Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!nyser!cmx!jfbrule
From: jfbrule@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Jim Brule)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional
Summary: Corrections
Message-ID: <496@cmx.npac.syr.edu>
Date: 18 May 88 02:43:46 GMT
References: <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com>
Reply-To: jfbrule@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jim Brule)
Distribution: na
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse NY
Lines: 32

In article <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> long@colors.dec.com writes:
>  DOESN'T IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT IT WON'T FIT ON A FLOPPY UNLESS
>THE CODE RESOURCES ARE PACKED????!!!!?!?!?

Not particularly. I have a hard disk (as do most MacUsers, I suspect),
and the fact that it is large does not throw me into CAPITAL
hysterics...

>  I've seen the demo version and it doesn't look THAT much more capable
>than Word to justify an executable of that size.  

I use both FW and Word extensively, and while I still find FW to be
just a little too slow sometimes, I cannot compare Word with it in terms
of features in any way that allows Word to come out on top overall. It
simply has a great many more features than Word, most of which I require
as a professional writer.

>  I also understand that FWP doesn't even run on a 1MB Mac.  DOESN'T 
>THIS BOTHER ANYBODY EITHER???!?!!?

Not at all, since it runs fine on a 1MB Mac. In fact, the only complaint
I have in regards to its size has to do with not being able to run
much else on my 2MB Mac under multifinder. But then, I really don't
=need= much else when I'm using FW. (BTW, I own both, so I am speaking
from experience when I say it runs fine under 1MB).

Check your facts, friend!

-- 
  //\//\\  //\//\\  //\//\\|"Soon we'll sliding down
\// //  \\// //  \\// //  \|  the razor blade of life." T Lehrer
// //\\  // //\\  // //\\  |-------------------------------------
/\//  \\//\//  \\//\//  \\/|Jim Brule' jfbrule@amax.npac.syr.edu