CompuServe Thread

Notebook

30 messages in this thread
#65435From: Black Belt SystemsAug 11, 1992 9:30 PM
We may price v2.0 differently; your opinions are appreciated. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#65539From: Denny Atkin [COMPUTE/AmiAug 12, 1992 6:58 PM
Ben, With support for decent printer output, perhaps some PIM features (such as scheduling, maybe dialing a highlighted number), and other assorted enhancements, I'd think $79.95 would be a quite reasonable price for an updated Notebook. PLEASE price it high enough to afford it some decent packaging. It _does_ make a difference in public perception… People see cheesy packaging and think the entire product is like that. I know you'd rather spend the money on development, but it's a market with weird priorities… Something nice and colorful, ** with a description on the package **, may make all the difference.
#65580From: Black Belt SystemsAug 13, 1992 12:14 AM
Yeah… we figured out how many trees we've saved with packaging the way we've been doing… it's a LOT of trees. Too bad the weak and simple-minded types out there force manufacturers into glitzy, useless marketing drivel which gets thrown out 10 seconds after the product is unwrapped. People are truly annoying sometimes. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#65598From: Don Curtis/SYSOPAug 13, 1992 1:19 AM
Ben, Saving trees? That's a very big assumption on your part. The trees used in paper production are planted for just that purpose. They are just another crop…no different than wheat, corn, etc. other than it takes longer from planting to harvest. Now yes, originally…natural forests were cut down in order to make paper and lumber. And some natural forests are still being cut down for lumber, but it's my understanding (from reading articles on the subject some time ago) that the trees used in pulp production are now all "crop" trees…that is, specifically planted to be later cut down to make pulp for paper. Again…that's from articles I've read…I'm certainly no expert in logging or paper production. Don
#65834From: Vic WagnerAug 14, 1992 6:08 PM
Were these articles printed on paper or were they electronic? Maybe they were prejudiced?? <smmiiille>
#65901From: Don Curtis/SYSOPAug 15, 1992 12:41 AM
Vic, They were printed on dried petrochemicals <grin>! Don
#66032From: Timothy P TrompeterAug 15, 1992 9:55 PM
Don, The trees farmed for packaging and paper use still end up as garbage, filling the landfills and littering various streets and alleyways, no? Ben is right on about this; it's a crying shame that people *expect* throwaway garbage before they'll purchase just what they need. Waste is waste. .. Tim Trompeter…
#66051From: Michael GerardAug 16, 1992 1:03 AM
Tim: No one suggested that Black Belt include more paper… it was Ben's response that suggested that to package Notebook in anything more descriptive than its current packing would require more packaging (a premise with which I'm not sure I would agree). An ecologicaly concerened company could look for new methods of selling their product… like maybe nice posters that are sent to dealers, along with a self running demo or loop video tape.
#66052From: Don Curtis/SYSOPAug 16, 1992 1:24 AM
Tim, Based on your logic…we should use nothing at all…after all, at some point in time…everything ends up as garbage and in a landfill (or otherwise disposed of). Specifically, paper in a landfill is NOT a problem. Paper is biodegradable, quite rapidly as a matter of fact. Don't believe me…go bury a newspaper in your garden and try to dig it up in 6 months. I do agree that waste for the sake of waste is not good, but I also believe that packaging that serves a reasonable purpose is not a waste. Don
#66406From: Timothy P TrompeterAug 19, 1992 1:29 AM
Don, Based on my logic, companies should be ecologically-minded and use the minimum amount of packaging to provide protection for their product, and a concise user-manual. My point stands as is; it's your interpretation that's exaggerated. Sorry if you don't agree. I'd actually prefer electronic user-manuals, except for the times you don't have your machine running 😉 Specifically, paper in a landfill IS a problem; it's just a different problem than solid waste that degrades over longer periods of time. When was the last time you recieved any user-documentation on newsprint? i always get mine on glossy paper; that's a different problem than newsprint anyway. .. Tim Trompeter…
#66541From: Don Curtis/SYSOPAug 20, 1992 12:56 AM
