Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!esquire!sbb
From: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional
Keywords: Fullwrite memory
Message-ID: <418@esquire.UUCP>
Date: 27 May 88 15:52:20 GMT
References: <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> <53610@sun.uucp> <1713@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <537@aplcomm.UUCP> <416@esquire.UUCP> <2904@polyslo.UUCP>
Reply-To: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Distribution: na
Organization: DP&W, New York, NY
Lines: 48

In article <2904@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes:
>>Can this be right?  Does this mean that it's possible to create a
>>document on a 2 meg machine that can't be opened on a standard Mac
>>Plus or Mac SE?
>
>>If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  Even
>>MacWrite no longer limits document length to available memory.  Can
>>anyone who knows for sure confirm this?
>
>  Although MacWrite documents aren't the example of simlicity, MacWrite's 
>author's do have an easier time of "paging" a document in and out of memory.
>
>  So I wouldn't call it riduiculous until you could write something better.
>And if you look at the magnitude of difference between FWP and MacWrite
>I don't think you should complain.

Well, I don't think you have to be a programmer to criticize a weakness of
a program, do you?

>  Apple put the ability to expand the Macintosh beyond 1 meg there for a 
>reason {now if we only had the chips to do it}.  So why limit all of the
>software to 1 meg.  Don't you remember when things were "better" on the 512
>than they were on the 128.  If you don't push the limits, then people wouldn't
>have a reason to upgrade to anything better.  I personally don't want my
>2 meg machine limited by someone who isn't willing to buy anything more than
>a 128.  So I enjoy being on the "Bleeding Edge" of technology.

Why should we be "bleeding"?  People have been writing word processors that
allow manipulation of documents larger than available memory for years.
Hell, WordStar used to work fine in 48K, and it placed *no* limitation on
document length.

Maybe I just don't understand the "chapter" concept correctly.  FullWrite
seems like a superior product in every other way, so I'm certainly
not suggesting that people use that abominable MS-Word instead.  But
I hope all the FullWrite people remember when MS-Word 3.0 was first released
and it's defenders said "Well, the interface does suck, but for this kind
of power, I can understand it.  Don't criticize the program unless you
can write/buy a better one."

I think that it's important to be able to make full use of a product
on a standard machine (1 meg is still standard).  Hypercard (also a huge
program) doesn't allow creation of stacks on a 5 meg machine that can't
be opened on a 1 meg machine.  As far as I know, there's no such limit
in MS-Word, either.  Designing a word processor any other way is to my
mind just sloppy programming.

- Steve