Word 4.0 crashes under MultiFinder

100 views
Skip to first unread message

Tim Steele

unread,
Oct 26, 1989, 4:55:14 AM10/26/89
to
I've had problems with Word 4.0 crashing under MultiFinder on a 2 MB
Mac SE. The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no
bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?)

Anyone else seen this? I'm not totally naive, and have made sure I
have a pukka 6.0.3 system.

Tim
--
tj...@tadtec.uucp ..!uunet!mcvax!ukc!tadtec!tjfs
Tadpole Technology plc, Titan House, Castle Park, CAMBRIDGE, CB3 0AY, UK
Phone: +44-223-461000 Fax: +44-223-460727 Telex: TADTEC G

Chuq Von Rospach

unread,
Oct 26, 1989, 12:02:58 PM10/26/89
to
>I've had problems with Word 4.0 crashing under MultiFinder on a 2 MB
>Mac SE. The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no
>bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?)

Well, I beta tested Word 4 on a 2Meg Mac under multifinder. Until I
upgraded to a Mac2, I was using it a couple of hours a number, all under
Multifinder. I use it on a daily basis here on a 4 Meg Mac SE under
multifinder. It's never crashed in any of those configurations. (I could,
for that matter, find a couple of hundred machines here at Apple that meet
that configuration where it works fine...). Which leads me to believe
that there's something funky about your configuration or machine -- perhaps
multifinder is corrupted? Or the Word binary? Or flakey ram? Or etc?

--

Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
ch...@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking]

Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's
name really is in the scheme of things.

James D. Meiss

unread,
Oct 26, 1989, 2:40:58 PM10/26/89
to
In article <TJFS.89Oc...@tadtec.uucp> tj...@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) writes:
>... The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no

>bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?)

This is ridiculous. There is a documented bug that has bitten
me repeatedly: copy a large picture from word into the clipboard. Word
messes up the (so I was told) 128th byte. As an example do this with
an equation created by expressionist. Often expressionist will choke
on the mangled picture and crash.

This bug makes Word 4.0 pretty difficult for me to use, being
a Mathematician/Physicist!

I believe there are several other bugs. For example type at
the end of a paragraph, just before a paragraph with a different style,
say a style that includes boldface, or outlined text. Now type "
command-shift-+ 2 command-shift-space" and then continue typing. Often the
text now acquires the style of the following paragraph, and no amount
of command-shift-spacing will fix it, unless you select the offending
text and then type command-shift-space. This is extremely aggravating,
and never happened in 3.02.
Has anyone else experienced this one? I could go on....but
am not sure of my remaining complaints.

Jim Meiss
j...@euclid.Colorado.edu

Ben Lian

unread,
Oct 26, 1989, 10:34:26 PM10/26/89
to
In article <TJFS.89Oc...@tadtec.uucp> tj...@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) writes:
>I've had problems with Word 4.0 crashing under MultiFinder on a 2 MB
>Mac SE. The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no
>bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?)

Exactly! But then again, maybe the reason why its release was delayed for
so long was to have a roomful of monkeys trying every possible combination
of features. :-)

Seriously though, even if Word 4.0 is bug-free, it doesn't mean that
the program does things *right*. MS still have not completely solved
one fundamental problem with Word---round-off/truncation error in their
justification algorithm, so much so that 4.0's `fractional widths' still
deserves the `farcical widths' nickname. You don't have to do terribly
much to see this. Just type a whole paragraph containing a decent number
of font changes between Times and Symbol, then select full justification.
Look at that awful, ragged right margin! I've been at MS about this on
and off for the past year (since 3.01 days) and I was very disappointed
to see the problem still there. (There also used to be problems with
footnote references too, but MS have fudged things so that it doesn't
happen all the time now. But it is STILL there.)

Moral: Don't use MS Word for technical writing. Try TeX/LaTeX instead
(because it's brilliant, and usually almost free). I still use Word
for straight prose and mickey-mouse tech writing because for that sort
of work, it is still my preferred tool.

Sigh.


Ben Lian

Dept of EE & CS, Uni of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia
UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc,mcvax,hplabs,nttlab}!munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben
ACSnet: b...@tasis.utas.oz Ph: 002-202380 Fax: 002-202713

Chuq Von Rospach

unread,
Oct 27, 1989, 12:17:07 PM10/27/89
to
>Exactly! But then again, maybe the reason why its release was delayed for
>so long was to have a roomful of monkeys trying every possible combination
>of features. :-)

Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk
Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let
it whap away like a three-year-old would....

>Moral: Don't use MS Word for technical writing. Try TeX/LaTeX instead
>(because it's brilliant, and usually almost free).

Or use MS Word for your writing, and if the layout is important, use a
layout program of some sort. That's why they exist...

Ben Lian

unread,
Oct 27, 1989, 11:35:48 PM10/27/89
to
In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk
>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let
>it whap away like a three-year-old would....

I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could
almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my
day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now.

>>Moral: Don't use MS Word for technical writing. Try TeX/LaTeX instead
>>(because it's brilliant, and usually almost free).
>
>Or use MS Word for your writing, and if the layout is important, use a
>layout program of some sort. That's why they exist...

