🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #28569

Re: FullWrite Professional

#28569
From: David O'Rourke
Date: Thu, 26 May 1988 07:41
43 lines
2896 bytes
In article <416@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes:
>>If you set up your preferences to do so, it will even warn users on
>>machines with more than 1 Meg when their chapter is about to become too
>>large to open on a 1 Meg machine, very handy if you don't know what
>>machine a recipient of your document might be using.
>
>Can this be right?  Does this mean that it's possible to create a
>document on a 2 meg machine that can't be opened on a standard Mac
>Plus or Mac SE?

>If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  Even
>MacWrite no longer limits document length to available memory.  Can
>anyone who knows for sure confirm this?

  FullWrite handles it's documents in a little more complex manner than
MacWrite does.  It breaks a document into user defined chapters.  A document
can be larger than memory allows.  But a Chapter can not!  So the warning that
FullWrite issues indicates that your current chapter will be too large to
load into a 1 meg machine.  Besides with all the things full write does it's
very easy to imagine the internal data structure necessary to keep it all in
order.  Quite frankly after having programmed the Mac for the past three years
I'm impressed with what FullWrite is able to accomplish!!

  Although MacWrite documents aren't the example of simlicity, MacWrite's 
author's do have an easier time of "paging" a document in and out of memory.

  So I wouldn't call it riduiculous until you could write something better.
And if you look at the magnitude of difference between FWP and MacWrite
I don't think you should complain.

  Apple put the ability to expand the Macintosh beyond 1 meg there for a 
reason {now if we only had the chips to do it}.  So why limit all of the
software to 1 meg.  Don't you remember when things were "better" on the 512
than they were on the 128.  If you don't push the limits, then people wouldn't
have a reason to upgrade to anything better.  I personally don't want my
2 meg machine limited by someone who isn't willing to buy anything more than
a 128.  So I enjoy being on the "Bleeding Edge" of technology.


-- 
David M. O'Rourke

Disclaimer: I don't represent the school.  All opinions are mine!
Technical Details
Message-ID: <2904@polyslo.UUCP>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!dorourke
References: <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> <53610@sun.uucp> <1713@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <537@aplcomm.UUCP> <416@esquire.UUCP>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!dorourke
From: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional
Keywords: Fullwrite memory
Message-ID: <2904@polyslo.UUCP>
Date: 26 May 88 07:41:49 GMT
References: <8805172016.AA09499@decwrl.dec.com> <53610@sun.uucp> <1713@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <537@aplcomm.UUCP> <416@esquire.UUCP>
Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 43