Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!morrow.stanford.edu!lindy.stanford.edu!ddaniel
From: ddaniel@lindy.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Kalidegraph
Message-ID: <1991Mar19.190811.441@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 91 19:08:11 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.200848.22933@cec1.wustl.edu>
Sender: news@morrow.stanford.edu (News Service)
Distribution: comp.sys.mac, comp.sys.mac.wanted
Organization: Stanford University, Scool of Enginereing
Lines: 37

In article <1991Mar18.200848.22933@cec1.wustl.edu> jdw4374@cec2.wustl.edu (The Mad Hatter) writes:
>
>	I have been trying to track down the creators of Kalidegraph, a
>	scientific graphing package.  I've plowed through past issues of
>	MacWorld, but I haven't found anything about them.  The lab that I
>	have been managing has been using Cricket Graph (gag!) but I would
>	like to try something better, and I've heard that Kalidegraph
>	blows Cricket Graph out of the water.  Has anyone used Kalidegraph,
>	and if so, how did you like it?  Have you also used Cricket Graph, and
>	how does it compare to Cricket Graph?

People develop chauvinisms about their graphing package, so you could
find zealous supporters and vehement detractors of just about
anything.  Except CG, which everyone agrees sucks.  I happen to be a
KaleidaGraph fan.  Best application for scientific work, with the
possible exception of Igor, depending on what you're using it for.
DeltaGraph is cute, but for MBA's, despite their literature.

KaleidaGraph, however, has some pretty egregious annoyances -- I like
it enough to care that they fix it right, so my research group has
collected about four pages of bug fixes, annoying things and wishes
for future releases, which we'll be sending to them.

"They" are   Synergy Software
             2457 Perkiomen Avenue
             Reading  PA   19606
             (215) 779-0522
             (215) 370-0548 (fax)
             AppleLink: D2296

	== Daniel ==

  1.1 Scope: This specification covers cookie mixes for use by the
Department of Defense as an item of general issue.
  1.2 Classification:  The cookie mixes shall be of the following types,
as specified: Type I--Chocolate;  Type II--Sugar;  Type III--Oatmeal.
      (from MIL-C-43205F, Military Specifications for Cookie Mix, Dry)