Yes, I agree. Horses for courses. BUT when I specify full justification, I
expect AT LEAST reasonably flush right margins. For the example I gave
previously (many font changes within a paragraph), MS Word doesn't even
come close. Come to think of it, even for plain prose, the right margin
isn't all that flush either...but I'm being picky now. Chuq is quite right.
Word is NOT a typesetting program.

Chuq Von Rospach

unread,
Oct 28, 1989, 1:15:24 PM10/28/89
to
>In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk
>>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
>>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let
>>it whap away like a three-year-old would....

>I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could
>almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my
>day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now.

I was serious. They told me about it when I called up to report the bug my
cockatoo found in Word 3.01. (She does a good imiation of a monkey at a
keyboard -- if she would stop eating the stupid mouse...)

Brian Matthews

unread,
Oct 30, 1989, 3:35:49 AM10/30/89
to
In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
|In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
|>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk
|>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
|>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let
|>it whap away like a three-year-old would....
|I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could
|almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my
|day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now.

I don't know what Microsoft is using, but I have an ancient DA called
Monkey that does this, so it wouldn't surprise me any if Microsoft has
the same thing.

Neil Hoopman

unread,
Oct 30, 1989, 9:04:09 AM10/30/89
to
In article <36...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
>>>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let
>>>it whap away like a three-year-old would....
>
>>I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could
>>almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my
>>day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now.
>
>I was serious. They told me about it when I called up to report the bug my
>cockatoo found in Word 3.01. (She does a good imiation of a monkey at a
>keyboard -- if she would stop eating the stupid mouse...)

Oh, now come on Chuq! If Microsoft is using a "monkey", we're just
following Apple's lead ;-). Check out Inside Macintosh Vol 1, Page 261:

"Before the Macintosh was introduced, Macintosh Software
Engineering created a special desk accessory of its own for
testing Macintosh software. This desk accessory, which was
based on the journaling mechanism, didn't use a file-- it
generated events RANDOMLY, putting the Macintosh "through its
paces" for long periods of time without requiring a user's
attention."

I looked around for the "monkey" desk accessory, but I couldn't find
it. Being a Word tester, I'm qualified to say that even if this desk
accessory existed, it was by no means the core of our testing
strategy!!

As for the spark of this conversation, fractional widths, I'll check
it out and see what I can suggest...

(Before people starting throwing sticks, rocks and small shrubberies
at me, bear in mind that I read and respond to the net on my own time :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hoopman - Microsoft Corp. uunet!microsoft!neilh
------------------------------ microsoft!ne...@uunet.UU.NET
"Carpe Diem. Seize the day. microsoft!ne...@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Make your lives extraordinary." ----------------------------------------
- Dead Poets Society Neil? Neil who? Posted what? When?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick Rothwell

unread,
Oct 30, 1989, 9:55:15 AM10/30/89
to
In article <10...@polari.UUCP>, 6sigma@polari (Brian Matthews) writes:
>In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
>|In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>|>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk
>|>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
>|>movements. It is part of their testing procedure
>
>I don't know what Microsoft is using, but I have an ancient DA called
>Monkey that does this, so it wouldn't surprise me any if Microsoft has
>the same thing.

Probably their *only* testing procedure, given the quality of those
MicroSoft applications I've had to use....

In the case of Word, I bet they let it write the code as well....

Nick.

(flame off... :-))
--
Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
ni...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Fais que ton reve soit plus long que la nuit.

Avi Rappoport

unread,
Oct 31, 1989, 1:05:51 AM10/31/89
to
In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>I've had problems with Word 4.0 crashing under MultiFinder on a 2 MB
>>Mac SE. The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no
>>bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?)
>
>Well, I beta tested Word 4 on a 2Meg Mac under multifinder. Until I
>upgraded to a Mac2, I was using it a couple of hours a number, all under
>Multifinder. I use it on a daily basis here on a 4 Meg Mac SE under
>multifinder. It's never crashed in any of those configurations. (I could,
>

A "crash" and a "bug" are two different things. Someone was keeping a list
of bugs and I contributed a few. HOWEVER, a lot of people are using Word 4
under MultiFinder successfully (including me), so check your inits.

Avi Rappoport

Disclaimer: Don't blame Rich for anything I say.
nile...@well.uucp, Niles.Assoc on AppleLink

Mike Engber

unread,
Oct 31, 1989, 8:34:30 AM10/31/89
to
There is a global system variable call MonkeyLives. Right now I'm looking
in the back of "How to Write Macintosh Software" and it says it's an
integer at 0x100 and that "Monkey tester in use if >=0"

I think that all the Monkey DA does is set this global and the system
generates random events. I'm not sure if it is still supported, but
at one time it was used as an acid test for the user interface section
of your program.

If someone still has the DA around I'd like a copy. It's not the kind of
thing you want to run if your HD is mounted. There's always the chance
the monkey will generate a quit and then and erase disk event.

-ME

Steve Baumgarten

unread,
Oct 31, 1989, 11:31:30 AM10/31/89
to
In article <8...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ni...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
>>I don't know what Microsoft is using, but I have an ancient DA called
>>Monkey that does this, so it wouldn't surprise me any if Microsoft has
>>the same thing.
>
>Probably their *only* testing procedure, given the quality of those
>MicroSoft applications I've had to use....
>
>In the case of Word, I bet they let it write the code as well....

Now be fair -- they don't let the monkey write the code, just design
the user interface....

