ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (02/04/86)
Mark D. Freeman writes: >In <504@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >>MSWord's spell checker, aside from not having the pheonetic capabilities at >>all, actually takes the words it feels are misspelled in a document and >>presents them to you in a list TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT, for YOU to fix; it >>can't fix them. >Completely untrue of version 2.0 (released at least 12 months ago). I'm looking at 2.0; I don't know what exactly you're looking at. It presents its little list of misspelled words to you alphabetically and, typically, can suggest spellings for about 1/5 of them. The others, you fix, again out of context, which is not as easy as fixing the words where they appear (or having WordPerfect fix them) in the document. I don't particularly mean to insult MicroSoft with this comparison; EVERY other PC class spelling checker, in fact, every other spelling checker I've ever seen on ANY hardware is a total joke compared to that which SSI has devised for WordPerfect. >>The other thing which kills MSWord is its total lack of any reasonable indent >>function. Govt. and military documents are filled with the following kind >>of construction: >> >> a. a tab, followed by a letter or number and a period, and then an indent >> beginning on the exact same line, as you are seeing now. MSWord has >> no rational way of doing this; you have to type the whole paragraph >> sans indents, indent the whole paragraph forward, and then indent the >> "tab a." back, like a Polish two-step or something. A military >> secretary or attache would go ape-**** trying to use MSWord. >Also completely untrue. Set up a style sheet entry with the first line set >to have a left margin of whatever your tab is, and have the rest use the >proper left margin for the rest of the paragraph. Also set a tab in this >entry where the left margin is for the majority of the paragraph. Keystrokes >to implement this (once it is a style sheet entry, for example 'hi' for >hanging indent) is <Alt-H> <Alt-I> a. <TAB> <type paragraph here>. >You are either using an old version, or have never read the manual. You call this reasonable????!!!! ..... With WordPerfect, you just type tab a. f4 (indent) and then the rest of your paragraph. THAT's reasonable. Actually, using WordPerfect's automatic outlining feature, you could get by with just a tab followed by an indent, two keystrokes.
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (02/04/86)
Summary: In <506@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >>>MSWord's spell checker, aside from not having the pheonetic capabilities at >>>all, actually takes the words it feels are misspelled in a document and >>>presents them to you in a list TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT, for YOU to fix; it >>>can't fix them. >>Completely untrue of version 2.0 (released at least 12 months ago). >I'm looking at 2.0; I don't know what exactly you're looking at. It presents >its little list of misspelled words to you alphabetically and, typically, can >suggest spellings for about 1/5 of them. The others, you fix, again out of >context, which is not as easy as fixing the words where they appear (or having >WordPerfect fix them) in the document. I don't particularly mean to insult >MicroSoft with this comparison; EVERY other PC class spelling checker, in fact, >every other spelling checker I've ever seen on ANY hardware is a total joke >compared to that which SSI has devised for WordPerfect. I maintain that you see spelling problems in context. MS-Word gives you a split screen. Top 1/3 shows the problematic word in inverse video in the middle of one line of context. >>>The other thing which kills Word is its total lack of any reasonable indent >>>function. Govt. and military documents are filled with the following kind >>>of construction: >>> >>> a. a tab, followed by a letter or number and a period, and then an indent >>> beginning on the exact same line, as you are seeing now. MSWord has >>> no rational way of doing this; you have to type the whole paragraph >>> sans indents, indent the whole paragraph forward, and then indent the >>> "tab a." back, like a Polish two-step or something. A military >>> secretary or attache would go ape-**** trying to use MSWord. > >>Also completely untrue. Set up a style sheet entry with the first line set >>to have a left margin of whatever your tab is, and have the rest use the >>proper left margin for the rest of the paragraph. Also set a tab in this >>entry where the left margin is for the majority of the paragraph. Keystrokes >>to implement this (once it is a style sheet entry, for example 'hi' for >>hanging indent) is <Alt-H> <Alt-I> a. <TAB> <type paragraph here>. > >>You are either using an old version, or