Inside Mac Games Volume 3 #10/IMG 31 Oct 1995.iso/More Goodies/E-Zines/Tidbits/TidBITS#295⁄18-Sep-95.etx

Text File | 1995-09-18 | 30KB | 610 lines

TidBITS#295/18-Sep-95
=====================

Tune into TidBITS this week to learn some hot (and unfortunate)
   news about PowerBook 5300-series batteries. You'll also find
   Tonya expressing frustration over the missed opportunity in
   ClarisWorks 4.0's HTML converter, plus info on a contest to
   determine the security of Macintosh-based Web servers. And if you
   want a vanity-plate Internet site, the world just changed: check
   out Glenn Fleishman's analysis of the new charge for registering
   Internet domain names.

This issue of TidBITS sponsored in part by:
* APS Technologies -- 800/443-4199 -- <[e-mail]>
   Makers of hard drives, tape drives, and neat SCSI accessories.
   For APS price lists, email: <[e-mail]>
* Northwest Nexus -- 206/455-3505 -- http://www.halcyon.com/
   Providing access to the global Internet. <[e-mail]>
* Hayden Books, an imprint of Macmillan Computer Publishing
   Free shipping on orders via the Web -- http://www.mcp.com/
   Mac Tip of the Day & free books! -- http://www.mcp.com/hayden/
* Power Computing -- 800/375-7693 -- <[e-mail]>
   Now shipping... The Award-Winning First MacOS Compatible!
   See what the press says! http://www.powercc.com/News/quotes.html

Copyright 1990-1995 Adam & Tonya Engst. Details at end of issue.
   Information: <[e-mail]> Comments: <[e-mail]>
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

Topics:
    MailBITS/18-Sep-95
    Battery Problem Sidelines PowerBook 5300s
    ClarisWorks and HTML: Can this Relationship be Saved?
    Domain Name Registration Fees Underway
    Reviews/18-Sep-95

ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/pub/tidbits/issues/1995/TidBITS#295_18-Sep-95.etx


MailBITS/18-Sep-95
------------------

**This is a test. This is only a test.** The folks behind the book
  _WebMaster_Macintosh_ have set up a contest to determine how
  secure Macintosh web servers really are. They've put up a Web site
  running WebSTAR with a "target" file that contestants must try to
  retrieve. The first person to retrieve the file wins a year's
  subscription to MacTech Magazine and a free pass to the next
  WebEdge conference, and the next two people receive free WebEdge
  passes. If the challenge of breaking WebSTAR's security isn't
  sufficient, there's a second Mac connected to the first via
  Ethernet. This second Mac doesn't run TCP/IP, only AppleTalk, and
  holds a second target file; retrieving it wins you three free
  WebEdge passes. The hope is that these tasks will prove
  impossible, however, should someone break in, that's also useful
  since it will help StarNine and Apple plug security holes. Contest
  rules and details are at: [ACE]

http://www.webmastermac.com/security/


**Thanks to Terry Worley** (a former Radius staffer) who checked
  out our statement in TidBITS-291_ that Portrait Display Labs
  developed Pivot monitor technology before Radius marketed it.
  We've been unable to confirm this bit of info gleaned from an
  unidentified Radius rep a while back, so we apologize to Radius
  and announce that, as far as we can tell, Radius engineers did all
  the work on the nifty rotating monitor idea. [MHA]


Battery Problem Sidelines PowerBook 5300s
-----------------------------------------
  by Geoff Duncan <[e-mail]>

  On 14-Sep-95 Apple announced it has stopped shipments of the new
  PowerBook 5300 product line due to potentially dangerous problems
  with the product's lithium-ion battery packs. The problems do
  _not_ impact any other PowerBooks, including Apple's new PowerBook
  190 and Duo 2300 models (see TidBITS-292_). Apple has recalled the
  roughly 1,000 units shipped to dealers and resellers, and reports
  indicate only about 100 units actually reached customers.

http://www.apple.com/documents/letters/keast.950915.html

  Details are still sketchy, but apparently at least two of these
  battery packs failed "catastrophically" at Apple's main campus
  while recharging, with at least one battery catching fire.

  Apple plans to replace the lithium-ion batteries with nickel-
  metal-hydride (NiMH) batteries currently in production for the
  PowerBook 190. Although no ROM or hardware changes will be
  required, Apple will install a system extension to handle the NiMH
  batteries. The NiMH batteries have rated capacities of 26 watt-
  hours, which Apple says will translate into about 20 percent less
  battery life than what had been projected using lithium-ion
  batteries. The switch should make supplies of the 5300-series and
  the 190 scarce for some time.