[ There, I feel much better now. :-) ]

--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baum...@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman

Owen M. Hartnett

unread,
Oct 31, 1989, 10:03:27 PM10/31/89
to
In article <15...@esquire.UUCP> baum...@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes:
>In article <8...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ni...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
>>Probably their *only* testing procedure, given the quality of those
>>MicroSoft applications I've had to use....
>>
>>In the case of Word, I bet they let it write the code as well....
>
>Now be fair -- they don't let the monkey write the code, just design
>the user interface....

Actually, MicroSoft has taken advantage of the old statistical chestnut
that if you had six monkeys banging away on six typewriters, that sooner or
later (naturally after producing much gibberish), the monkeys would
eventually type the complet works of william Shakespeare.

MicroSoft first used this in MS-DOS developement (as is obvious) and has
applied it to nearly every software project since. Rumor has it that,
in the case of Word 3.0, MicroSoft was deceived by three unemployed
Macintosh programmers dressed in gorilla suits. These incognito
programmers actually wrote that bug-ridden release, which required
the services of fifteen orangutangs to finally set straight. Needless
to say, the fraudulent chimps were fired and are now employed on a banana
boat in South America.

that's a :-), son.

Owen Hartnett o...@cs.brown.edu.CSNET
Brown University Computer Science o...@cs.brown.edu
uunet!brunix!omh
"Don't wait up for me tonight because I won't be home for a month."

Shirley Kehr

unread,
Oct 30, 1989, 10:59:44 AM10/30/89
to
In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:

<Seriously though, even if Word 4.0 is bug-free, it doesn't mean that
<the program does things *right*. MS still have not completely solved
<one fundamental problem with Word---round-off/truncation error in their
<justification algorithm, so much so that 4.0's `fractional widths' still
<deserves the `farcical widths' nickname. You don't have to do terribly
<much to see this. Just type a whole paragraph containing a decent number
<of font changes between Times and Symbol, then select full justification.
<Look at that awful, ragged right margin! I've been at MS about this on
<and off for the past year (since 3.01 days) and I was very disappointed
<to see the problem still there. (There also used to be problems with
<footnote references too, but MS have fudged things so that it doesn't
<happen all the time now. But it is STILL there.)
<
<Moral: Don't use MS Word for technical writing. Try TeX/LaTeX instead
<(because it's brilliant, and usually almost free). I still use Word
<for straight prose and mickey-mouse tech writing because for that sort
<of work, it is still my preferred tool.

For those who don't have to use justification, fractional widths does get
rid of the wide spaces between italicized words. Also all technical
writing does not imply mathematical/chemical etc. text using symbol font.
Some studies have shown that ragged right is preferable to justification
for readability. So why do people persist in using justification?

One lady I used to work with (a production type) still wanted to use it
because it looked nice to her. But she didn't have to read and understand
the stuff. She just made it look nice (to her). It might be worthwhile
checking your motivation for using justification. If I had to use it, I'd
be upset too. But use the justification problem as an excuse to get rid
of an ancient fad.

Shirley Kehr

Ernst <pooh> Mulder

unread,
Nov 2, 1989, 2:46:43 PM11/2/89
to
In art. <TJFS.89Oc...@tadtec.uucp> tj...@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) writes:
>I've had problems with Word 4.0 crashing under MultiFinder on a 2 MB
>Mac SE. The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no
>bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?)

Hell, how do THEY know????

No bugs, huh. I almost said a certain word any moderator would have ***-ed,
but I will restain myself.

I don't know how many bugs other people have found already, but these are
the two I found and even though they're not _that_ serious, they're pretty
annoying...

BUG 1)
This bug was already present in MS Word 3.01, and I posted it on the net
when I found it. It didn't help, it's there in version 4.0 too. It is
this: When you make a Page-Break (shift-enter) invisible (Hidden Tekst)
weird things will happen. In Word 3.01 it would make the Table-of-
Contents generator go nuts, in Word 4.0 the effect is more subtle: On
the screen everything is OK, even in the previeuwer. When you print your
text however, the page-break will be ignored. what-you-see-is-what-you-
dread..
It's not so difficult to get an unwanted invisible pagebreak: Consider this
situation. You have a chapter-title:

.C.Chapter 1;

The '.C.' and the ';' are hidden. You want to have a page-break before this
chapter, so you insert the caret before the '.C.' and hit the shift-enter.
Well, there you have a hidden page break. I always check all page-breaks
before I finally print the text.

BUG 2)
Word 4.0 has two nice commands. superscript (command-shift-=) and sub-
script (command-shift--). These work nicely: When you select some text and
hit one of these, the text is sub/super-scripted by 3 points and a smaller
font is chosen. Say the original text was Times-14, the super/sub-scripted
text will be Times-12. Select the text you just super/sub-scripted.
Select Times-12, and suddenly your text is in Times-10!! To get it back
into Times-12 you have to select Times-14... Call that intuitive? The
problem disappears when you close and open the document.

Okay, Work is a nice wordprocessor. (Some people think WP is a nice word
processor for the PC...)

but DON'T CLAIM IT'S BUG-FREE!! (MS, are you listening?)

Maybe I should have said this is a flame? What's reality anyway?

pooh.