have never read the manual. > >You call this reasonable????!!!! ..... With WordPerfect, you just type >tab a. f4 (indent) and then the rest of your paragraph. THAT's reasonable. >Actually, using WordPerfect's automatic outlining feature, you could get >by with just a tab followed by an indent, two keystrokes. However, by setting up a style sheet entry, EVERY time that you want a para- graph of the above type, you'll get one with the SAME margins and the SAME font as the last time. Absolute consistancy. (Something the military seems fond of.) It only takes a few seconds to add something new to a style sheet. Also, when I type ss<F3>, I get my letterhead printed. Not just the text, but all the font attributes the text had when I saved it as a glossary entry as well. <CENTERED BOLD 16pt> StrongPoint Systems <CENTERED BOLD 12pt> address -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark D. Freeman Guest account at The Ohio State University StrongPoint Systems, Inc. mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP 209 Olentangy Street Mdf@Ohio-State.CSNET Columbus, OH 43202-2340 Mdf%Ohio-State@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA !cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf I disclaim even my very existance. Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science. -- Gary Zukav from "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) (02/06/86)
In article <1270@osu-eddie.UUCP>, mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) writes: > It only takes a few seconds to add something new to a style sheet. Also, > when I type ss<F3>, I get my letterhead printed. Not just the text, but all > the font attributes the text had when I saved it as a glossary entry as well. WordPerfect has these kinds of capabilities. As a matter of fact, I have a macro that finishes a letter. It adds a signature line, finds the return address and uses it to make an envelope, puts a letterhead and the date on the letter, etc. -- Henry M. Halff Halff Resources, Inc. halff@utah-cs.ARPA 4918 33rd Road, N., Arlington, VA 22207
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (02/07/86)
Summary: In <3670@utah-cs.UUCP> halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) writes: >WordPerfect has these kinds of capabilities. As a matter of fact, I have a >macro that finishes a letter. It adds a signature line, finds the return >address and uses it to make an envelope, puts a letterhead and the date on >the letter, etc. This sound like a wonderful macro. Could you mail me a copy? I agree that WP has more great features than anyone can really appreciate without really USING the program, however I still believe that the user interface on MS WORD is much better. I hear that FancyWord (from the FancyFont people) makes Word able to use all the FancyFont fonts just like native printer fonts! FancyFont left me cold on a Toshiba 1351, but if they really map the fonts for a laser printer's resolution, it might be really nice. WP can't do THAT. Also, there are many grotesque errors in the spacing tables for the LQ1500 and the Toshiba 1351 in WP. I have a NEC P5 (thinks it is a faster, better quality LQ1500), and Microsoft Word wants to use those cheesy lo-res graphics lines for underlines. Anyone know how to fix the PRD file? The NEC has real underline codes. -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark D. Freeman Guest account at The Ohio State University StrongPoint Systems, Inc. mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP 209 Olentangy Street Mdf@Ohio-State.CSNET Columbus, OH 43202-2340 Mdf%Ohio-State@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA !cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf I disclaim even my very existance. Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science. -- Gary Zukav from "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
zemon@fritz.UUCP (Art Zemon) (02/12/86)
The real point of comparison is not what both program do but
what one does that the other does not. Here is a little list to
start things off, things that Microsoft Word does that I don't
think WordPerfect does:
Word...
...works with a mouse
...lets you split the screen into multiple windows
...lets you view different parts of the same document
simultaneously in the different windows
...lets you edit different documents simultaneously in the
different windows
...automatically does footnotes (in a different window)
...shows character attributes (such as italics and
superscripts and underlining) on the screen
...allows a dictionary per document (handy for proper nouns
which exist only in that document)
...allows a user dictionary in addition to the main
dictionary (handy for the proper nouns and abbreviations
used by that particular typist)
Does WordPerfect do these things?
--
-- Art Zemon
FileNet Corp.