  It's unclear whether the problem stems from the engineering of the
  5300-series, its charging circuitry, or a manufacturing problem
  with the battery packs. Sony makes most lithium-ion batteries, and
  lithium-ion batteries are currently used in other consumer
  electronics products, including non-Apple laptop computers. Though
  lithium-ion batteries give superior performance compared to other
  battery types, they contain flammable electrolytes and require
  more precise charging voltages than other batteries. Lithium-ion
  battery packs do have safety features built into them - including
  a micro-controller, temperature sensors, and a mechanical valve to
  release pressure - that should prevent severe failure even in
  extreme circumstances.

  If you own a 5300-series PowerBook and haven't been contacted,
  turn it off, unplug it, and call your Apple dealer or
  800/SOS-APPL.

  Information from:
    Apple propaganda
    Pythaeus


ClarisWorks and HTML: Can this Relationship be Saved?
-----------------------------------------------------
  by Tonya Engst, <[e-mail]>

  The Web bandwagon has room for most comers, and recently
  ClarisWorks 4.0 jumped on with its new HTML converter. Despite my
  typical cynicism regarding press releases, the ClarisWorks press
  release had me excited. It quoted an Instructional Technology
  Coordinator as saying: "Many schools are starting their own Web
  sites and need an easy way to create World Wide Web documents. The
  ClarisWorks HTML capability is awesome and will be a really big
  draw for our schools." It's a great quote, but I wonder if the
  quotee had any experience with other Mac HTML authoring tools.


**Where's the chemistry?** For ClarisWorks and its converter to
  shine as a couple, they must work in tandem to create something
  greater than the sum of their parts. Unfortunately, ClarisWorks
  and its converter come close to creating something less than the
  sum of their parts.

  Claris has positioned ClarisWorks as an HTML authoring tool,
  something anyone could use to create an HTML document. In fact,
  ClarisWorks and its converter are only appropriate for someone
  converting existing ClarisWorks documents into HTML. The problem
  here is previewing - previewing from ClarisWorks is harder than
  previewing in any other HTML editor I've tried.

  The idea is that you don't need a preview because ClarisWorks
  provides a WYSIWYG authoring environment - the converter changes
  topic headings to HTML heads, bold text to strong, and so on. This
  theory falls down faster than rain in a tropical storm when you
  realize that the converter only supports a subset of HTML 2.0.
  Glossary lists, addresses, block quotes, Netscape extensions,
  links with name attributes, and others must be tagged by hand and
  formatted with the Literal style. So much for WYSIWYG.

  When you create an HTML document in any word processor other than
  Nisus Writer and manually add tags, you must do a Save As to save
  the HTML document as text _each_ time before you can preview it in
  a Web browser. (Some word processors can automatically save
  existing text documents as text.) This is because HTML is a text
  format, and Web browsers can't understand non-text files.

  If you instead rely on a converter to insert HTML tags, you must
  convert the file each time before previewing. ClarisWorks is no
  exception. When you save into HTML format, the HTML converter
  examines the document for certain elements and styles, and does an
  acceptable job at adding the corresponding HTML tags.

  Chances are good that after converting a ClarisWorks document into
  HTML, you will want to open the document with its tags showing and
  make corrections. This process in other programs usually involves
  a lot of tweaking, saving, and reloading - each time you wish to
  see what your tweaks have done, you must save the document as
  text, switch to a Web browser, and reload the page.

  ClarisWorks complicates this process, because if you double-click
  a converted HTML document, ClarisWorks uses its converter to
  change the document _back_ into a ClarisWorks format, thus
  removing the tags the converter added. According to Claris's HTML
  Primer, you can open your file and see the tags if you go the
  File/Open route, but this didn't work for me; I had to open my
  document in a different word processor to see the tags.