Ben Lian

unread,
Nov 1, 1989, 9:42:47 PM11/1/89
to
This follow-up really should be in comp.text, but since the thread started
here....

This phrase "some studies have shown..." has been kicking around for some
time now, but I have yet to actually read published accounts of the
studies. Do you have any references I could look up? I would really like
to see the text(s) which were used.

I am prepared to trust my own eye and judgement when deciding whether I
should use ragged-right or full justification. I have a strong suspicion
that these "studies" may actually go back to the days of mono-spaced
type produced by things like daisy-wheel printers and pre-ImageWriter
dot-matrix printers. With those kinds of printers I would agree 100% that
ragged-right is to be preferred---some of the so-called `justification'
produced by wordprocessors of the day was really awful to look at, let
alone read. (I remember, with a degree of perverse fondness, using Zardax
on an Apple II.) But there was a trade-off. Going ragged-right meant that
some margins were alarmingly ragged and the text therefore equally
difficult to read unless the author manually inserted hyphens to make the
line lengths less uneven (ahh! so that's what hyphens are for).

Nowadays, with the advent of PostScript and high-resolution dot-matrix
printers, the choice of ragged-right vs. full justification for the
average personal computer user is not that clear-cut. Software with as
much control over the placement of type as that of the major publishers
is now within reach of everyone (with a hard disk!). I mentioned TeX
because it is in the public domain and therefore, as I said, almost free.
I contend, and to hell with the experts, that even line lengths are much
more conducive to rapid reading. If the software can perform sophisticated
justification (e.g., TeX does it for whole paragraphs at a time, compared
to the more usual line-at-a-time method) then there is nothing wrong with
full justification. If you decide to stick with ragged-right margins, then
you had better have a pretty darn good hyphenator around, human or
otherwise. And I think that this is one of the really crucial things about
good publication---hyphenation.

Just out of interest, I picked up some of the books lying around my desk
to see what kind of margins they had. Here is the list:

o Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers
Australian Government Publishing Service
o Algorithmics, Harel
Addison-Wesley
o ACM Transactions on Prog Langs and Systems vol 10, no 3
o Communicating Sequential Processes, Hoare
Prentice-Hall
o The Implementation of Functional Prog Langs, Peyton-Jones
Prentice-Hall
o Principles of Prog Langs, Tennent
Prentice-Hall
o The Lives and Loves of a She-Devil (in Swedish), Weldon
Stenstroems
o A Perfect Spy, le Carre
Coronet
o My Life as a Dog (in Swedish), Jonsson
Maanpocket
o The Science of Programming, Gries
Springer-Verlag
o Algebraic Theory of Processes, Hennessy
MIT Press

All had fully justified text.

In summary:

(1) If you are using a monospaced font or printer, use ragged right, but
hyphenate properly, line by line if you have to.

(2) If you are using a typesetter like TeX or Interleaf, then either full
justification or ragged-right is fine. But don't forget to check that
the program has hyphenated properly for you. (Use commonsense. Only
body text should be fully justified.)

Full justification is NOT an ancient fad. MS Word 4.0 does not pretend to
be a typesetter on par with TeX, but that is no excuse (justification?)
for the less than satisfactory handling of flush right margins.

Bill Cramer

unread,
Nov 3, 1989, 9:17:48 AM11/3/89
to
In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
>This follow-up really should be in comp.text, but since the thread started
>here....
>
>In article <122...@felix.UUCP> ke...@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes:
>>In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
>>
>>For those who don't have to use justification, fractional widths does get
>>rid of the wide spaces between italicized words. Also all technical
>>writing does not imply mathematical/chemical etc. text using symbol font.
>>Some studies have shown that ragged right is preferable to justification
>>for readability. So why do people persist in using justification?
>>
>>One lady I used to work with (a production type) still wanted to use it
>>because it looked nice to her. But she didn't have to read and understand
>>the stuff. She just made it look nice (to her). It might be worthwhile
>>checking your motivation for using justification. If I had to use it, I'd
>>be upset too. But use the justification problem as an excuse to get rid
>>of an ancient fad.
>
>This phrase "some studies have shown..." has been kicking around for some
>time now, but I have yet to actually read published accounts of the
>studies. Do you have any references I could look up? I would really like
>to see the text(s) which were used.
>

I went to some seminars at an NCGA (?) show several years ago. One of the
seminars was on human interface issues. The issue of justification came
up then, and the opinion of the seminar teachers was that ragged right was
easier to read. Several of these teachers were published; the only one
I can remember off hand was the guy who wrote a common college text on
human interfaces -- "Interactive Graphic Interfaces" or something like
that. I think his name was "Foley". Sorry I can't come up with a more
exact reference -- they say the memory is the first thing to go (or was
it the second? :-)

At any rate, (now I am digressing into my own opinion...), flush right
does indeed *look* prettier (IMHO). That does not necessarily mean that
flush right *reads* easier -- a BIG, BIG difference. The cleanest LOOKING
page (again, IMHO) is one set in 10 point times with 6 1/2 inch flush
right columns. It's neat, it's sweet, and it's damn hard to read more
than a page or two without stopping to rub your eyes and stare out the
window for a bit.

Bill Cramer
IEX Corporation
Plano, Texas
{uunet,convex,attctc}!iex!cramer

Alexis Rosen

unread,
Nov 4, 1989, 9:03:12 PM11/4/89
to
In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
>In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk
>>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
>>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let
>>it whap away like a three-year-old would....
>
>I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could
>almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my
>day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now.

