🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr12.203519.16037@m.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>>--In article <1992Apr11.151138.3378@athena.mit.edu> (comp.sys.mac.apps), dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>>--> In article <1992Apr8.152837.2483@otago.ac.nz> stanger@otago.ac.nz (Nigel Stanger) writes:
>>--> >In article <19738@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>>--> >>For my 2 cents, I think it's pretty piss poor that MacDraw Pro doesn't
>>--> >>support Publish and Subscribe. Was it a secret or something? 
>>--> >Because they had frozen the feature set for MacDraw Pro before
>>--> >they could include any of the System 7.0 features. 
>>--> Is this supposed to be an excuse, an explanation, or a definition
>>--> of the problem?
>>Well whatever it is, it's totally unacceptable.
>
>The problem, of course, is that it's really difficult to ever put out a
>product (especially a moderately well-tested, stable product) if you
>don't pick some point and freeze the feature set there. If Claris had
>delayed MacDraw Pro until Sys7 features could go in and testing be done,
>would that be more acceptable? Or would people be bashing Claris for
>long delays instead of for leaving out Sys7 features?

We're talking about a wholly owned Apple subsidiary here.  If I can read
Tech Notes, so bloody well can they.  Not to mention the little detail
that System 7 itself was slightly late so that there ought to have been
ample time to put in all the features and bugs we were expecting.  Besides,
if Claris doesn't showcase OS7 features, who do you think will?


Dhanesh