...! {decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax} !trwrb!felix!zemonhalff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) (02/14/86)
In article <129@fritz.UUCP>, zemon@fritz.UUCP (Art Zemon) writes: > The real point of comparison is not what both program do but > what one does that the other does not. Here is a little list to > start things off, things that Microsoft Word does that I don't > think WordPerfect does: > > Word... > ...works with a mouse WordPerfect does not support a mouse--a drawback. > ...lets you split the screen into multiple windows Wordperfect supports 2 windows. > ...lets you view different parts of the same document > simultaneously in the different windows I don't think so (but I'm not sure). > ...lets you edit different documents simultaneously in the > different windows Yup > ...automatically does footnotes (in a different window) Yes--footnotes are embedded in the file at the place of their mention. They're easier to edit that way. > ...shows character attributes (such as italics and > superscripts and underlining) on the screen Subscripts, superscripts, font and pitch changes are not shown, but underling and boldface are. > ...allows a dictionary per document (handy for proper nouns > which exist only in that document) No. > ...allows a user dictionary in addition to the main > dictionary (handy for the proper nouns and abbreviations > used by that particular typist) Yes > > Does WordPerfect do these things? Does Word: Have a thesaurus? Keep page boundary indicators current? Handle columns? In a WYSIWYG fashion? Have math capabilities? Have interactive macros? Have document conversion facilities for DCF, DIF, Wordstar? Have a merge facility? Have automatic table of contents & indexing facilities? Have redline and strikeout capabilities? Online reference? Escape to DOS? -- Henry M. Halff Halff Resources, Inc. halff@utah-cs.ARPA 4918 33rd Road, N., Arlington, VA 22207
lotto@talcott.UUCP (Jerry Lotto) (02/14/86)
In article <129@fritz.UUCP>, zemon@fritz.UUCP (Art Zemon) writes: > The real point of comparison is not what both program do but > what one does that the other does not. Here is a little list to > start things off, things that Microsoft Word does that I don't > think WordPerfect does: > Does WordPerfect do these things? > > Word... > > ...works with a mouse WP - Yes, but more important - it works well without one too! > > ...lets you split the screen into multiple windows WP - limited to two > > ...lets you view different parts of the same document > simultaneously in the different windows WP - Yes > > ...lets you edit different documents simultaneously in the > different windows WP - Yes > > ...automatically does footnotes (in a different window) WP - Yes > > ...shows character attributes (such as italics and > superscripts and underlining) on the screen WP - Yes. It does not use the color monitor or EGA as well as Word, but other monitors work the same way. Attributes may be represented by user selected colors and intensities. > > ...allows a dictionary per document (handy for proper nouns > which exist only in that document) WP - No, but see next > > ...allows a user dictionary in addition to the main > dictionary (handy for the proper nouns and abbreviations > used by that particular typist) WP - Yes Now the reverse... WP - ... Macros with nesting ... Thesaurus on line, wildcard and phonetic speller options ... Buffer sorting (record, line, etc...) ... Changable defaults ... Prefix (arg) key ... Columnar and math (spreadsheet like) formatting options ... Directory independent - WP finds ancillary files in a directory structure of your own choice ... Index, table of contents and endnotes as well as footnotes ... Line drawing ... Advanced file handling utilities dir of files containing string in text! ... Outline mode (auto prefix and indent) ... Print spooler WITH job queue manager ... Many more options for document translation from other programs ... Less expensive with very low update prices ... Superb toll free support -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. UUCP: {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lhasa!lotto ARPA: lotto@harvard.EDU CSNET: lotto%harvard@csnet-relay
jabusch@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/15/86)
I guess I'll speak up here. I use WordPerfect 4.1 and used 4.0 before,
and I can say with certainty that WordPerfect can:
have two windows on the screen at once (4.0 required switching between screens,
4.1 can change window sizes to display both simultaneously)
edit in both windows at any time
show the same document in both windows
support all features of WordPerfect in each window, including and not limited
to footnotes
use a supplemental dictionary. (I must confess that I have never had a reason
to use multiple dictionaries, one per document, but I do have my own
dictionary which is a supplemental to the wp dictionary. wp does
not allow easy modification of its main dictionary, you must put
things into the supplemental)
the only things not built in that you mentioned are mouse support and
on-screen character attributes. wp allows modification of screen
color attributes for bold, underline, and bold-underline, and I
have found that to be sufficient. color changes are simple, two
keystrokes to get to the color-changing screen, and there is a
portion of the display that shows the colors you currently have
selected. I have never seen Word using colors on the EGA, but
assume it can do so. Perhaps this might be hard when using hi-res
graphics for char. attributes, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I have a Mouse Systems Mouse, and have written my own menu system for
WordPerfect (part of the mouse support is a little menu compiler).
