Article View: comp.sys.next.misc
Article #8Re: IconBuilder: A [harsh] commentary - was Re: Icon, or equivalent under 3.0
From: Brian
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 16:40
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 16:40
15 lines
1264 bytes
1264 bytes
In article <2AEC306E.74E3@deneva.sdd.trw.com> kieffer@spf.trw.com (Robert Kieffer) writes: > > Having more or less mastered "Icon" under 2.1 I am flabbergasted at what > NeXT is trying to foist off on us for an icon builder under 3.0! With > such fertile ground created by Keith Ohlfs, you'd expect that they could > at least get within an order of magnitude of what Icon had to offer. > I have to strongly agree here that in simplest terms, IconBuilder sucks compared to Icon. Fortunately for me, we still have a couple of machines that we have not yet upgraded to 3.0, so I can do all my image manipulations under 2.0. I am extremely disappointed with IconBuilder. brian
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct27.164010.9568@wuecl.wustl.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!eclnews!usenetReferences:
<2AEC306E.74E3@deneva.sdd.trw.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!eclnews!usenet From: brian@wucs1.wustl.edu (Brian) Subject: Re: IconBuilder: A [harsh] commentary - was Re: Icon, or equivalent under 3.0 Message-ID: <1992Oct27.164010.9568@wuecl.wustl.edu> Sender: usenet@wuecl.wustl.edu (Usenet Administrator) Nntp-Posting-Host: clarisse Reply-To: brian@wucs1.wustl.edu (Brian) Organization: Washington University, School of Engineering, St. Louis MO References: <2AEC306E.74E3@deneva.sdd.trw.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 16:40:10 GMT Lines: 15