Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ll-xn!oberon!sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!dorourke
From: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional
Keywords: Fullwrite memory
Message-ID: <2979@polyslo.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 88 20:05:59 GMT
References: <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> <53610@sun.uucp> <1713@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <537@aplcomm.UUCP> <416@esquire.UUCP> <2904@polyslo.UUCP> <418@esquire.UUCP>
Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 42

In article <418@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes:
>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.

  Is this for real, you're comparing a worderful text editor with FWP.  Of
course it worked find in 48K, if was only dealing with TEXT, and as far as the
User interface, well ......

>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'm not clear do you stand by this assertion, or are you saying that's just
as stupid.

>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.

   You can use FWP on a standard machine.  But are you saying that you should
be able to everything a 2 meg or 2.5 meg Macintosh can do on a 1 meg Machine.
If you could do this then why have memory upgrades?  If you want to be able to
do really big stuff it requires memory, even if the memory required isn't the
standard size.  No one seems to mind that a lot of the graphics packages work
better and faster if they have more memory, and yes I've created a document on
my 2 meg machine with Adobe Illustrator that wouldn't load on a 1 meg machine,
and it didn't even warn me like FWP will.


-- 
David M. O'Rourke

Disclaimer: I don't represent the school.  All opinions are mine!