This gives me mouse support equivalent to Word, with a couple of
advantages: I can call up a menu with any button of the mouse,
different buttons meaning different basic menus, and I can call
the menu without having to move to an area of the screen designed
to be used for a particular menu, re: Microsoft Write or Paint.
Other neat features that Word probably has but may not:
1. Automatic outlining feature, great for generating quick outlines and
then returning later to fill in with text.
2. Paragraph numbering can be generated with simple keystrokes, and
inserted paragraph numbers will cause a re-numbering of the entire document
including outlines.
3. Footnotes can be protected to allow 'keeping'.
4. Endnotes are supported.
5. Table of Contents, Lists, and Indexes can be generated automatically,
using text marked in the document.
6. Numbering, lettering, and formating of footnotes, endnotes, table of
contents, lists, and indexes can all be customized, with too much variety
to go into here.
7. Binding width control, wp leaves extra margin measured in inches on
one side for even pages, the opposite side for odd pages, to allow for
production of books.
8. Block Protect to protect areas of text.
9. DOS shell, to escape to DOS to run another program, enter the 'exit'
command and you're back in WordPerfect.
10. Directory screen, allows text to be pulled in from files, saved to
files, quick searches for words or phrases through all files in a
directory, change directory by pointing or typing the name, file deletion,
create directory, delete directory, etc.
11. Password protection / encryption of files, asks for password for file
when trying to reload it again.
12. Adjustable hyphenation zone.
13. Line drawing features, can use graphics characters of any printer
with use of the 'printer' program to modify printer definition tables
if there is no table for a particular printer, or modification of an
existing printer table for justification.
14. Merge from files or keyboard, merge files can call macros, macros
can call merge files, allowing for menuing systems for customization
to a very extensive degree. Macros can be set to be called when
entering by using environment variables.
15. Modification of current print queue, supports own background queue
which can be stopped to allow change of printers, etc. Jobs can be
shuffled, re-ordered, cancelled, etc.
16. Over 190 printer definitions come with it.
17. Time and date can be inserted as codes or as text, and format is
very flexible. Wordcount, widow/orphan protection, flexible underline
control, redline, strikeout, name search, built-in math, on-screen column
definition and display, alignment control for decimals, and mapping of
ctrl and alt keys to macros or to graphics or foreign character sets, ...
18. And then there's the 80,000 word thesaurus...
19. And then there's the network version, which I use, and which allows
each user to take advantage of his own printer or network printer, and to
customize his own screen colors and workstation configuration, without
affecting other network users, and allows all users access to their central
dictionary, plus their own individual supplemental dictionary or to a
central dictionary, ....
Needless to say, I'm relatively pleased with WordPerfect. The support
has been good, the users are happy, and the network functions well
with all sorts of different pc's on it, but then that's a network's
function...