Surely someone remembers???

Monkey was written by someone at Apple in 1983, before the Mac came out.
There's even a low-level global somewhere that refers to it (I forget why).
I'm surprised that this bit of ancient MacHistory still works. If it does,
it should really be availablefrom APDA- it has the potential to save some
people hours and hours of testing time...

Alexis Rosen
ale...@panix.uucp
cmcl2!panix!alexis

R. Scott V. Paterson

unread,
Nov 5, 1989, 6:46:43 PM11/5/89
to
I recently bought MacWrite II and would like to have my MacWrite 5.0 files
startup with MacWrite II when I launch them. I thought I read recently
about an init that would do this. Could someone please tell me the name
of this init?

Thanks,

-rsvp

Justin Vallon

unread,
Nov 6, 1989, 12:34:18 PM11/6/89
to
In article <12...@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl> rcb...@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Ernst <pooh> Mulder) writes:
>In art. <TJFS.89Oc...@tadtec.uucp> tj...@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) writes:
>>I've had problems with Word 4.0 crashing under MultiFinder on a 2 MB
>>Mac SE. The Microsoft helpline react incredulously with "There are no
>>bugs in Word 4.0" (how do they KNOW??!?)
>
> Hell, how do THEY know????
>

I agree. Here is a bug, but not a crash. Please DO attempt this at home.
You do not need to be a professional word processor in order to attempt
these maneuvers.

Turn OFF page-view (if it's on) and type in the following short document:

"This is page number ", then Glossary (Cmd-K) Page Number. "Return"

Enter a page-break with Shift-Enter.

"This is page number ", then Glassary (Cmd-K) Page Number.

Now, keep your eyes on the screen and start typing. When I do this, the
second page number changes from 2 to 1 to 2 back and forth a few times
while I type.

For some more fun, try to fix it with Repaginate. Both the page numbers
are the same.

It appears that this problem is just cosmetic, because page mode, preview,
and printing give the right pages. It appears to be a display problem
when there is more than one page on the screen. Who knows?

NO BUGS? I thought that I remember some guy named Turing who would
disagree.

-Justin
val...@sbcs.sunysb.edu

Rick Holzgrafe

unread,
Nov 6, 1989, 1:53:16 PM11/6/89
to
In article <3...@panix.UUCP> ale...@panix.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes:
> Monkey was written by someone at Apple in 1983, before the Mac came out.
> There's even a low-level global somewhere that refers to it (I forget
why).
> I'm surprised that this bit of ancient MacHistory still works. If it
does,
> it should really be availablefrom APDA- it has the potential to save some
> people hours and hours of testing time...

Monkey is indeed an excellent aid to testing. But it *doesn't* (or
shouldn't) save testing time. You still have to test every feature
yourself, singly and in combination, and in a controlled, documented
fashion, to be sure everything works. The problem is that there are
usually too many combinations to be tested in reasonable time, so you can
only test the more obvious ones. The Monkey is an *extra* test, one you
can run at night for example, that might through luck stumble across a bug
that your planned testing missed. *If* your planned testing is thorough,
*and* it finds no bugs, *and* the Monkey can't break your product, you can
ship with confidence!

==========================================================================
Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh
Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 r...@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do
20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 67-B | not necessarily represent those of my
Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."

Ben Lian

unread,
Nov 8, 1989, 4:18:34 AM11/8/89
to
In article <1989Nov3.1...@iex.uucp> cra...@athens.UUCP (Bill Cramer) writes:
>In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
>>This follow-up really should be in comp.text, but since the thread started
>>here....
>>
>>In article <122...@felix.UUCP> ke...@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes:
>>>In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
>>>
>>>For those who don't have to use justification, fractional widths does get
>>>rid of the wide spaces between italicized words. Also all technical
>>>writing does not imply mathematical/chemical etc. text using symbol font.
>>>Some studies have shown that ragged right is preferable to justification
>>>for readability. So why do people persist in using justification?
>>>
>seminars was on human interface issues. The issue of justification came
>up then, and the opinion of the seminar teachers was that ragged right was
>easier to read. Several of these teachers were published; the only one
>I can remember off hand was the guy who wrote a common college text on
>human interfaces -- "Interactive Graphic Interfaces" or something like
>that. I think his name was "Foley". Sorry I can't come up with a more
>exact reference -- they say the memory is the first thing to go (or was
>it the second? :-)
>
>At any rate, (now I am digressing into my own opinion...), flush right
>does indeed *look* prettier (IMHO). That does not necessarily mean that
>flush right *reads* easier -- a BIG, BIG difference. The cleanest LOOKING
>page (again, IMHO) is one set in 10 point times with 6 1/2 inch flush
>right columns. It's neat, it's sweet, and it's damn hard to read more
>than a page or two without stopping to rub your eyes and stare out the
>window for a bit.

