Article View: comp.sys.next.misc
Article #100Re: IconBuilder: A [harsh] commentary - was Re: Icon, or equivalent under 3.0
From: felix.lugo
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 02:39
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 02:39
22 lines
1146 bytes
1146 bytes
In article <1992Oct29.231421.2656@hot.com> Robert_La_Ferla@hot.com writes: | In article <1992Oct27.164010.9568@wuecl.wustl.edu> brian@wucs1.wustl.edu | (Brian) writes: | >I am extremely disappointed with IconBuilder. | | Ditto. | | Robert La Ferla Why don't you guys use the 2.1 Icon.app demo. I've been using it (and Scene) for several weeks now and it's as BAD in 3.0 as it was in 2.1, but it's not any worse!!!! --Felix BTW, While you're at it, if you need to modify pre-3.0 nib files, just use the 2.1 InterfaceBuilder in 3.0. I've also been using it for a couple of weeks, and it's behavin' (just don't compile anything that's intended to run on 2.1)! Later ...
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct30.023933.29607@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!kithrup!hoptoad!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!cocoReferences:
<1992Oct27.164010.9568@wuecl.wustl.edu> <1992Oct29.231421.2656@hot.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!kithrup!hoptoad!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!coco From: coco@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (felix.lugo) Subject: Re: IconBuilder: A [harsh] commentary - was Re: Icon, or equivalent under 3.0 Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 02:39:33 GMT Message-ID: <1992Oct30.023933.29607@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> References: <1992Oct27.164010.9568@wuecl.wustl.edu> <1992Oct29.231421.2656@hot.com> Lines: 23