  For easy previewing of documents, a better choice would be an HTML
  authoring tool such as HTML Web Weaver or Arachnid. HTML Web
  Weaver comes on the disk with _Create_Your_Own_Home_Page_, (a book
  by me and Adam that should be available in a few weeks), so I can
  say for sure that its preview is easy to use. I haven't tried
  Arachnid in a while, but every so often I get enthusiastic email
  about it, so I know some people like it.

ftp://mirrors.aol.com//pub/info-mac/text/html/html-web-weaver-252.hqx
ftp://mirrors.aol.com//pub/info-mac/text/html/arachnid-16b.hqx

  The best choices in terms of easy preview are text editors such as
  BBEdit with its included HTML extensions or Nisus Writer 4.1 with
  its included HTML macros from Sandra Silcot. My fellow TidBITS
  editor, Geoff, likes Alpha, a text editor that includes HTML
  authoring support.

http://www.tiac.net/biz/bbsw/
http://www.nisus-soft.com/
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~keleher/alpha.html


**Where's the mutual support?** In most good relationships, both
  partners support each other. But in this case, it seems nobody
  thought about making the converter work well with what ClarisWorks
  has to offer.

  ClarisWorks provides an HTML stylesheet you can view as a separate
  palette and use to easily apply styles to items that later take on
  HTML tags. Inexplicably, the palette includes list styles
  (Diamond, Harvard, and Legal) that the converter does not
  recognize. The ClarisWorks HTML Primer explains that to make
  lists, you must precede each entry with a tab and then type a
  bullet or a number. The primer says _nothing_ about the list
  styles that appear in the HTML stylesheet. (I think they appear by
  default and cannot be removed, but the converter should recognize
  and convert them.)

  To make the converter insert a new paragraph tag, you just press
  Return. But, to make it insert a new line tag, you must press
  Return and then set the Space After for your old paragraph to
  zero. Why not just have two Returns equate to a new paragraph tag
  and have one Return equate to a new line tag?

  My final complaint regards links. To make an HREF link, you
  highlight the link text, and then click the Link button. This
  gives you a footnote in which to type or paste a URL.
  Unfortunately, the footnote style in the HTML stationery document
  is preset to 10-point Helvetica blue, with little leading. It
  should have been preset to something more legible. And of course,
  if you convert a document already containing footnotes, all hell
  breaks loose.


**Can this relationship be saved?** ClarisWorks needs to get its
  act together. If Claris just wants to have an HTML converter, the
  current styles and techniques can be improved to the point where
  existing ClarisWorks documents can be converted into HTML with
  less bother. What's puzzling is that Claris positioned the
  converter as something for people creating new HTML documents.

  This is a confusing time for word processors. Most have plenty of
  features for creating printed documents, but users now want help
  managing and creating electronic documents. The last thing most
  word processors need is new features, and I don't think Claris
  should try to shoehorn ClarisWorks into the HTML mold. Instead, I
  think Claris should create a separate HTML editor that elegantly
  imports and exports ClarisWorks documents.


**What about the children?** "But, wait," you may be thinking.
  "Perhaps the advantage of the ClarisWorks HTML converter is that
  people won't have to learn HTML." People who don't want to learn
  HTML won't find salvation in ClarisWorks. Although you don't have
  to type HTML tags while in ClarisWorks (assuming you wish to be
  confined to its subset of HTML 2.0), the rules you must memorize
  for setting up a document so it will convert correctly are as
  complicated as learning a smattering of HTML.

  Further, you will almost certainly want to open converted
  documents to edit the tagged text. For example, the converter
  creates the title tag based on the name you give the document when
  you save it into HTML format, which probably isn't what you want,
  especially if you must name your document something dull like
  "default.html".

  The converter also leaves a bit to be desired in terms of
  graphics. It does convert graphics out of ClarisWorks as PICT
  files, which you can convert to GIFs using any of a number of
  utilities. The converter also adds IMG tags to the HTML document
  in place of the graphics, but you might also want to add
  attributes to the basic IMG tag. In slight contrast, HTML+ (an
  HTML converter from Leonard Rosenthol that works with any XTND-
  savvy word processor), comes and works with clip2gif to
  automatically create GIFs.

ftp://mirrors.aol.com//pub/info-mac/text/html/html-plus-xtnd.hqx

  For people who don't want to learn HTML or much else, of the
  currently available options (Ceneca's $195 PageMill isn't yet out
  - see TidBITS-290_), a good pick is the HomeMaker HyperCard stack.
  HomeMaker is about as foolproof as it gets. Another easy HyperCard
  stack is WebDoor, which becomes even easier if you have an
  Internet account with Open Door Networks, the folks who make
  WebDoor.

ftp://mirrors.aol.com//pub/info-mac/text/html/home-maker-10b8-hc.hqx
ftp://mirrors.aol.com//pub/info-mac/text/html/webdoor-publisher-11.hqx
http://www.opendoor.com/webdoor/WebDoor.html


**Closing Notes** -- On the one hand, I want to congratulate
  Claris for including an HTML converter, and I'm sure some folks
  worked long, hard hours to make it happen. On the other hand, I'm
  impatient to see a selection of innovative, well-crafted HTML
  tools for the Mac, and ClarisWorks doesn't currently make the
  grade.