I am not associated with SSI or any other software vendor, and all
the usual opinion disclaimers go here>>>
John W. Jabusch
U.S. Mail: or:
Department of Computer Science USA-CERL-FS
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Box 4005
Room 230 Digital Computer Laboratory Champaign, IL
1304 West Springfield Avenue 61820
Urbana, IL 61801
CSNET: jabusch%uiuc@csnet-relay.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,convex,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!jabusch
USENET: ...!{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!jabusch
ARPA: jabusch@uiuc.arpazemon@fritz.UUCP (Art Zemon) (02/17/86)
In article <3682@utah-cs.UUCP> halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) writes: >In article <129@fritz.UUCP>, zemon@fritz.UUCP (Art Zemon) writes: >> The real point of comparison is not what both program do but >> what one does that the other does not. Here is a little list to >> start things off, things that Microsoft Word does that I don't >> think WordPerfect does: I've kept the entire contents of Henry's article since this is becoming a pretty good comparison of the two word processors. >> >> Word... >> ...works with a mouse >WordPerfect does not support a mouse--a drawback. >> ...lets you split the screen into multiple windows >Wordperfect supports 2 windows. >> ...lets you view different parts of the same document >> simultaneously in the different windows >I don't think so (but I'm not sure). >> ...lets you edit different documents simultaneously in the >> different windows >Yup >> ...automatically does footnotes (in a different window) >Yes--footnotes are embedded in the file at the place of their >mention. They're easier to edit that way. >> ...shows character attributes (such as italics and >> superscripts and underlining) on the screen >Subscripts, superscripts, font and pitch changes are not shown, >but underling and boldface are. >> ...allows a dictionary per document (handy for proper nouns >> which exist only in that document) >No. >> ...allows a user dictionary in addition to the main >> dictionary (handy for the proper nouns and abbreviations >> used by that particular typist) >Yes >> >> Does WordPerfect do these things? > >Does Word: >Have a thesaurus? no >Keep page boundary indicators current? It updates them every time you print or manually repaginate. >Handle columns? In a WYSIWYG fashion? It does handle columns but not in a WYSIWYG fashion. The normal page break indicator has a number next to it when it is a column break. The number is the column. >Have math capabilities? no. SIGH. >Have interactive macros? No. >Have document conversion facilities for DCF, DIF, Wordstar? It has an auxilliary program to handle a number of formats. Wordstar and DIF (and SLK, of course) are supported. I don't recognize DCF but would have to check the book to be sure. >Have a merge facility? Yes. >Have automatic table of contents & indexing facilities? No. >Have redline and strikeout capabilities? Yes. >Online reference? The on-line help is excellent. >Escape to DOS? Yes. A clarification of Word's windows. It lets you have up to eight windows, not just two. -- -- Art Zemon FileNet Corp. ...! {decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax} !trwrb!felix!zemon
klotz@ihuxo.UUCP (Dave Klotzbach) (02/17/86)
> In article <129@fritz.UUCP>, zemon@fritz.UUCP (Art Zemon) writes: >Does Word: >Have a thesaurus? no >Keep page boundary indicators current? no >Handle columns? In a WYSIWYG fashion? no >Have math capabilities? not that I know of >Have interactive macros? no >Have document conversion facilities for DCF, DIF, Wordstar? Yes - included on the utility disk in both version 1.10 and 2.0 >Have a merge facility? Yes - As part of the printing facility >Have automatic table of contents & indexing facilities? no - or at least none that I have found >Have redline and strikeout capabilities? YES -It does have strike-out capability from the format character facility >Online reference? yes >Escape to DOS? Yes - From LIBRARY this is how spell is invoked from WORD. >-- >Henry M. Halff Halff Resources, Inc. >halff@utah-cs.ARPA 4918 33rd Road, N., Arlington, VA 22207 > >
csaron@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Aron Roberts) (02/17/86)
In article <3682@utah-cs.UUCP> halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) writes: > >Does Word: >Have a thesaurus? No. (An add-on, third-party product is required, at extra cost. One example might be Turbo Lightning, which works with Word and other word processing programs. Additional third- party products are required to give Word some of the built- in capabilities of WordPerfect, as indicated in several comments below.) >Keep page boundary indicators current? No, and one of the most frustrating features of Word for users who are used to WordStar, WordPerfect, etc. Word uses a gallery format, which allows it to rapidly load and edit LARGE files (I've worked with a 2MB Word file on an IBM PC/XT without noticable slowing from Word's usual editing