Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!claris!drc
From: drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: System 7.0 compatible stuff
Message-ID: <12036@claris.com>
Date: 23 Apr 91 14:38:27 GMT
References: <3102@sparko.gwu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Claris Corporation, Santa Clara CA
Lines: 43

so273208@seas.gwu.edu (Jens Johansen) writes:

>In a recent MacWeek they discussed compatibility of existing applications
>with System 7.0, and they had a small table listing compatible products
>and incompatible products.  It was very short, though, so here's an idea:

>Can we start the creation of a more complete table here on the net?  I'll
>start the ball rolling (very slowly, since I'm not a beta tester) with the
>following table:

>   Compatible     |   Incompatible   |   Incompatible   |   Unknown compat.
>   as of now      | upgrade expected | and totally dead |   status
>___________________________________________________________________________
>Word 3.02         | Norton Utils 1.0 | MacWrite 5.0     | virtually everything
>Excel 2.2         | MacPaint 2.0     | older MacPaint   |        else
>Word 4.0          | HyperCard 2.0    | older HyperCard  |

The above list has a number of inaccuracies in it (as do most quotes from
MacWeek).  Speaking just to the Claris items, MacPaint 2.0 is "Mostly
compatible" (Apple's term meaning that you should be no worse off running it
under 7.0 than under 6.0.7 and that any 7.0-specific bugs are both hidden
and minor), not "Incompatible, upgrade expected".  HyperCard 2.0 is also in
the "Mostly Compatible" category, and the upgrade is included in the 7.0
upgrade package (that's what the RI code in the compatibility checker means,
Replacement Included).  I thought it was a little irresponsible of MacWeek
to take a known incomplete and inaccurate database that Apple distributed
specifically to solicit updates and additions as a compatibility statement.
Do you know of a better way to get companies off their collective duffs and
have them submit information than to have inaccurate, negatively slanted
information in a "draft" document?

The only thing that such "dissemination" accomplishes is to raise the fear
level of the consumer, usually without reason.  The Compatibility Checker
stack is due to go "Golden" any day now.  That would give MacWeek a few weeks
to pre-publicize all the information that the _REAL_ stack contains, but
I guess that sensationalism is more important to them.

READ MY DISCLAIMER BELOW, IT IS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT TO THIS POSTING!

-- 
| Dennis Cohen     drc@claris.com   COHEN2   AFC DCohen    71076,1377
|                  Internet       AppleLink  AmerOnline    CompuServe
| Disclaimer:  Any unattributed opinions expressed above are _MINE_!