paul@athertn.Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) (03/03/89)
In article <8903011500.aa14186@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes: > >Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 18:25:02 GMT > >From: David I Seah <mailrus!ulowell!m2c!wpi!dseah@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV> > >Subject: RE: Fool in the Rain [ discussion about AppleLink PE folders and AppleWorks sluggishness deleted ] > > If programs such as MultiScribe GS are called > >"unfit for documents longer than a couple of pages" by Apple > >magazines (that usually gush all over the place), then AWGS might > >share the same characteristics. > > When he said "...the best you can do is AppleWorks 2.0" he was > talking about classic AppleWorks. (There is no AppleWorks GS 2.0 > yet.) AppleWorks GS is the one he said requires the patience of 10 > dead men. I expect that will change in a future release, but for > now _I_ continue to use classic AppleWorks. I can crank out quick > letters with it in about a _minute_. I'd _rather_ have a usable > desktop-based word processor for the GS, but I haven't seen anything > I'm impressed with yet. This is not a permanent situation. I am a faithful Apple II (Plus) user, and I must disagree with this last sentence. There has NEVER, EVER been a usable word processor of any sort (in my own opinion) that runs on ANY of the Apple II operating systems since the Apple II line came out. In order to do any serious writing, I have to boot up CP/M. Short 30-page manuals overflow everything I have under DOS 3.3 (I'm in the process of converting to ProDOS, but from what I've seen, I have nothing to look forward to in this respect), and they're all so difficult to use. I have never even HEARD of any word processor that is not memory-based, permitting someone to write long documents. It looks to me like the first person to port WordStar (with all its problems) to ProDOS will clean up. (1/2 :-) Any takers? -- Paul Sander (408) 734-9822 | Do YOU get nervous when a paul@Atherton.COM | sys{op,adm,prg,engr} says {decwrl,sun,hplabs!hpda}!athertn!paul | "oops..." ?
cs1552ao@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (03/03/89)
>I am a faithful Apple II (Plus) user, and I must disagree with this last >sentence. There has NEVER, EVER been a usable word processor of any sort >(in my own opinion) that runs on ANY of the Apple II operating systems >since the Apple II line came out. In order to do any serious writing, I >have to boot up CP/M. Short 30-page manuals overflow everything I have >under DOS 3.3 (I'm in the process of converting to ProDOS, but from what >I've seen, I have nothing to look forward to in this respect), and they're >all so difficult to use. I have never even HEARD of any word processor >that is not memory-based, permitting someone to write long documents. Seconded! The best I've been able to say about any II-based WP is that it was "adequate". I work with textfiles and "printing to a textfile" with AppleWorks is a royal pain; WYSIWYG editors are too clumsy and slow. ProTERM's built-in editor is nice but only gives me 24k; AppleWriter gives more space but isn't very powerful . . . the command structure is sort of clumsy and 44k still isn't enough. I'd give my right leg for a decent TEXT-processing program that runs under ProDOS on a 128K enhanced //e and allows files of arbitrary size. Does ANYTHING fit the bill? Lazlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cs1552ao@charon.unm.edu Is chinet the only site named after a paper plate?
