Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Aggravating manuals
Message-ID: <1764@rti.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Oct-87 23:34:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti.1764
Posted: Sun Oct  4 23:34:32 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Oct-87 00:42:55 EDT
References: <1651@killer.UUCP> <8674@utzoo.UUCP> <104@uwspan.UUCP> <453@mit-caf.UUCP>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 21
Summary: Binders are still more expensive
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:8666 comp.sys.misc:889 comp.lang.c:4722 comp.lang.pascal:368

In article <453@mit-caf.UUCP>, parris@mit-caf.UUCP (Patrice Parris) writes:
> Why not have the machines print the pages, stack them in order, 
> place them on top of the binder and shrink wrap the whole package.  Voila, 
> no humans!  If you can buy a computer and use it, you can unwrap shrink wrap 
> and place the pages in the binder.
> 
> Me, I think it's copy protection (easily defeated and not subtle).

The perfect bound manuals will still be cheaper.  I think you underestimate
the amount of $ tied up in the binder itself.  Besides, you would have to
build a machine to do that;  there are already machines to put out perfect
bound manuals (for cheap books and magazines) so you don't have to pay to
develop the machine.

I wouldn't be surprised if the difficulty of copying them were considered
a sort of minor additional benefit, but I doubt that it's the major 
consideration.  I can say that for one product I have been involved with
recently, the lower cost of the perfect bound manuals was the _only_ major
consideration in the decision to go perfect bound.

					Bruce C. Wright