Tim, There's a key word that seems to be missing from your messages…that word is "reasonable". IF user documentation where something you read once and then threw away…fine…put it on newsprint. But I suspect that 99.9% of the folks who get user documentation keep it around long enough that if it were on newsprint…it'd be ripped and yellowed long before the user quit needing it, even if only on an occasion. You worry about paper…that's peanuts compared to things that are really clogging landfills. In particular, grass clippings (yes…they biodegrade quite nicely…and give off lots of methane–a greenhouse gas–in the process) take up a large proportion of landfill space in the summer. I was astonished when I read the percentage. I forget the number…but it was large…on the order of 60% or so. I believe in the environment, but I also believe in being reasonable. I suppose I could go live in the mountains, never buy anything, grow my own food and so forth…be as ecological as possible…but that's not reasonable, at least to me it's not. I'm not a "knee-jerk" environmentalist (and I am NOT saying you are), I look at the issues, the source of the information and what axe they have to grind. Global warming has not been proven…if anything…it's been disproved. The so called ecological disaster of the century…the burning of the oil in Kuwait and the dumping into the Gulf…did NOT have near as much effect on the environment as so called experts said would occur. Again and again…so called experts on the environment have been proven wrong. Their predictions don't come true. That doesn't mean it's ok to do "bad" things…it just means that all the issues must be looked at before jumping into the fray. Don
#66561From: Brian BartlettAug 20, 1992 5:00 AM
Don, actually, the percentage of biodegradable greenery in landfills is right around 35%. This is very significant when you are limited as to landfill availability, as we are here in So. Calif. BTW, the methane that the reduction of greenery produces is, at least, three times more potent than CO2, in terms of "supposed" green-house effect. This was one of the major bones of contention over the Greenhouse treaty at Rio between the EC and the US. They produce more methane, we produce more, but steadily decreasing since 1986, CO2. Actually, the methane that is produced in the EC is usually from the polders, not exactly something one can control. BTW, I do agree with respect to manuals. I still have most of the original documentation from AmigaDOS v. 1.1 here, since I do have a couple of programs that only run on that version (Anyone remember Skyfox?). Brian Bartlett
#66576From: Christopher TolmieAug 20, 1992 10:41 AM
Sure I remember SkyFox, I have it in fact. Haven't ran it for years. Do you remember Keyboard Cadet? That one has helped teach more people I know to touch type than anything else. Too bad 2.04 broke it. Chris
#66099From: Mark D. ManesAug 16, 1992 2:05 PM
Tim, Excuse me? What would you have me keep my documentation and disks for all of the software I own in? Perhaps a burlap bag? I am tired of this environmentalist wacko-ism that seems to be sweeping our country. When was the last time a dirty old copy of Word Perfect packaging ever floated by you in a river? I just don't believe that the land fill is full of program boxes. I can only think of one program's packaging that you will find in a land fill somewhere…and that is Amiga Word Perfect. -mark= – whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
#66407From: Timothy P TrompeterAug 19, 1992 1:29 AM
Mark, Sorry, but you're NOT excused. No need for the stupid sarcasm, buddy. It only serves to make you look silly, and it's rude, unnecessary, and offensive. I'm far from an environmentalist whacko, but after reading your reply, i could care less what you think i am. I could also care less where you keep your disks and documentation. .. Tim Trompeter…
#66514From: Mark D. ManesAug 19, 1992 10:06 PM
Timothy, You read me wrong, though you did get the correct message. I think that envriomental wacko-ism is rampant in America. To the point of being ridiculous. What I did not mean to imply, was that I thought you were a wacko. In fact, I know that not to be true. I was just pointing out that your position is not supportable in regards to software packaging. Software packaging in *my* experience is not thrown away like CD packaging. So therefore there is *nothing* wrong with the production of boxes and packagings to sell and store goods. The burlap sack line was there to make another point. On several occassions I have had 'wackos' come explain to me that I am evil because I am not using one of their 'enviromentally safe' wacko burlap bags to carry my groceries. If I followed your reasoning on this issue, since you did seem to point out the 'politically correct' environmentalist view, you would have me get my software and keep it in a burlap bag. So, my posting to you was to show how absurd your support for Ben's comment was. Further it was to point out to you, through an attempt at humor, why it made no sense. I am sorry if you were offended. -mark= – whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
#66522From: Timothy P TrompeterAug 19, 1992 10:58 PM
