Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site linus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!rjd
From: rjd@linus.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Comments on MacDeveloper magazine
Message-ID: <432@linus.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Jun-85 17:34:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: linus.432
Posted: Sat Jun 22 17:34:04 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 04:48:16 EDT
References: <27188@lanl.ARPA> <428@linus.UUCP> <2128@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjd@linus.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis)
Distribution: net
Organization: The MITRE Coporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 64
Summary: 

In article <2128@ut-sally.UUCP> brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) writes:
>...
>>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.
>

Yes! MacWrite is much preferable to text since it allows headers, figures,
etc.  The problem is that with the old Macwrite format, I can't do a "batch
print" of all of the sections at once because for each file I have to respond
to the silly "The document is being reformatted and will be opened as
'untitled.'" dialog box.  For those who don't know, you can print multiple
files (even files of different types) by selecting them with shift-click or
by surrounding them and then selecting "print" from the "file" menu of the
finder (any version).

>> 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.

Obviously you are correct in saying that the transfer times are about the
same.  A Packit'ed format offers several other advantages, though.  For one
thing, there are simply fewer files to worry about in the transfer process.
I like to start a download and then leave my Mac alone until it finishes.
With seven separate parts, this can't be done easily without some sort of
programming (RedRider) or wildcard forms (Kermit) and neither of these
things are available on many common transfer programs.  The time saved is
_my_ time which is even more valuable than _Mac_ time.

Also, Packit provides some error checking.  This makes it better as a
"universal" format for distribution because something like MacDeveloper
could be distributed as a simple text file and transferred in any old way
and then translated with packit at its destination.

>> I think it's safe to assume that most people who read MacD would have the
>> new Macwrite
...
>>and a large enough majority have 512k
...
>>...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.

O.k. If you eliminate the hassles with the old version of Macwrite, I don't
really care if you keep the individual files small for the 128k weenies,
because I can still print them all at once.  But I still think they should be
packit'ed (in small enough packits to make it over all of the commonly used
networks).  

What does everyone else think about this?  I hate to keep arguing about
small details like this, but I think it is important that we settle on a
good format since this is obviously intended to be an ongoing thing and
there will likely be more like it in the future.

I encourage everyone who's interested in the way the Mac works to take a
look at Mac Developer.