ART100@PSUVM.BITNET ("Andy Tefft 862-6728", 814) (03/03/89)
Original note: > >>I am a faithful Apple II (Plus) user, and I must disagree with this last >>sentence. There has NEVER, EVER been a usable word processor of any sort >>(in my own opinion) that runs on ANY of the Apple II operating systems >>since the Apple II line came out. .. >> I have never even HEARD of any word processor >>that is not memory-based, permitting someone to write long documents. > >Seconded! The best I've been able to say about any II-based WP is that >it was "adequate". I work with textfiles and "printing to a textfile" >with AppleWorks is a royal pain; WYSIWYG editors are too clumsy and >slow. ProTERM's built-in editor is nice but only gives me 24k; >AppleWriter gives more space but isn't very powerful . . . the command >structure is sort of clumsy and 44k still isn't enough. > >I'd give my right leg for a decent TEXT-processing program that runs >under ProDOS on a 128K enhanced //e and allows files of arbitrary >size. Does ANYTHING fit the bill? > > Lazlo >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >cs1552ao@charon.unm.edu Is chinet the only site named after a paper plate? Hmmm... I rather liked Word Juggler, first piece of ProDOS software I ever owned, although it was $289 when I got it and went down to $189 shortly thereafter and went down to who knows what... It's not 'WYSIWYG', although you just hit a key to see what's going to come out on paper, with special features highlighted (super/sub, underline, etc) and you can scroll sideways for documents wider than 80 characters... As for long documents, I guess you're only limited by the amount of online storage you have, as you can imbed documents as much as you want (if you were writing a book you might have a main control file that ONLY has imbed commands in it, then each chapter has its own file). This is VERY handy and useful and I think BETTER than allowing one LOOOOONG file, because this way you're less apt to lose the WHOLE document if you lose a file. The commands are kind of hard to remember but it came (I say came instead of comes because I don't know if it's sold any more) with keycaps to replace your own (about 15 of them) and a keycap puller... ours (//e) even came with a keyboard mod and an ic puller... so you don't have to remember any commands, they're all right there on your keyboard. It even does form letters, variables... I had to write a printer driver for it (imagewriter 2) to allow it to do super/sub scripts in small type instead of moving the carriage)... About the only limitation I've found with it is that you have to break a line to do things like change color (on the iw II) or anything that you have to send printer control characters for. It wasn't copyable but comes with a backup (it's prodos but the actual program file is on tracks 1-3 i think which are not standard track format). enough memories... i still use WJ occasionally when I have a quick thing to print but usually opt for the better text processing on the mainframe. I agree it would be nice to see something like troff or SCRIPT for the apple (or even TeX)... Wouldn't very well like floppies though (probably very Loooong, especially if multiple fonts/laser printers were supported). Andy Art100@psuvm.bitnet or a1t@ecl.psu.edu
AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (03/03/89)
>Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 20:43:23 GMT >From: Paul Sander <pyramid!athertn!paul@LLL-LCC.LLNL.GOV> >Subject: Good Word Processors (was Re: Fool In the Rain, ALPE) I (Dave) wrote: > I'd _rather_ have a usable > desktop-based word processor for the GS, but I haven't seen anything > I'm impressed with yet. This is not a permanent situation. Paul writes: >I am a faithful Apple II (Plus) user, and I must disagree with this last >sentence. There has NEVER, EVER been a usable word processor of any sort >(in my own opinion) that runs on ANY of the Apple II operating systems >since the Apple II line came out. Try AppleWorks (classic, not AppleWorks GS). There is software available to make AppleWorks work with the II+. My parents use a II+ with PlusWorks and a 128K RAM card from Jameco. AppleWorks _is_ memory-based. If that bothers you, get more memory! On my IIgs, I have about 1000K available on my AppleWorks desktop. I've never written a book, but it wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, my statement was that the lack of a great GS-specific word processor is a temporary situation. This has nothing to do with whether there were, are, or will be good word processors for previous Apple II models. >Paul Sander (408) 734-9822 | Do YOU get nervous when a >paul@Atherton.COM | sys{op,adm,prg,engr} says >{decwrl,sun,hplabs!hpda}!athertn!paul | "oops..." ? --David A. Lyons bitnet: awcttypa@uiamvs DAL Systems CompuServe: 72177,3233 P.O. Box 287 GEnie mail: D.LYONS2 North Liberty, IA 52317 AppleLinkPE: Dave Lyons
labc-3dc@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) (03/04/89)
I also remember ScreenWriter II. I've written many a text file on a software-based 70-column screen... and it automatically recognized my //gs as a //e, so it could use the 80-col card. Heck, my dad still uses it on the //e at home. Anybody out there remember "Word Handler"? No limit on the size of documents (that I know of). Early problems (68 cols in software, just like ScreenWriter; bizarre file format) were fixed in later versions (80-col support, Word Handler <--> text file utilities). I don't know that either of these run under ProDOS, though. -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) labc-3dc@widow.berkeley.edu
joseph@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Seymour Joseph) (03/04/89)
Boy, you folks are a special breed. But, accomodating special breeds is what the Apple ][ is all about. If you are crazy about CP/M Wordstar, and feel that everything else since then is junk, you might want to look at the Apple II version of WordPerfect. It is disk, not memory based, runs under prodos (thus supporting BIG volumes) and is a popular and feature-rich WP. Seymour
phag720@ut-emx.UUCP (Larry K. Smith) (03/04/89)
I have owned my Apple ][+ since 1981 and from the start have used an excellent, sophisticated, powerful, non-memory based word processor called ScreenWriter (used to be Super Scribe) from Sierra On-Line Systems. It allows alternate character sets (I have done a little in Russian and a lot in Spanish). The file size is limited only by disk space. Because of my status as a poverty-stricken grad student, I never was able to afford an 80-col card (or even move to ProDOS), but there is a viewing mode that shows 70 cols of what your document looks like on the graphics screen. The world may have passed me by and everything I own is now obsolete, but it worked in 1981 and it works today. The software was and is very powerful. In reply to apple hardware never failing. Not true. My ][+ has been on the blink for 1 1/2 wks now, but I'm too poor to take it in--I'm trying to fix it myself. It won't reset. Don't know why. Help anyone? Larry Smith LARRY@UTAPHY bitnet.