Mark, Seems as though we have a disagreement in regards to envirnmental issues; I think my position regarding software packaging is perfectly supportable; I *still* agree with Ben that companies need to consciously *not* waste when selling products. I don't throw away most of my software packages either. I neither blindly follow "politically correct" avenues of thought, nor implied my comment was a knee-jerk implication that you need any kind of burlap bags to protect the environment. Your simplification and categorization of my remarks were your assumptions, not mine. My posting to you is to show that your rejection of Ben's comment as "environmentally-safe whackoism" is what's absurd. And I don't mean to be flip about it, nor to offend you. It's just something I feel strongly about, and you're certainly entitled to disagree. What I was offended about was your flip response and assumption that somehow you were entitled to make it. BTW, I often agree with your comments and find you *usually* have thoughtful reflections on a lot of what's going on in the Amiga community. :^) I'd just like for you to return the courtesy of mutual respect for my comments, even if you disagree. In my opinion, there's no need for biting personal attacks, that's all. My occasional participation in discussions here are just as valid as yours are; I certainly pay my fair share to read the discussions. No hard feelings here! .. Tim Trompeter…
#66657From: Mark D. ManesAug 21, 1992 12:17 AM
No hard feelings here either! Lets keep the political / environmental discussions to the political forums. Lets talk Amiga here! 🙂 -mark= – whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
#66552From: Black Belt SystemsAug 20, 1992 1:29 AM
Actually, Mark – and I don't mean to offend you, but… the thought of keeping all the software packaging is hilarious. What a waste of space; I couldn't afford to keep things that way. I keep my manuals on shelves, disks on shelves (made for disks, by me) and software on the HD unless it's next to useless. Packaging? In the trash, instantly. You may love packaging – others hate it. "Supportable" isn't a term that can be applied very well in a topic where personal preference is the only metering stick. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#66562From: Brian BartlettAug 20, 1992 5:00 AM
Ben, and I have to disagree with you. I have every bloody package that my software came in. There is a fundamental reason for that. If I had to hunt through my bookshelf for the manual that many of my packages require me to look up something, I'd be all week just trying to find the thing. Instead, I follow a simple procedure, I put the manual back in the box and keep them on a set of shelves. Since the boxes all have nice labels on the side, I can usually find the manual in a few seconds. This is not true of many manuals, especially those that have those crazy plastic binders. Although I would normally agree that packaging is a waste for many products, such as toothpaste, deoderant, and many food products, it does serve a useful purpose for those of us that are 'software junkies'. Signed, probably the only logical economist in Greenpeace, Brian Bartlett
#66575From: Christopher TolmieAug 20, 1992 10:41 AM
Brian, I agree with you. I used to take the disk from the packagae and put it in a disk filer, the manuals on a shelf, then I found that some of the software manuals would eventually get separated from each other (addendums, manuals, last minute notes not in the addendums, etc.) or I needed the master disk, trying to find them became tedious, so I went back to keeping everything in the package on my shelves, much easier to find, and although I haven't sold a single software package I've purchased, it is easier to sell when everything is in the same box.However, I'd prefer a moisture, mildew proof container that has a half-life of 10,000 years (just kidding guys). Chris
#66695From: Black Belt SystemsAug 21, 1992 12:58 PM
Um. Well, I solved your problem by putting the manuals in alphabetical order, by application with ABCD…Z dividers along the shelves. Makes it quite easy – and I probably have 50 manuals in the space of 3 or 4 or you boxes, possibly more in some sections (where manuals are thinner). I bet I can find a particular manual within a few seconds of you finding yours; and we have several hundred applications here. Plus, while you're extracting your manual from the box, I'm already looking up what I need. :^) –Ben …via AutoPilot
#66828From: Dan McCoyAug 22, 1992 2:33 PM
One advantage to keeping packaging (at least in my area and the dealer I go to) is that I can often put things I no longer use, packaging and all, on consignment and have it sold to someone who could use it. Games often fit this bill but looking on my shelf and in boxes around me is that almost all productivity software I've ever bought and quite a few games I still find addictive (Lemmings, Railroad Tycoon, and Civilization to name a few), their packaging is around here somewhere. I'm not sure WHY I do it (outside of the possibility of using the boxes to ship something in or selling on consignment). These don't sit on shelves bit in bigger boxes and are in the garage. The manuals sit on the shelf among the RKMs and whatnot. What I object to is packaging (slick or not) that doesn't describe what the contents inside does. Although my dealer doesn't object to returns, I'm not about to buy something I know nothing about and can't tell what it does. I've watched countless others put such packages down without bothering to ask what it is. Impulse's scanned 3D object disk is a prime example of very poor packaging. It can't be difficult to include descriptive text nor should it cause "waste". Dan McCoy – via Whap! and saving money doing it too!
