Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!linus!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!isle
From: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: S.U.M. glitches
Message-ID: <9875@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 19 Aug 88 23:05:53 GMT
References: <20369@cornell.UUCP> <8143@coherent.com>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 46

In article <8143@coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes:
>Hmmm.  I have another tidbit of information that suggests that Symantec
>isn't being as careful as they might.  I've just opened Get Info boxes on
>the two replacement INITs (HD Partition and Shield) that came across
>comp.binaries.mac earlier this week;  these are supposed to be the ones
>that fix the (serious) bugs reported on the net last month.
>
>HD Partition:   created Jul 5 1988 10:31 PM
>               modified Jul 5 1988 10:54 PM
>               Version: HDPI VERSION 1.0 -- May 15, 1988.
>
>Sheld:          created Jul 5 1988 10:52 PM
>               modified Jul 19 1988 8:26 AM
>               Version: GLON VERSION 1.0 -- Dec 15, 1987.
>               
>From the creation and modification dates, I assume that these are in fact
>newer versions than the ones shipped in the S.U.M. package.  However, it
>doesn't make me feel all that good to see that Symantec didn't bother to
>update the Version information (from the signature resource in the INIT
>file) to reflect the actual status of the software.  It would have been
>so easy to change the version number to 1.1, or 1.0.1, and to change the
>text of the creation date.

DON'T CHANGE THEM!  There's a good (bad?) reason why they didn't change
them.  I went in and changed them to 1.01.  Guess what happened?
Shield options no longer recognized it as a Shield file.  I don't
know HOW shield options checks for a valid Shield INIT, but it sure
doesn't seem like the right way!

*sigh*  I must agree though...seems really silly (sort of like
Word Perfect Mac) to have different version with the same version
number.  Whereas the user interface has been cleaned up ENORMOUSLY
from MacZap (which stunk as far as user interfaces go) to SUM,
it seems it's still lacking that professional crispness of things
being the way they should.

Well, guess we just have to hope for a complete update soon.

Ken



Ken Hancock  '90                   | BITNET/UUCP/
Personal Computing Ctr Consultant  |   INTERNET:  isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER?  I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.