🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <575@husc6.harvard.edu> singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes:
>In article <63101@ti-csl.CSNET> holland@mips.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes:
>>I guess you didn't notice the :).  I'm not really complaining about InBox.
>>I was simply upset with Symantec.  Last weeks message about
>>SUM's notice in the "Welcome" chapter about not being MultiFinder
>>friendly was the last straw.  I was already upset that Symantec hasn't sent
>
>	Where in the manual is it written that the SUM utilities aren't
>MultiFinder friendly?  The manual does say that the programs like a lot of
>memory, and for that reason, it's recommended that you not run them
>under MultiFinder, in order to maximize the amount of free memory. I quote:
>
>	" All programs attempt to use as much memory as they are able to
>obtain in your computer. This allows them to perform at their optimum level...
>
>	For this reason, and with the exception of Guardian, we recommend
>you do not run any SUM program under MultiFinder. Although the programs
>do operate under MultiFinder, problems can arise and the programs cannot 
			       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To me, this means NOT MultiFinder friendly!  They don't say WHAT PROBLEMS, and
I'm not going to experiment on my system!  If it is ONLY a case of needing
more memory, they should say JUST THAT.  Perhaps recommend a minimum partition.
The wording that is used makes me uncomfortable using it under MultiFinder.
Again, my original posting was a comment on Symantec's customer service
policy, not on SUM.  

>operate at maximum efficiency."
>
>(end of quote)
>
>	This does NOT say that the programs aren't MultiFinder-friendly; it
>DOES say that they demand memory, and not using MultiFinder is a way to
>ease the memory constraint.
>
>	This in no way sets SUM apart; is FullWrite Professional not Multi-
>Finder friendly, just because it can't run in a normal-sized partition?

Does FullWrite indicate that "problems can arise ... under MultiFinder" or
do they simple say that they need gobs of memory to perform well?

>
>	There is another good reason not to run SUM under MultiFinder: since
>things can happen in the background, it is possible that the disk structure can
>change  AT THE SAME TIME SUM IS TRYING TO MODIFY IT. Can you imagine the
>results? I don't care to...

Perhaps the manual should be more explicit, explaining the reasons for its
recommendations.  I was not intending to put down SUM.  Although I was very
angry at the time of my posting (just finished talking to customer service),
the comment was followed by a :).  But I do believe that the manual could be
clearer.  If the MultiFinder restriction is inherent in this type of program,
they should say that (and why).  If it is peculiar to SUM, then it should be
noted on the box.

>	Mind you, I'm not defending SUM out of company loyalty; I am, however,
>defending it as a satisfied user (who's had is hard disk - and his work -
>saved by this package).

I, too, hope to become a satisfied user when I recieve the latest version.

>
>		-Rich
>
>Rich Siegel
>Staff Software Developer
>THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp.
>Internet: singer@endor.harvard.edu
>UUCP: ..harvard!endor!singer
>Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305
>
>Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views
>or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.

Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela

The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.