speed on average-sized files (1-50KB)). The tradeoff for this is that Word does not continually update page breaks; one must manually request repagination (recalculation and redisplay of page breaks), which is SLOW. Word minimizes the associated problems by allowing paragraphs to be designated as "keep lines together" or "keep with next paragraph," thus automatically keeping whole paragraphs, tables, etc. together on a page; keeping headings together with the text they describe, and so on. Word also has built-in "widow" and "orphan" control. >Handle columns? In a WYSIWYG fashion? Yes to the former, no to the latter. >Have math capabilities? No, but Sidekick and other RAM-resident calculators can partly make up for this lack (and are easier to use than WordPerfect's built-in math features). >Have interactive macros? No, closest is Word's glossary feature or the (extra cost) use of an add-on keyboard macro processor of the Superkey/ Prokey/Smartkey genre. >Have document conversion facilities for DCF, DIF, Wordstar? Yes (to be supported by Microsoft in the future; to my knowledge, not yet implemented in Word 2.0; no to DIF, yes to WordStar - one-way only, WordStar-to-Word (except via ASCII files). >Have a merge facility? Yes, an excellent one. >Have automatic table of contents & indexing facilities? No. >Have redline and strikeout capabilities? I don't know what "redline" means; yes to strikeout, including on-screen display of strikeout text with IBM CGA or EGA or Hercules Graphics Card. >Online reference? Yes. (And much better than Word Perfect's, in my opinion.) >Escape to DOS? Yes, through the Library menu choice. Caveat - It's been a while since I worked with Word on an IBM PC. I now use Word exclusively on a Macintosh. Hence, some of the above may be wholly or partially inaccurate. These are both excellent word processing programs, reflecting different design philosophies. WordPerfect is a better value, but Word offers some features, such as multiple windows, mouse editing, style sheets, and advanced formatting and text display (WYSIWYG) that WordPerfect lacks. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aron Roberts (csaron@ucbopal.UUCP) Tolman Microcomputer Facility, 1535 Tolman Hall University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (415) 642-2251 UCB disclaims responsibility for opinions like these! "No regrets, Coyote, we just come from such different ..."
csaron@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Aron Roberts) (02/18/86)
Two quick follow-ups/corrections to the previous message
on this topic:
(1) Microsoft Word uses a galley (not "gallery") format, which
permits this word processing program to efficiently handle
very large files while militating against automatic
repagination.
(2) According to published reports, Word will support IBM's
Document Content Architecture (DCA). (The reference to
"DCF" in the initial message is assumed to refer to DCA.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aron Roberts (csaron@ucbopal.UUCP)
Tolman Microcomputer Facility, 1535 Tolman Hall
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (415) 642-2251
UCB disclaims responsibility for opinions like these!
"No regrets, Coyote, we just come from such different ..."latham@bsdpkh.UUCP (Ken Latham) (02/19/86)
> In article <129@fritz.UUCP>, zemon@fritz.UUCP (Art Zemon) writes: > > The real point of comparison is not what both program do but > > what one does that the other does not. Here is a little list to > > start things off, things that Microsoft Word does that I don't > > think WordPerfect does: > > > > Word... > > Does Word: > Have a thesaurus? > Keep page boundary indicators current? > ..... > Escape to DOS? > I refer all those interested in this comparison to: PC-Week Magazine, FEB 11 issue. pp. 71-75 which does a side by side comparison of word processors. Ken Latham, AT&T-IS (via AGS Inc.), Orlando , FL uucp: ihnp4!bsdpkh!latham
simon@simon_pc.UUCP (Simon Shapiro) (02/19/86)
Does MS-Word save ALL files as owned by root, thus no allowing you to uucp | mail | cp | mv them? YES. Does MS-Word have its own mind wether to print heading or footing or not? YES! Does MS-Word change (quitely) the save formatted from (yes) to (no) after each 'format division' command, and refuse to save the format from here on? YES! Did microsoft correct any of these bugs since last september? NO! Am I ready to throw it away and never look for it? YES! Is this my own opinion, based on my own experiance on my own computer? YES!
jabusch@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/19/86)
I've seen and used packages that allow up to 10 windows. This
is for the most part unimportant. The typical word processor places
at least one status line per window, perhaps Word is different. At any
rate, this ususally leaves you with 2 or less lines of text when using
8 windows. I've never seen a word processor in use that had more than
three windows on te screen. When you get down to one line of text per
window, you're using a fancy line editor!