    Bare Bones Software -- 508/651-3561 -- 508/651-7584
      <[e-mail]>
    Claris -- 800/325-2747 -- 408/987-7000 -- 408/727-9054
      <[e-mail]>
    Nisus Software -- 616/481-1477 -- 619/481-6154 (fax)
      <[e-mail]>
    Open Door Networks -- 800/480-DOOR -- 503/488-4127
      503/488-1708 (fax) -- <[e-mail]>


Domain Name Registration Fees Underway
--------------------------------------
  by Glenn Fleishman <[e-mail]>

  The National Science Foundation (NSF) changed the funding picture
  last week on one of the few remaining U.S. federally funded
  Internet projects. The NSF and the InterNIC's Registration
  Services division, which registers and maintains domain names,
  announced that beginning at midnight on 14-Sep-95, all new domain
  name registrations under its authority would cost $100 and include
  two years of registration. Yearly renewals for new and existing
  domains will be $50, due on the anniversary of the initial
  registration.

  Domain names are technically the "human-readable" form of an
  Internet address. Every machine on the Internet is assigned a
  unique number: an Internet Protocol (IP) address. The number is in
  the form: 0.0.0.0, often called a dotted-quad. With this number,
  you can directly identify a specific machine anywhere on the
  Internet. For instance, Apple's Web server www.apple.com is at
  17.255.0.64. All of Apple's Internet machines have names within
  the apple.com domain.

  The fees will eventually replace U.S. federal funding for domain
  registration; currently, Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), operates
  the Registration Services division under a five-year contract to
  the NSF that was awarded in 1993 under competitive bidding. The
  bid included the possibility of eventually collecting fees for
  domain names. Conservative estimates suggest that the fees could
  bring in more than $5 million in 1996, assuming the fees cause a
  considerable drop-off in new registrations and renewals.

  The action was widely expected and has been discussed at length in
  newsgroups and such mailing lists as com-priv - a list which
  endlessly and post facto discusses Internet issues - as well as in
  print media that covers online issues. The move apparently came
  without advance warning to prevent a flood of last-minute
  registrations. (Some reports indicated that the NSF planned to
  announce the policy this week, but a leak caused the early release
  of information.)

  Because the NSF is so deeply involved in the Internet, they've
  placed piles of useful information about the decision, the fees,
  and the history of why they have the authority to do this at:

http://rs.internic.net/announcements/index.html

  Prognostications and explanations by third parties have poured out
  since the announcement, which rated front-page or front-of-
  business-page placement in major newspapers, including the New
  York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Before we wade into an
  analysis, let's discuss the different components.


**What is the InterNIC?** The NSF created the InterNIC (Internet
  Network Information Center) to provide information and
  registration services to Internet users, which - in 1993 - meant
  largely academic, government, and corporate organizations rather
  than consumers and small businesses. The NSF has, for several
  years, been in charge of big chunks of the Internet authority -
  the parts of the Internet that make the final decisions on how
  policy is transformed into real equipment.

  The NSF ceded a chunk of authority on 08-May-95 when it shut down
  NSFNet: the Internet backbone that existed before commercial
  networks effectively made it redundant. Without NSFNet, the NSF
  doesn't exert much control or influence on the day-to-day workings
  of the Internet, but the NSF does direct the Internet's evolution
  into an ever-faster animal. (The Internet Engineering Task Force
  [IETF] actually drives technological change on the Internet, but
  NSF entities drive the implementation.) For more on NSFNet, see my
  article in TidBITS-275_ and:

http://www.boardwatch.com/mag/95/jun/bwm1.htm

  [To learn more about the IETF, see Paulina Borsook's "How Anarchy
  Works" in the Oct-95 issue of Wired - unfortunately, it's not yet
  online. -Tonya]

  One of the InterNIC's main functions, run by its Registration
  Services division, is to register domain names. Domain names were
  developed as a way to more mnemonically identify and group
  machines. With a domain name, you can have any number of
  subdomains. Subdomains are separated by dots but read right to
  left, from the most general category to the specific machine name
  or service name. So a name like "bilbo.engineering.ufoo.edu" is
  read like this: "_edu_ is the educational top-level (farthest
  right) domain; _ufoo_ is the second-level subdomain under
  education indicating this is the University of Foobar;
  _engineering_ is a subdivision of the ufoo.edu subdomain; and
  _bilbo_ is probably the individual machine name in the engineering
  school."

