always be dot matrix, no matter how many times you overprint. i don't consider what i have seen as "letter-quality", not by a long shot. it might come close in what appears to be boldface, but i am sure not going to print my whole file in boldface. the sanders is a loser for my purposes--close, but no cigar. i am sad to hear that we will probably have NO printer for final copy at all. the diablo (which isn't even from computer systems) is bordering on unacceptable, the multiwriter is just plain junk, the sanders is not acceptable (unless it can print in 40-50 point. we can then reduce the final copy photographically to 12 point--it might be usable then, but thats a hell of a lot of time and work for something that can be produced better and faster on a less expensive machine), and lastly we have the olivetti that hopefully (what does that mean?) won't have to go into production. i may be simple-minded, but i think i am right in concluding we will shortly be back to typewriters because all the equipment we have for text processing will lack one apparently unimportant piece of hardware: a good letter-quality printer. (oh, by the way, i saw what the olivetti can do and if, unfortuneatly [now he's got me doing it] it is put into production, it cannot compare to a properly-running diablo.) maybe i am "shouting from the housetops" and maybe i am venting my frustrations inappropriately. but i am annoyed by the inadequacies of this system and the explanations, rather than solutions, for the problems we have. yes, the system does provide service. but i equate satisfactory or useable service with mediocrity. and i think we should strive towards excellence and superior service instead. i meet the news of a new macro package with mixed emotions. i am glad because it MIGHT be better and less bug-ridden than the present one. but your reference to the user interface means, to me, unnecessary change and upheaval. unless this new package comes from bell labs AND uses the same (or at least very similar) names for the macros, i for one will not use it. i have no more patience for "better" or new utilities that i must learn by trial and error (due to lack of or incomprehensible nature of documentation--i am the average guy on the street, not a computer or hack; give me simple, concise documentation written in everyday english). you ask for suggestions, henry, well here are a few: cannot format check for .KE/.EK problems BEFORE formatting the file (like tbl does, aborting if things are screwy)? even though it is "hard", could not dotfill be made to set the page offset to "normal", and not +05? could format be fixed so pagination is correct when more than one file is formatted? i guess the above are merely more problems and not really suggestions. the only suggestion i have is that you don't ask for volunteers to tackle jobs that even YOU cannot do. (and he calls me silly.....)