Re: No-Slot Clock

[a2mg@aol.com (TEXAS II - AppleWorks)]

First of all, I asked Glen to come here to discuss this. He was able to get
here, but was not able to post. If anyone can help give directions to get here
from a normal ISP (I have AOL, so I don't know), perhaps he will respond.

> It is exactly what Apple's technote says is the wrong solution.  If an
application is written to follow the guidelines in the technical note, then
this patch will cause compliant applications to break

Exactly. I am thrilled at some of the results of the patch (details in the
Apple II Mail Group: "The good - the bad"). It goes beyond what we could do
with patches to the applications alone.

However, two things surprise me. (a) that it was posted and then released
without any beta testing that I know of, and (b) all those "sheep" praising it
when they have no earthly idea what it will do to their other applications!
Then they turn around and ask "um, why does my program say 19100?"

Users of this patch will require another patch to make AppleWorks 4/5 work
properly. AppleWorks went to great lengths to give us year 2000 dates within
the 0 to 99 rule. With years 00 to 127, AppleWorks returns 1900 where it
normally says 2000.  

I believe that when tech note #28 was published, it went the wrong way. (It was
also insulting and irreverent, but that's another story.) I believe it may be
appropriate to buck the system at this point, but I'd like to see some further
test results. Otherwise, it could possibly push the most important Apple II
program ever released (ProSel) further into obscurity.

Beverly Cadieux 
The Apple II Mail Group - JOIN at http://members.aol.com/A2MG