  The InterNIC is responsible for domain names that fall into five
  top-level categories: Education (.edu), Governmental (.gov), Non-
  and Not-for-Profit Organizations (.org), Commercial (.com), and
  Network (.net). The domain name registration fees apply only to
  second-level domains which fall under those hierarchies. Military
  (.mil) organizations handle their own authority and the .edu and
  .gov hierarchies will continue to be subsidized by federal funds
  for now.

  An alternate hierarchy already exists in the United States: the
  .us top-level domain. Many service providers have adopted this
  use, which is geographical in nature. (Some criticism has been
  levelled at geographical organization, since the Internet isn't
  place-driven.) Others have registered in both the .com or .org
  category and the .us domain to cover both bases. International
  hierarchies abound, with dozens of countries having their own
  top-level domains (such as .au for Australia) and authorities. The
  NSF's announcement doesn't affect any of these hierarchies.


**Meanwhile, back at the fees...** The NSF ostensibly instituted
  domain registration fees because of the precipitous growth in
  demand for registrations and the concomitant increase in costs
  necessary to keep up. The original contract with NSI was for $5.5
  million over five years, which is clearly inadequate to handle the
  tens of thousands of existing domains, and the potential tens of
  thousands to come over the next three years of the contract. (The
  grant, incidentally, doesn't cover just service, but all the
  associated network, staff, and overhead expense.)

  Although there are currently 110,000 second-level domains under
  InterNIC's authority, the Internet has millions of email users,
  none of whom are affected. Organizations that use domain names are
  either service providers (doing dial-up or other Internet
  connectivity), commercial online services (America Online,
  CompuServe, et al), or corporations with their own feeds. AOL, for
  instance, uses the domain aol.com for all three million users'
  email, plus their corporate stuff. So this means that AOL will pay
  the whopping fee of $50 per year to continue to use that domain
  name.

  The real effect will probably be felt by service providers who
  charged little or nothing to register individual domain names for
  their users and now face thousands of dollars in yearly fees. In
  most cases, these domains are registered to individuals who
  maintain access accounts or leased lines with the provider, so the
  additional $50 a year can be absorbed if their bills are high
  enough, or tacked on in the case of simple email accounts. Savvy
  Internet providers probably have a provision in their user
  contracts for passing on new fees to the registrant of the domain.


**Registration fees are your friend?** Why should we celebrate
  being charged money? Many reasons, some political, some legal,
  some financial, some practical.

  First, this move establishes an independent source of funding for
  the InterNIC, independent of political vagaries. For now, NSF
  funding is probably safe given the importance placed on the
  Internet by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Vice President Al
  Gore. But reducing or eliminating taxpayer support of a government
  plan is a rare and wondrous event.

  Second, and on the same theme, the NSF noted that a significant
  portion of the income (30 percent) will go to a legal fund to deal
  with the vast potential for lawsuits in the future. Under their
  existing agreement with NSF, U.S. taxpayers would pick up any
  legal bills, whereas the new agreement requires NSI to pay the
  bills from this fund. Remarkably, InterNIC has not yet been sued
  over domain name decisions.

  Third, InterNIC cannot keep up with the registration load given
  the current funding. More funding means more automation; the NSF
  said in one part of the announcement that InterNIC will clear
  through the backlog of registrations by the end of October, given
  their new ability to spend based on income derived from fees.

  Fourth, the Internet has always been about paying your own way,
  despite NSFNet and other subsidies. Even though Internet use
  always appeared "free" to users at academic institutions, money
  has always been involved. These days, any commercial Internet user
  is paying for an account, a leased line, an Internet feed -
  whatever. Having domain names be part of a U.S. governmental
  burden seems inconsistent.

  Fifth, this mechanism will reduce the proliferation of domain
  names to some extent, release unused and unwanted domains, and
  involve more accountability. The recent move by Kraft and Proctor
  & Gamble to register hundreds of domain names, some of them
  trademarks and others just English words, could have been
  prevented if enough time and staff were available at InterNIC.
  Many thousands of the 110,000 domains extant are probably
  inactive; why not reduce the administrative and technical burden
  in maintaining them?


