Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:2934 comp.sys.mac:22140
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!cbmvax!rutgers!apple!mjohnson
From: mjohnson@Apple.COM (Mark Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Inside Mac
Message-ID: <19510@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 26 Oct 88 15:41:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: apple.19510
References: <19358@apple.Apple.COM> <234@lloyd.camex.uucp>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 46

In article <234@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
>In article <19358@apple.Apple.COM> mjohnson@Apple.COM (Mark Johnson) writes:
>>                     ... how would you feel about Apple publishing _Inside
>>Macintosh_ (and maybe other technical manuals) in loose-leaf or some other
>>form which would lend itself to revision without new "delta" editions?
>...
>Don't do it.  A book is much tougher, loose-leaves are always loose.
>
>The only reason for publishing Inside Macintosh in loose-leaf form
>would be to make it easier to change.  If that happens it'll just keep
>changing.  If you think system software revisions are confusing in
>their numbering, just think if pages all had revisions, pages die,
>pages are born.  Hardly anybody's copies would agree.
>
>Apple is always tempted to make changes.  I want Apple to think _very_
>carefully before they do.  If we think the rules are a moving target
>now, have fun if the principal constraint on their motion--Inside
>Macintosh--starts spinning.
>
>Sure, there will always be a need for update information, and for
>smallish deltas the Technical Notes should be used.  For larger
>deltas, a new volume of Inside Macintosh can be published.  For those
>_really_ big changes (System update 7.0?  8.0?) Inside Macintosh
>should be rewritten.
>

Currently many versions of IM exist in the world so there is already the
problem of inconsistent information (how many people are still using
phone books?).  In addition, the numerous volumes of IM along with Tech
Notes and third-party documentation make looking up a simple call an
experience in itself (which sometimes takes longer than the trial-and-error
method).
 
Does this mean that Apple should just maintain the status quo until that
time that we see fit to rewrite IM?  Obviously, if we were to do a complete
rewrite of IM it would be an opportune time to change formats, but what if
the rewrite does not come?  Then what?

If IM were rewritten and could be condensed into one (or two) volumes,
would that solve the problems or is the real question here still the
ability for us to distribute and you to receive REVISABLE documentation?
Personally, I just don't consider multiple hardbound volumes very revisable.

Mark Johnson
Developer Technical Support
Apple Computer, Inc.