Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:2966 comp.sys.mac:22248
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!rutgers!mailrus!chablis!shane
From: shane@chablis.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Inside Mac
Summary: I don't want loose leaf!
Message-ID: <761@mailrus.cc.umich.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 88 15:20:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: mailrus.761
References: <19358@apple.Apple.COM> <234@lloyd.camex.uucp> <1018@netxcom.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@mailrus.cc.umich.edu
Reply-To: shane@chablis.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker)
Organization: University of Michigan Computing Center, Ann Arbor
Lines: 67

In article <1018@netxcom.UUCP> dmcintee@netxcom.UUCP (Dave McIntee) writes:
>The arguments seen in this forum in favor of a loose-leaf format, and 
>those in favor of a bound edition are both valid, so Apple must decide 
>carefully.
>
>As a proprietary operating system, unlike Unix, the Macintosh OS is
>free to evolve as Apple sees fit. They alone determine its future course,
>for better or worse. While the system is very usable today, there is
>sure to be a steady improvement in the years ahead. The issue is how to
>best manage the dissemination of information regarding 1) changes to the
>OS, and 2) the complete current documentation set at any given moment.
>These two objectives should be as economical and as useful to both Apple 
>and the development community as possible.

As has been pointed out, allowing Apple to change the rules in the middle
of the game is not going to be easy.  I just wrote some code which worked
fine with the System 5.0 release but did not work correctly under System 6.0
There is nothing in the TechNotes to indicate that the ListManager changed,
yet I am pretty sure that it did somehow.  The ability to make retroactive
changes to documentation is very dangerous.  Superseded information replaces
old information.  Things do get lost this way.  I've seen it happen.
The only way to guarantee that your code was right is to keep all of the
old pages you replace.

>Considering all this, I feel that the approach taken by other vendors of
>proprietary systems would be best for Apple: That is, a loose-leaf
>documentation set which can be updated as needed, with the updates
>provided from one source, probably Apply Computer, on an annual
>subscription basis. This is provided the update subscription fee is
>reasonable, say in the $25-50 per annum range, so the individual 
>hobbiest will not be squeezed out.

Whoa there.  $25.00 per year is the same price as bying a new Volume V each
and every year.  Probably the best way to handle the whole problem is to
issue a revision book (in looseleaf form maybe) every year.  That would 
allow Apple to collect all changes and updates and then publish them
for about $10-15, since they probably won't be as large as Volume III.

Yes things change, but I would be extremely worried if they changed enough
that I would need to replace a substantial portion of my old documentation
every year.

>Developers who choose to purchase the documentation set but not subscribe
>to the annual subscription service, can of course do so, and should be
>able to, at any future time, obtain an update set to bring them up to
>date. The cost of this should be somewhere between the annual
>the wholesale price for the entire document. This will protect their
>investment without forcing participation in the annual service.

With my proposal, they can buy the update book for each year as needed.
These are like the Year Books you get with your encyclopeadia.  Nice to
get but probably not heavily needed.

>As for Tech Notes, perhaps they go away, but that's another matter.

The Tech Notes would still be needed as the incremental information updates.

>Dave McIntee

I have a set of the original loose-leaf verison of IM, the phone book 
edition, and the AW edition.  I by far prefer the softbound AW copies 
because they let me open multiple volumes at once and take up less space
than the loose-leaf versions.


Shane Looker   |  Looker@um.cc.umich.edu
America works less, when you say "Union Yes!"