Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!ut-sally!brian From: brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: Comments on MacDeveloper magazine Message-ID: <2128@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 15:17:06 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2128 Posted: Tue Jun 18 15:17:06 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 21:01:22 EDT References: <27188@lanl.ARPA> <428@linus.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 31 > Yes, I agree that MacDeveloper was quite good. I cannot agree more. As proof, I will show you how I disagree with most of the other things you said. >Can we try to find some nice > way of posting it to the net? It took me ooooh so long to download all of > those separate parts and then try to print them all out and wait tens of > minutes for them to be converted to the newer MacWrite format and printed. I don't see any problem with the current method. I would prefer MacWrite format to text format. That way it's easier to format the thing and include pictures to augment the text. > I suggest that someone post a copy to the net in larger chunks, in the new > Macwrite format, Pack-It'ed together. This would _greatly_ reduce the time > involved in the transfer/printing process. Oh, really? How? A Pack-it'ed file is as large as all of it's constituent parts. Transfer time will be about the same. Printing time better be the same also. > I think it's safe to assume that most people who read MacD would have the > new Macwrite Probably so, or at least that will provide incentive to go and get it. >and a large enough majority have 512k No way. >...to make it worth it to > post in bigger pieces (perhaps one big piece!). I would rather leave it open to everyone, not just the 512K snobs. One also must remember the 32K (or is it 64K?) limit on posting files to USENET.