Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:2947 comp.sys.mac:22183
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ncar!tank!gsbrob1@apcvxa.uchicago.edu
From: gsbrob1@apcvxa.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Inside Mac
Message-ID: <538@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 88 19:43:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: tank.538
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 34

>In article <234@lloyd.camex.uucp>, kent@lloyd.camex.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.
> 
> 
>	I should have been done loos-leaf to start, and it is not too late
>	to do it *RIGHT* ...  I repeat what I said in 1984:  Manuals is one
>	thing you should learn from IBM ...
 
I think both sides have good arguments.  I think that a looseleaf
edition would indeed be more useful though, since outdated information wouldn't
sit around for so long.  But the books would tend to hold up better over the
long run, and they do look slicker on bookstores' shelves.:->

Why not do both?  Have A-W publish the books, and distribute Inside Mac Binders
(and perhaps quarterly updates) through APDA.  Or is that making the whole
thing too complicated?  I guess if I had to choose one over the other, I'd go
for binders.


Robert
gsbrob1@apcvxa.uchicago.edu
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu

       ...................................................................
       . disclaimer:  all opinions here expressed are mine and mine alone .
       ...................................................................