cbdougla@uokmax.UUCP (Collin Broadrick Douglas) (03/04/89)
> >Seconded! The best I've been able to say about any II-based WP is that >it was "adequate". I work with textfiles and "printing to a textfile" >with AppleWorks is a royal pain; WYSIWYG editors are too clumsy and >slow. ProTERM's built-in editor is nice but only gives me 24k; >AppleWriter gives more space but isn't very powerful . . . the command >structure is sort of clumsy and 44k still isn't enough. > >I'd give my right leg for a decent TEXT-processing program that runs >under ProDOS on a 128K enhanced //e and allows files of arbitrary >size. Does ANYTHING fit the bill? > AI can see yor problem here. Fortunately, I don't have the same problems you do. I use Appleworks all the time and I hardly every have to save things as text files (I do agree, using Appleworks and saving things is horrible). I use the timeout series Thesaurus, Spelling checker and a few others and I have about a 1024K desktop . In my circumstances, Appleworks is wonderful! It is fast, I have a lot of memory (enough for very large files ) and lots of "extended" features thanks to Timeout. I don't know of any word processors that you describe, but If I see any around, I will let everyone know. Collin q
tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) (03/05/89)
Re: > Date: 2 Mar 89 20:43:23 GMT > From: Paul Sander <pnet01!crash!lll-lcc.llnl.gov!pyramid!athertn!paul> > Subject: Good Word Processors (was Re: Fool In the Rain, ALPE) > I am a faithful Apple II (Plus) user, and I must disagree with this > last sentence. There has NEVER, EVER been a usable word processor of > any sort (in my own opinion) that runs on ANY of the Apple II operating > systems since the Apple II line came out. In order to do any serious > writing, I have to boot up CP/M. > It looks to me like the first person to port WordStar (with all its > problems) to ProDOS will clean up. (1/2 :-) Any takers? Paul, I hate to seem too sarcastic, but if you have a problem with using anything that is not over ten-years old then you cannot relate this to what the current state of technology in the Apple II family is. I regularly use Appleworks (classic!) to write articles in the 10,000 word range. I have even used the program to write letters which have extended to approx. 20,000 lines. Show me a CP/M word processor on the Apple which can begin to compare to Appleworks. I seriously doubt that you will be able to. > Paul Sander (408) 734-9822 | Do YOU get nervous when a > paul@Atherton.COM | sys{op,adm,prg,engr} says Todd South -- UUCP: {nosc, uunet!cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun.COM} ...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1
halp@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU ("Bruce P. Halpern") (03/05/89)
If the Timeout AWP TO TEXT route is chosen, rather than the one built into AppleWorks, saving WP files as text files is not painful, and the files do not have the troublesome LF-CR at the end of each line. A disk is available from Gem Software that modifies the text file input part of AppleWorks such that when it is selected, it goes to the current volume and displays a list of text files. One can then be selected, and will read in. ****DISCLAMER: My comments, etc., are my own shakey opinions ******** | Bruce P. Halpern Psychology & Neurobiology & Behavior Cornell Ithaca | | INTERNET:halp@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu BITNET:D57J@CORNELLA D57J@CRNLVAX5| | UUCP:{vax135,rochester,decvax}!cornell!batcomputer!halp | | PHONE: 607-255-6433 Uris Hall, Cornell U., Ithaca, NY 14853-7601 |
dcw@athena.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (03/07/89)
In article <312@athertn.Atherton.COM> paul@athertn.Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) writes: > >I am a faithful Apple II (Plus) user, and I must disagree with this last >sentence. There has NEVER, EVER been a usable word processor of any sort >(in my own opinion) that runs on ANY of the Apple II operating systems >since the Apple II line came out. In order to do any serious writing, I >have to boot up CP/M. Short 30-page manuals overflow everything I have >under DOS 3.3 (I'm in the process of converting to ProDOS, but from what >I've seen, I have nothing to look forward to in this respect), and they're >all so difficult to use. I have never even HEARD of any word processor >that is not memory-based, permitting someone to