Yes, of course! In addition to good hyphenation, I should have added that
overall page design is important. Both ragged right and full justification
are awful if (a) the leading is wrong and (b) the columns are too wide.
White space must also be used carefully. A rough guide to how wide lines
should be is to try to have between 10 to 12 words per line, or about
60 to 70 characters (including spaces). There are no hard and fast rules;
one has to trust one's eye and experience. For example, with TeX's
Computer Modern font, I like 12 point type on 13 point leading, and a line
width of just under 150mm (sorry, we're metric down here). I could probably
get away with 10 or 20mm more because Computer Modern has a wider pitch
than, say, Times (at the same size). Incidentally, one other reason why I
prefer TeX and Computer Modern is that the characters look better formed
at the LaserWriter's 300dpi resolution. Times, Palatino, and other serifed
and semi-serifed fonts are simply too subtle for a printer of such low
resolution to render properly, particularly at anything under 14 points.
In fact, it is positively pathetic compared to a Linotype at 1200dpi! But
at USD 6.00 per A4 page, I can't afford to be too fussy!

Really, page design is a difficult business. I'm only at amateur at it.
So, call me a fool if you will, but I still say that flush right is NOT
an ancient fad.


Jeff Wiseman

unread,
Nov 9, 1989, 1:38:12 PM11/9/89
to

I had the same problem for quite a while until a friend of mine got me a copy
of "Imposters" from off of compuserve. They solve the problem almost perfectly.
I say almost because you need ResEdit to set them up (you have to modify the
STR resources to tell them the name and whereabouts of the application that you
want started) but it is fairly easy to do. Imposters is a stuffit file that
contains several "Imposter" applications already set up (eg. word, macwrite,
nisus, macdraw, etc.).

They are very small (<3kbytes I think) and best of all, they are FREE!
(Wellll.. I did need to pay for my friend's connect time!)

--
Jeff Wiseman: ....uunet!tellab5!wiseman OR wis...@TELLABS.COM

Ben Lian

unread,
Nov 9, 1989, 10:00:58 PM11/9/89
to
In article <50...@internal.Apple.COM> r...@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) writes:
>In article <3...@panix.UUCP> ale...@panix.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes:
>usually too many combinations to be tested in reasonable time, so you can
>only test the more obvious ones. The Monkey is an *extra* test, one you
>can run at night for example, that might through luck stumble across a bug
>that your planned testing missed. *If* your planned testing is thorough,
>*and* it finds no bugs, *and* the Monkey can't break your product, you can
>ship with confidence!

*And* still have a buggy product!!

If the application is large and complex, I doubt that any amount of
conscientious testing can span the entire state space. That's why people
who claim that large-and-complicated-program-X is bugfree are invariably
talking through their hats. Why do you think they put those 'it's your
problem, pal' disclaimers in warranties. For example, reading the fine
print on my Word 4.0 disk package, I see a heap of 'thou shalt nots', plus
disclaimers which absolve the company from all liability in States whose
consumer laws are not that strong.

Note that I am not picking on Microsoft. Most other software products sold in
the USA contain almost exactly the same guff. Are people really that eager
to sue at the drop of a hat? Aww, I'm crapping on now....

I just want a program that does what it is supposed to do, and does it
properly. I can take the occasional crash, as long as it is not catastrophic,
i.e., wipes out my life's work, etc. etc.

Pete Ferris

unread,
Nov 10, 1989, 1:19:49 PM11/10/89
to
In article <> ale...@panix.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes:
>In article <10...@diemen.cc.utas.oz> b...@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes:
>>In article <35...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>>Actually, from talking to people I know at Microsoft, that *have* a Desk
>>>Accessory called "monkey" that will type in random keystrokes and mouse
>>>movements. It is part of their testing procedure -- just fire it up and let
>>>it whap away like a three-year-old would....

Yup, "Monkey" is a real, uhhhh "unique" DA!
I especially enjoyed watching it go down three folders deep one time renaming
folder/files/apps such easy mnemonics as:"#&5*()zffb _|{" etc.!!

>>
>>I could be gullible enough to believe this. It's so far-out that it could
>>almost be true! Are you serious, Chuq? Confirmation would really make my
>>day, and heaven knows how much I need cheering up right now.
>

>Surely someone remembers???
>
I do! I do!

>Monkey was written by someone at Apple in 1983, before the Mac came out.
>There's even a low-level global somewhere that refers to it (I forget why).

(Hmmm, didn't know that! Anyone know specifically what / why?)

>I'm surprised that this bit of ancient MacHistory still works. If it does,
>it should really be availablefrom APDA- it has the potential to save some
>people hours and hours of testing time...
>

Last time I ran Monkey DA on an HFS oriented system it pooped out - unexpectedly
quit, didn't do anything, etc. Everything but what it was , uhh, "supposed"
to do!

As I recall, it started by a dialogue box - showing a monkey sitting at a terminal, asking you for a number and/or a "seed". Then the fecal material hit the
ventilating device!

It WAS a riot in a sick sort of way! I only ran it on systems I didn't
especially care about!