#66864From: Black Belt SystemsAug 22, 1992 11:16 PM
I have no argument with your last points at all. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#66028From: Bill RobertsAug 15, 1992 9:09 PM
I have been curious at the lack of notice about Notebook as well. I have it up now in the background to make notes about the messages I am reading or even to save the messages. I save the message individually to RAM: then load them to a notebook page. I also keep it handy to make notes while developing programs. I even wrote a review for the newsletter our local Amiga dealer (Digital Arts of Bloomington, IN) sends out. The major improvement I would add for ver 2.0 is a requester when you exit that will inform you that your changed notebook has not been saved. (Also do this when you are going to overwrite a notebook.) And then get rid of the requester that asks you if you really want to exit. This kind of request is valid only if you have to reload the system to restart the program. Looking forward to see what 2.0 offers. Bill Roberts in Ellettsville In. via Whap!
#66226From: Black Belt SystemsAug 17, 1992 11:55 AM
Taken, thank you. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#66415From: Laurie CarrollAug 19, 1992 3:09 AM
With Notebook version two in the works I better send in my Regn. BTW I support your position on the packaging for NoteBook. I've got a bunch of empty colourfull boxes under my bed that I do not want to add to the rubbish pile. Here's a couple of users suggestions, One, to retain the "look" of the pages on the screen when printed out, how about being able to print out 2 pages in Landscape. The manual almost fits on an A4 page here. Two, it would be really neat to be able to grab text of ANY other programmes screen and simply "paste" it into a NoteBook page directly (intsead of via Ram: as in the previous message). PS ClickFax is running OK for me here. Laurie Carroll AKL NZ Amiga-Via Falnet.APb
#66437From: Black Belt SystemsAug 19, 1992 11:58 AM
Glad ClickFAX is running well for you – we use it also on a daily basis. I've taken your suggestions and added them to the rest for NoteBook – thanks. –Ben …via AutoPilot
#66702From: Ron LegroAug 21, 1992 2:17 PM
I thought one of the neater solutions to software landfills came from (dare I say it here?) ASDG, which packaged its FACCII software in a CD audio jewel case. The docs were on disk (which should be no problem at all as most of us have printers. But you could always offer the manual at an extra cost, the way the publishers of Managing Your Money for MS-DOS do). Besides being petite, jewel-case software would sit nicely on my shelf next to audio CDs and CD-ROMs. >>>> Ron Legro / Milwaukee via WHAP! "Wherever you go, there you are!"
#66745From: Black Belt SystemsAug 21, 1992 10:55 PM
Mmm. Well, I have a problem with this. First, we sell some fairly technical, or complex, software. None of it would run well without a manual; further, after being in the Amiga market from day one with product, I am convinced that software which is not accompanied by some concrete (read, "not easily copiable and then utilizble") element is doomed to be stolen far and wide. We can't do that and stay in business. So, the way to do it, as best we can, is produce good useful documentation, as detailed as possible etc, and package that with the software. The manual is useful, the disk is useful, beyond that we've been trying to avoid packaging completely. I agree in principle; I just don't see it as workable. –Ben …via AutoPilot