write long documents. Have you heard of Super Scribe? It's by Online Systems (don't know the addr), and it was written for the ][+ all those years ago. It runs under DOS 3.3, and it uses the disk in the drive as a virtual memory system (it actually doesn't do this fully legally, so you do run the risk of losing data when you save). It uses the graphics screen to get lower case letters. It knows about the old shift key modification trick, so that you can use a real shift key. Really quite fancy for its time. I'm sorry you think converting to ProDOS will cause you a total breakdown. It is far superior to DOS 3.3. I too had the conversion jitters, but I'm *very* glad I switched. >Paul Sander (408) 734-9822 | Do YOU get nervous when a >paul@Atherton.COM | sys{op,adm,prg,engr} says >{decwrl,sun,hplabs!hpda}!athertn!paul | "oops..." ? Dave Whitney A junior in Computer Science at MIT dcw@athena.mit.edu ...!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!dcw dcw@goldilocks.mit.edu I wrote Z-Link. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info. "This is MIT. Collect and 3rd party calls will not be accepted at this number."
jetzer@studsys.mu.edu (jetzer) (03/07/89)
In article <4594@charon.unm.edu>, cs1552ao@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes: > >If the Timeout AWP TO TEXT route is chosen, rather than the one built into > >AppleWorks, saving WP files as text files is not painful, and the files do > >not have the troublesome LF-CR at the end of each line. > ...Meaning I have to buy TimeOut as well as AppleWorks, and still be retricted > to 55k or so (less, with TimeOut installed) by the limited amount of memory in > my machine. Yuck. With all the discussion about converting AppleWorks word processing files to text, might I direct your attention to the March issue of NIBBLE Magazine? There's a nice little program called Works Processor (written by little ol' me) that will convert AWP files to text in several formats: Carriage returns only where there's a hard CR, carriage returns after each line, or CR/LF combination at the end of each line. While it is a separate program that you have to run, it is MUCH faster at converting AWP files to TXT files than AppleWorks is -- in one test, a file took only 9% of the time to convert (actual conversion time; of course you must leave AppleWorks to run this program). I've been avoiding plugging my own program, but could no longer resist. (BTW, NIBBLE introduced a couple of bugs into my program from the time I sent them the final version to publication time. I could post the fixes if anyone wants them. Of course, I can't post the actual program, because they bought the rights to it.) -- Mike Jetzer "Hack first, ask questions later."
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (03/08/89)
There is a whole new world out there as soon as you 'upgrade' to ProDOS. AppleWriter (I'm not sure this is published anymore), AppleWorks, etc. etc. are both wonderful programs. Look around before you go off on an entire line of computers. jawaid bazyar jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (03/08/89)
In article <9655@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> dcw@athena.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >Have you heard of Super Scribe? It's by Online Systems (don't know the >addr), and it was written for the ][+ all those years ago. That company evolved into Sierra Online Systems Inc. still in Coarsegold, CA. (Best known for the King's Quest series of games.) I don't know whether Super Scribe is still available; Sierra does offer some non-game software, notably "Smart Money".
cs1552ao@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (05/06/89)
>If the Timeout AWP TO TEXT route is chosen, rather than the one built into >AppleWorks, saving WP files as text files is not painful, and the files do >not have the troublesome LF-CR at the end of each line. ...Meaning I have to buy TimeOut as well as AppleWorks, and still be retricted to 55k or so (less, with TimeOut installed) by the limited amount of memory in my machine. Yuck. If I had piles of money, that might -- MIGHT! -- be an option. But considering I'd never use AppleWorks for anything but word-processing it seems like an awful lot of cash to spend on such an apparently simple problem. Lazlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cs1552ao@charon.unm.edu I'm on the road, and I'm gunning for the Buddha.