John W. Jabusch
CSNET: jabusch%uiuc@csnet-relay.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,convex,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!jabusch
USENET: ...!{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!jabusch
ARPA: jabusch@uiuc.arpalotto@talcott.UUCP (Jerry Lotto) (02/20/86)
In article <328@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>, csaron@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Aron Roberts) writes: > > > In article <3682@utah-cs.UUCP> halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) writes: > > > >Keep page boundary indicators current? > No, and one of the most frustrating features of Word for > users who are used to WordStar, WordPerfect, etc. Word > uses a gallery format, which allows it to rapidly load > and edit LARGE files (I've worked with a 2MB Word file on WordPerfect does not choke on big files either, but does keep page breaks. Older versions did not have the algorithm quite right and messed up in the middle, but 4.x appears to have solved the problem. I recommend WordPerfect to everyone except those who must turn out repetitive business correspondence. Style sheets are of particular value to this audience. BTW... someone mentioned the "ease" with which printer defs may be built in Word. Well... I wanted to fix a bug in the Apple laser driver they provide. The PRD conversion program choked on the thing (allocated insuff memory) and passed away quietly. This may be a feature if uSoft does not want people to nose about their laser drivers. If so, I consider it yet another example of COPY PROTECTION, the reason I tried WordPerfect in the first place. To be fair, it may 'just' be a bug. If they had a TOLL FREE support number like SSI I would know for sure... -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. UUCP: {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lhasa!lotto ARPA: lotto@harvard.EDU CSNET: lotto%harvard@csnet-relay
halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) (02/21/86)
In article <328@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>, csaron@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Aron Roberts) writes: [Does Word, like WordPerfect...] > >Have redline and strikeout capabilities? > I don't know what "redline" means; yes to strikeout, including > on-screen display of strikeout text with IBM CGA or EGA or > Hercules Graphics Card. Redline and strikeout facilities allow you to create a marked draft. Instead of removing text to be deleted, you mark it for strikeout. When you add or change text you mark it for redlining. When you print out the marked draft, the struckout text is overwtruck with hyphens, and a red line (actually a vertical bar) is printed in the margin next to the redlined text. That way, someone reading the draft can tell exactly what has been changed. After the changes have been approved, WordPerfect will, upon your commmand, remove the struckout text and redline to produce a smooth draft. > >Online reference? > Yes. (And much better than Word Perfect's, in my opinion.) If MS-Dos Word has the same capabilities as Macintosh Word, I have to agree. In the latter, you can plonk a question mark down on any part of the screen you don't understand and get help on that feature. Does anyone know if this is a feature of MS-DOS Word? > > These are both excellent word processing programs, > reflecting different design philosophies. WordPerfect is a > better value, but Word offers some features, such as multiple > windows, mouse editing, style sheets, and advanced formatting > and text display (WYSIWYG) that WordPerfect lacks. > Is it too late to add features? Does Word have automatic section numbering and outlining features? -- Henry M. Halff Halff Resources, Inc. halff@utah-cs.ARPA 4918 33rd Road, N., Arlington, VA 22207
ogasawar@noscvax.UUCP (Todd H. Ogasawara) (02/21/86)
As a person who rejected Microsoft Word on several grounds and chose
WordPerfect as my main processor of words, I followed the debate here
with more than passing interest. As much as I like WordPerfect 4.1 and
as much as I tout it to people looking for a word processor, I have
just about made up my mind to switch to either XyWrite III or Nota Bene
(which uses the XyWrite engine) as soon as I get a few major writing
projects out of the way. Even if XyWrite III could not do nearly
everything WP4.1 could do, its blinding speed alone is almost enough
to switch me over.
Might be interesting to hear from some of you XyWrite folks who took
a poke at WordPerfect or Word before settling on XyWrite. If you
know of any drawbacks (I see only a few trivial ones), it might make
for interesting net reading...todd
Todd Ogasawara, Computer Sciences Corp.
