Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!russky
From: russky@reed.UUCP (Gregory M Byshenk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Pro stuff
Summary: FWP, Word 3.x, and Hardware
Keywords: FWP, Word 3.x, hardware
Message-ID: <9575@reed.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jun 88 17:45:54 GMT
References: <11807@Apple.Apple.COM> <598@stech.UUCP>
Reply-To: russky@reed.UUCP (Gregory M Byshenk)
Distribution: na
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 27

In article <598@stech.UUCP> sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) writes:
> 
>Before anyone yells once more about FW being a hardware hog --
>Stop complaining about resources, folks. 
>  [stuff about a client who wants the moon, but doesn't want to buy
>  any real hardware]
>I give up. Either spring for the
>resources or stop complaining. To get major functionality (gawd - I hate
>that word), you've got to have the appropriate hardware. It's a fact of
>life. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. (No moral judgement
>here - it may not be "right", but that's the way it is.)
>
   The analogy doesn't quite work, because people complain about
FWP being a hardware hog IN COMPARISON TO OTHER WP's.  For some
people it may not matter, but for most (I would guess) people, the
fact that FWP takes significantly more hardware than Word 3.x to do
more or less THE SAME THING (i.e. a certain level of WP) is an
important factor in a comparison of the two.
   If you already own a Mac II with a 60meg HD and 5 megs of
memory, the hardware requirements don't matter.  However, "the rest
of us" don't, and still feel that we should be able to do decent
WP.

-- 
gregory byshenk		"The king?  But I didn't vote for you!"
!tektronix!reed!russky

Yap, yappity, opinions, yap, my own, yap, not of my school, yappity, yap.