Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!darryl
From: darryl@ism780c.isc.com (Darryl Richman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Technotes in FullWrite???
Message-ID: <10518@ism780c.isc.com>
Date: 3 Jun 88 18:46:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.10518
References: <13005@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <10493@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <568@natinst.UUCP>
Reply-To: darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 23

In article <568@natinst.UUCP> brian@natinst.UUCP (Brian H. Powell) writes:
>In article <10493@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, jmm@thoth4.berkeley.edu writes:
>> Why even put out tech notes in MacWrite, much less FullWrite?  What's
>> wrong with just plain text files?
>     Because, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.  It's nice
>when they can include a diagram of some sort to explain themselves.  It also
>lets them use various fonts to highlight certain things.  You can't do that
>with a plain text file.

All of this discussion misses the point of the original poster (whose remarks
are now lost here) -- why use FullWrite when there are a substantial number
of people that don't own and may not need this expensive word processor.
MacWrite format is a standard, and as was pointed out elsewhere, nearly all
word processors can import MacWrite documents.  But the same is not true
of FullWrite.  Has Apple decided that FullWrite is the new standard word
processor for the Mac?

		--Darryl
-- 
Copyright (c) 1988 Darryl Richman. The views expressed are the author's alone.
	  INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation -- An Eastman Kodak Company
   ...!{kodak | cca!ima | sdcrdcf}!ism780c!darryl or darryl@ism780c.isc.com
"I'm disappointed too, but keep in mind that Transmogrification is a new technology." --Calvin