NOSC-Hawaii Laboratories
UUCPmail: {akgua,allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!noscvax!ogasawar
MILNET: OGASAWAR@NOSCwcs@ho95e.UUCP (x0705) (02/23/86)
In article <222@noscvax.UUCP> ogasawar@cod.UUCP (Todd H. Ogasawara) writes: >as much as I tout it to people looking for a word processor, I have >just about made up my mind to switch to either XyWrite III or Nota Bene >(which uses the XyWrite engine) as soon as I get a few major writing >projects out of the way. Even if XyWrite III could not do nearly >everything WP4.1 could do, its blinding speed alone is almost enough >to switch me over. We've used Xywrite 2+, with mixed experiences - one review of the product said that it was very powerful, not easy to learn, and incompatible with almost everything, and we've found that to be mostly true. (For example, lots of programs that mess with keyboard interrupts - Sidekick, Turbo Lightning, etc - can't deal with Xywrite 2+) Has this improved with Xywrite 3? -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
ogasawar@noscvax.UUCP (Todd H. Ogasawara) (02/25/86)
In article <517@ho95e.UUCP> wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill Stewart 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs HO 2G202) writes: >In article <222@noscvax.UUCP> ogasawar@cod.UUCP (Todd H. Ogasawara) writes: >product said that it was very powerful, not easy to learn, and >incompatible with almost everything, and we've found that to be mostly >true. (For example, lots of programs that mess with keyboard >interrupts - Sidekick, Turbo Lightning, etc - can't deal with Xywrite 2+) >Has this improved with Xywrite 3? As I recall, "Real Soon Now" there will be a 3 update that will have two versions. One will be the "naughty" (bypass everything) and fast. The other will be a bit slower but will allow resident programs. Of course, I could have this info confused with some other product. However, RAM resident programs and XyWrite still do not work together for the most part. One possible (though expensive) way out is to run XyWrite under Microsoft Windows. You cannot place XyWRite in a Window. But you can let it take over the screen when you need it and escape back to the calculator or whatever when you need it. Although Windows is cheap ($95 list), the thing that makes it expensive is that you really need about 1 to 2 megabytes of RAM to make it fly right...todd Todd Ogasawara, Computer Sciences Corp. NOSC-Hawaii Laboratories UUCPmail: {akgua,allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!noscvax!ogasawar MILNET: OGASAWAR@NOSC
jqj@gvax.UUCP (02/26/86)
In article <5100121@uiucdcsb> jabusch@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > I've seen and used packages that allow up to 10 windows. This >is for the most part unimportant. ... I've never seen a word processor >in use that had more than three windows on te screen. When you get >down to one line of text per window, you're using a fancy line editor! Jabusch is correct. Screen real estate is an extremely valuable resource, especially on a poor 25x80 character display. The word processing environment I'm fond of (Xerox XDE) supports multiple overlapping windows, each up to 60 or so lines long, with icons etc to reduce screen usage of windows not currently the focus of my attention. I routinely use 6 to 10 windows simultaneously in that environment. It's too much to ask for all this (even overlapping windows) in a PC-based word processor, but I *would* like a word processor that supports large screens. How well do WordPerfect, Word, Xywrite, et alia support screens with more than 24 lines, e.g. the 44 lines available on an Everex Edge interface or the 88 lines it's claimed you can see (I haven't tried it) with a Tecmar Graphics Master?
james@inmet.UUCP (03/11/86)
I have recently started using XyWrite III. It has several enhancements over the old version. One of them is the ability to work with other RAM resident stuff. They provide 3 modes of operation: 1- Xywrite runs the whole show (blindingly fast and powerful, for example (you can use the CAPS LOCK key as a meta ( like another ALT key 2- RAM resident keyboard enhancers user. They give you a little keyborad driver that claims to make xywrite more well behave. You lose a little of the total keyboard control, but it is still just as fast. 3- For RAM resident tools that are themselves ill-behaved, they have a DOS keyboard mode, where Xywrite uses the DOS interrupts for writing the screen just like all the old slow editors of yesteryear. With this, use lose both speed and power. I have not tried this mode. Seems like they have covered the gamut of possibilities, no doubt in reaction to their infamy as the hariest of the compatibility testers. Don't ask me to compare it to MSWord, etc., I'm completely prejudiced in XyWrite's favor. (how many wordprocessors let you completely redefine your keyboard? I now have defined my kb to act like Brief (best editor for programming), so my fingers don't get confused. ----james triplett