**What about the naysayers?** Over the last year (and especially
  since the announcement) many voices of complaint have been raised
  at the InterNIC. Some have proposed starting alternative top-level
  hierarchies - possible only if the InterNIC and the international
  domain authorities agree. Without their cooperation, you would
  have a separate but unequal set of domains unreachable from the
  rest of the Internet without major kludges.

  Others have alleged that the bidding process was closed, there was
  no public discussion, and that NSI hasn't met its obligations. The
  NSF does a wonderful job answering these points, noting that the
  original free and open competitive bid in 1993 mentioned the
  possibility of fees; and that the most recent NSF review of NSI by
  an independent panel in Dec-94 (available to public scrutiny via
  the Web) showed that they had met their goals. The panel
  responsible for this review is a Who's Who of respected Internet
  experts.

http://rs.internic.net/NIC-support/nsf/review-toc.html
http://rs.internic.net/NIC-support/nsf/review-panel.html

  Critics who argue that there was no public discussion have
  disregarded the participation of NSI- and NSF-affiliated people in
  mailing lists, newsgroups, and other public forums in which these
  issues have been beaten to death. It's hard to imagine a more
  public forum than com-priv, for instance, in which the InterNIC
  has been a relatively active participant.

  Another important point has been missed in the discussion this
  last year. The InterNIC does a damn good job. Despite a lack of
  funding and geometric growth in registrations, the InterNIC last
  month implemented a one-day turnaround on all new commercial
  domain name registrations. I don't recall anyone complimenting
  InterNIC, unless it was "too little, too late." In fact, it was
  just enough and right on time given their load.

  The technical side of the whole megillah - the actual resolution
  of domain names (pointing requests for the second-level domains to
  the thousands of machines responsible for this on the Internet) -
  works like a charm. I can't recall a time since Aug-94, when I
  first got my own full-time Internet feed, that this has stopped
  functioning. The InterNIC isn't responsible for the design of the
  system (the IETF and many generous individuals are), but they do
  coordinate it and keep it running. And run it does.

  In the spirit of the Internet, I'd like to invoke the phrase: "If
  the existing system functions 100 percent of the time, if the
  mechanisms to perpetuate it indefinitely exist, and if it's
  constantly improving: keep it in place and help support it
  better." That's a high-tech version of "if it ain't broke, don't
  fix it."

  It's likely that this move will cause some lawsuits, lots of
  bellyaching, and not much dancing in the streets. But in the
  ultimate interest of the growth of the Internet, it's a good move.
  I'm putting my mouth where my money is: my company will be liable
  for as much as $2,500 in fees for existing domains over the next
  year as a result of this change. Some of this we'll absorb, and
  some we'll bill out to the domain holders. But since NSFNet was
  shut down last May, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop.
  Now I can rest easy.

  [Glenn Fleishman has registered over 50 domain names for clients,
  friends, and relatives. He's a contributing editor for Adobe
  Magazine, a columnist for Web Developer (due out in November), and
  a freelance feature writer for InfoWorld. He also moderates the
  Internet Marketing Discussion List, one of the least rancorous
  mailing lists ever.]

http://www.popco.com/popco/glenn.html


Reviews/18-Sep-95
-----------------

* MacWEEK -- 11-Sep-95, Vol. 9, #36
    Adobe PageMaker 6.0 -- pg. 1
    Apple Internet Server Solution for the World Wide Web -- pg. 39
    QuarkXTensions -- pg. 46
      PickUpSpot 1.2
      PM to QXD Conversion Tools
      FingerType 1.0.1
      ShadowCaster
    Wacom Artz II 6x8 -- pg. 50


$$

 Non-profit, non-commercial publications may reprint articles if
 full credit is given. Others please contact us. We don't guarantee
 accuracy of articles. Caveat lector. Publication, product, and
 company names may be registered trademarks of their companies.

 This file is formatted as setext. For more information send email
 to <[e-mail]>. A file will be returned shortly.

 For information on TidBITS: how to subscribe, where to find back
 issues, and other useful stuff, send email to: <[e-mail]>
 Send comments and editorial submissions to: <[e-mail]>
 Issues available at: ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/pub/tidbits/issues/
 And: http://www.dartmouth.edu/pages/TidBITS/TidBITS.html
 To search back issues with WAIS, use this URL via a Web browser:
 http://www.wais.com/wais-dbs/macintosh-tidbits.html
 -------------------------------------------------------------------