wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (07/28/89)
In article <7411@ecsvax.UUCP> tamara@ecsvax.UUCP writes: The program is designed to be just a word processor. It has more than Appleworks GS as far as a word processor though: To name just two (1) a spelling checker (including a word counter--useful to writers) and (2) a Thesaurus. 'Scuse me, but AWGS doesn't have a spell checker and thesaurus?? Does that mean that I can stop maintaining the code for it? :-) Sorry, but it does indeed have both of those features, as well as character, word, line, paragraph, & page count. >through the menus a little and to be honest, I don't know why anyone would ever >buy and use WordPerfect instead of Appleworks. The one big advantage all WP Well I would. For one thing I can use the numeric key pad as if it were on a PC. (Don't groan folks.) When you do a lot of Groan. :-) I assume that these questions are directed at AWGS, not AWKS: I must admit I haven't used Apple Works that much. Let me ask you Does it have headers/footers that can be opened and edited and automatically placed on each page? Yes. Does it create footnotes? No. Does it have pull down menus as well as function key equivalents? Yes. Does it have WYSIWYG? Yes. (Word Perfect doesn't) Does it show you hidden commands which turn on bolding, underlining, margin changes, font changes, etc? No, it's WYSIWYG, not cryptic hidden commands. Does it have a built in thesaurus? Yes. Does it have a built-in spelling checker? Yes. Can it do hanging indents? Yes. Does it have hanging indents? Only if you tell it to. Can you start page numbering with any page number automatically? Yes. I don't think you use a word processor to it's fullest capabilities. I think one of the problems with Apple Works is it does a lot of things and therefore the power in a word processing stand alone program is lost. I disagree. Bottom line: I really like it. So there :-) Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Bottom line: I prefer WYSIWYG word processing to text word processing. If I really want that, I'll use {n,t}roff under Unix. Kinda sick, though. Scott Lindsey |"Cold and misty morning. I heard a warning borne in the air Claris Corp. | About an age of power when no one had an hour to spare" ames!claris!wombat| DISCLAIMER: These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, wombat@claris.com | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or dead.
suem@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (susan.mc kinnell) (07/29/89)
From article <WOMBAT.89Jul27185236@claris.com>, by wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey): > Bottom line: I prefer WYSIWYG word processing to text word processing. If > I really want that, I'll use {n,t}roff under Unix. Kinda sick, though. > Ouch! One of the reasons I *don't* much care for pc word processors is the fact the they *are* WYSIWYG. I don't like WYSIWYG at all. I *MUCH* prefer nroff/troff output. It's much more powerful. I have yet to see a pc word processor which will handle automatically-numbered lists (admittedly my experience with such programs is small, precisely because I check out the docs and see that they don't do what I want and don't bother with them) and lists are something I generate all the time on UNIX. Why pick on nroff/troff, anyway? It's not even *on* Apples - if it is, please let me know where I can get it! -- Sue McKinnell ...!att!ihlpf!suem IH 6N311 x5313