TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Shrink-wrap and others From:Charles Webster <cwebster -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Sat, 22 Apr 1995 13:25:12 -0700
Many thanks to those who took the time to respond to my post about
"Resolving Edits," I will be meeting with the person in question next
week, and will post the outcome, if I survive <g>.
Second:
Around here (Silicon Valley) "Shrink Wrap" is a term used primarily by
recruiters looking for writers who have produced manuals for commercial
off-the-shelf software. "Must have produced shrink-wrapped
documents..." is a common phrase in job postings and ads for writers
for commercial s/w companies.
Third:
What are people's experiences wrt the stability of FrameMaker 4.0 for
Windows. We (five in our group) are all running it on similar computers
(486-66 w/ 16Mb RAM, 1GB HD), and experience large differences in the
number and frequency of GPFs (General Protection Faults). This ranges
from one/week (my case) to four or five per day in the case of our most
junior writer.
Can the user do anything that directly influences this?
Does the size of the book affect Frame's reliability?
Does the number of book chapters open at once have an affect?
Thanks
<Chas>
--
"Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read" -- Groucho Marx