I think of "Monkey" as a semi-sane virus/worm-like DA. It can eat your lunch
if you blink! It wasn't the kind of DA you'd install on the department
secretaries Mac and walk away and expect never to hear from her again - if you
know what I mean! :-)

I probably still have a copy somewhere - for sentimental reasons if nothing
else. If someone knows a fix to get it to run under 6.0.3 I'd love
to hear it... :-)

>Alexis Rosen
>ale...@panix.uucp
>cmcl2!panix!alexis

Pete Ferris
p...@thumper.bellcore.com

Brandon S. Allbery

unread,
Nov 10, 1989, 6:41:38 PM11/10/89
to
As quoted from <15...@accuvax.nwu.edu> by b...@accuvax.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel):
+---------------

| In article <16...@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> rs...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (R. Scott V. Paterson) writes:
| The INIT you're thinking of is HandOff (recently named one of MacUsers 200
+---------------

Actually, no. I remember mention of an INIT which *specifically* arranged for
MacWrite II to open Macwrite 5.0 documents; it did not handle other mappings,
as HandOff does. I'll check various places for it.

++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery all...@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi)
uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!all...@hal.cwru.edu b...@telotech.uucp
*(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)*
*Third party vote-collection service: send mail to all...@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
>>> The *.aquari* debate: news.groups gone news.playpen <<<

Eric Johnson

unread,
Nov 13, 1989, 8:41:03 AM11/13/89
to
Last night on BIX (the Byte magazine Information eXchange), I saw
the target of the discussion about the Monkey DA. Monkey is
apparently a DA that asks you for a seed value and then generates
random events on your Macintosh. (I say apparently because I
choose CANCEL from the dialog--I do not need my files renamed,
for example, or anything else that could go wrong.) From the
description, Monkey is very dangerous. Use/Abuse with caution.

Since it is very short, I'm posting it here. Since Monkey was
available on McGraw-Hill's BIX bbs, I'm assuming it is freely
redistributable. If not, you have my apologies.

Are we having fun yet?
-Eric


To retrieve, cut everything up to the cut here line, and from the
second "cut here" line to the end. Run through BinHex 4.0.

===================cut here======================================
(This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0)

:"Ne[EQYPH3"%4NP-4%e29J%!!!!!!!!!#%9Y1!!!!!!"!!!!"mm!!!E2!!!!GQc
rmLmU!"j)HJ"3U4Sr2!!"6VVqX&42B"JNE2rb,bS!#Qe[EQYPH5jLD@jP!J!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!SB1IC!!!!!!!!!K&C5"K)%CTE'8!6PB!!%kk")BNE2rb2bS!'+Qh6Pj1G8j@!!!
[#b4Xrr)LDJ!8*P%hI!!)%,`[+`!%2c`!rUPG,bX!#$mm!2kTA5mV!!`r2!$qU9e
1Z[e`2c`!!8kkrIK86b4Xrr)[+J!H5(S!i+ND2c`!"6mm!"5SNdKk!1bSK%Kk!3!
!"FiN!!!HrrX!!!!D!+B!eJ#Q!+S'6@pZDf9j)%MR%$JS55(i!UB"'%UX!"4Q@MB
X!"K'3qY,!%2!!&P2,ca%594-2`1TS#"A5TpR%L"3-$`!b!aB-$PAb2rkCJ)a!eP
22`0#Th$r,`#TI#PA!"iJAc&X!"J!E#!m!!!"0+%L*%JT5!!83RJ"!#4X!"3Q8L(
i!US"'%*V!#T#D`!X*VJ+!P(V!6*-ha`)F!"1G8MR!$JS55CX!"3J5k!M,b`!(UQ
$3U`!&&P2,ca$4%9'3QHTS+QM60mF!'$351Frq#K**%JJE!!8S#NQ8$!U!"S%3!!
3Cai%3!!`CfC63'FL)'`!&+!U)Na-harmF!!JH!Mm6Y!m+J!J*'S!('%!!,jJhPQ
2U53J(fF!!"U`V!!HCJ!!%N+R5'm!!NKi#IS[&kQ!@)m)1!!"!AYR#P$i#-p#H!M
HB+T4q!M2-Icrr`MHB*j96bmU!"a)H!Rk5'X"-+Q!5KpRLP0V!6"R'JLX!!F!"8j
@rmiJ6c&X!"J!'+!"6PjJ!2pb8IJ)cc(mrrm)hM(X!"J)k&$V!6)[,!!H2c`!"8K
i#IT)D`%X5(J*qUQ0)'X",#"3)"!J95&!ri)[,!!HUB0#V!!HB!$r*L(6#$"3q!M
1-#X!+Qi'B3!!i'$X3qX!,$!V!#U`D`!SCK*6D`!QDJa4D`!U0h`!#`!QB03hD`!
U!#M5`$SC$%B!!'FD$%B!!@FD$%B!!QFd$%B!!fG#$%B!"'G+pmiNZ!&U6R8J1!&
UX,J"DQIk$%8!!@B-8@X!+LD4DJ3QZ!U3!#566R8-43!#CJK4D`!U&e%!""5V!!4
1G8(V!!BNf#6B*0JNf%jeB3!#+Ja&!!4Q-&&V!#S`'6G!!")-3!!"C``-3!!#C`B
R@3!8B"3R83!F*TPU"#Di#T!!!N!!!4G!!!3L5N(V!"*`%+!Z3QX!)%je9BqSB6!
I!N!!(N(k!D$3m!!!6Y"`B'%!!TBb!!C"!#"K!!(@-[`!"$,m!!-LJ8jeB3!"eQ%
!!F)br!!%-[`!!L+#B3!"Y$,m!!3br!!")S*1G@%!!E4K!!'J-[`!"$,m!!)LJQ%
!!@CK!!&LB3!"QQ%!!BBbr!!%-[`!!5+#6R9K!!)LB3!"FM,m!!3br!!#)S*K!!%
iB3!"0'%!!@aK!!&B-[`!"$,m!!%LJNjeB)"1G8(k!M`Kb!SX)I`"!!%!#T!!G2p
K!!%b-[`!"$,m!!)LJQ%!!53br!!")S*K!!%D-[`!!5+#B3!"%$,m!!%LJQ%!!C*
K!!%#-[`!!5+#B3!!q$,m!!3br!!")S*1G@%!!C4K!!$N-[`!"$,m!!)LJQ%!!0B
br!!")S*K!!%1B3!!b$,m!!3br!!")S*1G@%!!-KK!!#d-[`!"$,m!!)LJQ%!!+B
br!!%-[`!!5+#B3!!Q$,m!!3br!!#)S*K!!#+-[`!"$,m!!%LJNjeB3!"*Q%!!(B
br!!%-[`!!L+#B3!!D$,m!!%LJQ%!!3TK!!"D-[`!"$,m!!%LJNjerS6qK2k%rS6
qD2jSrUEqT[l8rQMrN[r3rf,r![m'r`CK!!!kIJ0K!!!N-[`!!5+#8Frrp%je3QX
!%LGi!@S!'#G6!"`AD`!%!#&1G9"V!#T$k`!X-#X!+Y,!6R9+Z!R@C`!!PL"i#GC
"k!!3B3!!V#"i#GC)3T4S!!K)3T4S!!TC6dKi#$3[!UP1*"p1G8Ui#GCR!!"N)(J
*eN(S!"!ad!Rq-HJ!!JRm"RJ!+!Rm-G!*qJ4i!"!*qM(S!!B+!%(i#ITK!!"@)(J
*eNK#P'J!#%K#P'J!#Q#S3RJ*qM(m!!3*r$(m!"!*rM(m!Ii+!%(i#ITK!!!QB)K
"q!JdB3!!(%je51GJ`$m!9BqSBA!!-"q!hdK!60m$"Nje-#J!"*!!8'(Jd&!d!%K
#-#J!"T!!D!!#BG$3D!!#0!"C6bm),`+T6L3I6R8JE`!%51GrIf(-)F)+N!"-hrl
qF!!ZRdje!!!!J!1!!!!)B!2!%"Mm1&'%X!C54)ik)TLa`M*%[3)4!Vd#'B+p!J5
L[3)3[,d#)N#&!N&!J3*#J)d'N!"!J4+#)(&'J"!21-3-!F(#JR)!`H'Z!H$F9B"
"9kT"B1"e`%&!Mi&K6`B#32#!#+#!60$#"M9JS"8#)%T)bN!e-$@!(X!!!!!!!"F
!C!"N!,i!qJ!"!!!"!!!!!!6$3!&0)!!!!&S!"!!!!!!!2!!+!&!!4J3&8h4KFR3
!!!!!!!!m!&!!8!#-"!C$B@jMC@`!!!!!!!i!'!!Z!$LJ!Lrj!!!!!!!+!&d!'J#
#L!46C@9N!!!!!!!F!&`!,!#!N!!!!!!"!!!!"mm!!!E2!!!!GJ!!c#J"f!!!!"`
!EJ!$4&*@8J!!!#**3dp1!!!!,N4-6dF!!!!k4%P86!!!!%B!'J!!!!!!!!!!m6$
$32rr)!!&dJ!!m16$32rr)!!'9J!!m2$$32rr)!!'F3!!m2J(!%e[EQYPH5$D:
---
===================cut here======================================

--
Eric F. Johnson, Boulware Technologies, Inc.
415 W. Travelers Trail, Burnsville, MN 55337 USA. Phone: +1 612-894-0313.
e...@pai.mn.org - or - bungia!pai!erc
(We have a very dumb mailer, so please send a bang-!-style return address.)

Stephan - Somogyi

unread,
Nov 13, 1989, 4:27:38 PM11/13/89
to
rs...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (R. Scott V. Paterson) writes:

>I recently bought MacWrite II and would like to have my MacWrite 5.0
>files startup with MacWrite II when I launch them. I thought I read
>recently about an init that would do this. Could someone please tell
>me the name of this init?

The INIT is called HandOff.

Send mail to F.HOL...@applelink.apple.com; he's the author.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stephan Somogyi MacUs...@cup.portal.com
NetWorkShop Coord. or
MacUser ...{apple|uunet|sun}!cup.portal.com!MacUserLabs

The MacUser NetWorkShop - home of the LocalTalk backbone

Any opinions expressed above are mine.

Thomas A Longstaff

unread,
Nov 26, 1989, 6:48:36 PM11/26/89
to

Somehow I have lost my list of mac bulletin boards on the west coast.
If anyone out there has such a list, could you please mail me a copy?
Bulletin boards in the 415 area are especially welcome. Thanks...

Tom Longstaff LLNL, L-540, PO Box 808, Livermore CA 94551
long...@lll-crg.llnl.gov 415-423-4416
Tom Longstaff Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab
415-423-4416 L-542, Box 808
long...@frostedflakes.llnl.gov Livermore, CA 94550
{lll-crg,harvard,sun,dual,rutgers,seismo,ihnp4}!lll-lcc!longstaf

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages