yjkim@milton.acs.washington.edu (Yong Kim) (02/24/90)
I have tried to use MS WORD 5.0 for Window this afternoon to realize that it's working so slow on PS-2 55SX (836SX) with 30 Mbytes. What is the problem? Is the problem related to the WINDOW 386? Or to the one inherent in WORD for Window. Basically, I like their new interface - trying to be MacLike, but I cannot bear with their slow response. It took around 2 sec to shift a one pageful of text to the right! (well let's say between 1 to 2 secs). Any comment, wait for the new release?
todd@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Todd Ogasawara) (02/25/90)
In article <2113@milton.acs.washington.edu> yjkim@milton.acs.washington.edu (Yong Kim) writes: >I have tried to use MS WORD 5.0 for Window this afternoon to realize >that it's working so slow on PS-2 55SX (836SX) with 30 Mbytes. >What is the problem? Is the problem related to the WINDOW 386? >Or to the one inherent in WORD for Window. Basically, I like their >new interface - trying to be MacLike, but I cannot bear with their >slow response. It took around 2 sec to shift a one pageful of text >to the right! (well let's say between 1 to 2 secs). I also started out using Windows Word on an IBM 55SX (although I had the faster and larger 60MB hard disk on mine) and found Windows Word slow. The first factor is the inherently slow nature of Microsoft Windows. The next factors are the size of the Windows Word overlay (ove 800K as I recall) and the speed of the hard disk from which parts of the overlay is called and retrieved. I recently switched to a 25MHz 386 and can finally use Windows and Windows Word without experiencing a lot of delays between actions.... BTW... My big grump about Windows Word is that it does not import spreadsheet file formats from Lotus and Excel as well as the older Word 5.0 does. Windows Word loses all formatting information when the file is imported into a document. E.g., trailing zeros from a number lik 250.00 is lost....todd -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
homerun@portia.Stanford.EDU (Matt Watson) (02/25/90)
I currently have W.F.W. running on a model 70 (16 Mhz). A couple of things seem to help... Make sure you run memset to configure the maximum available memory, and then try running windows with the /n switch. That helped more than anything to get over the inherent slowness of Windows/386. (stick it out, though...Wait 'till you see windows ver. 3...zoom). mw.
dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) (02/26/90)
In article <2113@milton.acs.washington.edu> yjkim@milton.acs.washington.edu (Yong Kim) writes: > I have tried to use MS WORD 5.0 for Window this afternoon to realize > that it's working so slow on PS-2 55SX (836SX) with 30 Mbytes. > What is the problem? Is the problem related to the WINDOW 386? > Or to the one inherent in WORD for Window. Basically, I like their > new interface - trying to be MacLike, but I cannot bear with their > slow response. It took around 2 sec to shift a one pageful of text > to the right! (well let's say between 1 to 2 secs). > Any comment, wait for the new release? Two things will affect how Word for Windows runs: 1) Your processor speed 2) Whether you have extended memory The more speed, the better. I think that Word for Windows is better suited for a 386 instead of a 286 (because of the speed considerations). I'm running it on a 10MHz 286 at work and think its a little sluggish. I've ordered a Gateway 20MHz 386 (for home), and expect tremendous improvements because of the processor speed increase. One thing that will get immediate and dramatic results independent of what kind of machine you own, is to run SmartDrive (if you have expanded memory). Without SmartDrive, you will spend alot of time waiting while the program keeps crunching away at your disk. In general, I think that the program is excellent. It's definitely a superset of Word 5.0. I'm learning to program under Windows, so I can appreciate the effort that went into developing this product. I think the MS people did a hell of a coding job. This is one of those programs that is so feature rich, that I won't be exhausting its capabilities anytime soon. I don't think an upgrade is going to improve things for you. As they add capabilities they may improve the overall execution speed, but they might also make it slower too. Word for Windows is indicative of the power that will be put into future programs. With my current hardware, I don't get a snap response to commands, but I'm willing to live with that (at least until I get accustomed to the 20MHz 386 world :) ). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Sampson Harris Corporation dsampson@x102a.ess.harris.com Gov't Aerospace Systems Divison uunet!x102a!dsampson Melbourne, Florida -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) (03/07/90)
In article <DSAMPSON.90Feb26100742@x102a.harris-atd.com> dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) writes: >In article <2113@milton.acs.washington.edu> yjkim@milton.acs.washington.edu (Yong Kim) writes: > >> I have tried to use MS WORD 5.0 for Window this afternoon to realize >> that it's working so slow on PS-2 55SX (836SX) with 30 Mbytes. >> What is the problem? Is the problem related to the WINDOW 386? > >I don't think an upgrade is going to improve things for you. As they >add capabilities they may improve the overall execution speed, but >they might also make it slower too. Word for Windows is indicative of I would appreciate hearing any comments/problems that anyone has found with Word for Windows. I bought my upgrade about a week ago and at this point I'm about ready to use the 30 day return option and give it back to Microsoft. My complaints are: It won't run on my PS/2 Model 55SX (80386SX, 2 Mbytes of memory, 30 Mbyte hard disk, IBM mouse, DOS 3.3). It gives me "Word Basic Error 7", then "not enough memory to load the document" (30kbyte document), and "not enough memory to update the display". CHKDSK says that I have about 550k of memory available before loading Windows, which is supposed to be enough to load Windows and WfW. This machine is about as True Blue as you can get, but WfW doesn't work. I have tried calling Microsoft, but haven't been able to get through to the tech support. I did manage to get WfW working on my AST Premium 286 at home and from my limited time with the program I have the following observations. When you read these, keep in mind that I am a rather die-hard Word 5.0 user. If you haven't used Word 5.0 you might not mind that WfW is is so different from previous versions of Word. Hardware requirements: WfW is not fast, but not much worse than most Windows applications. It's much slower than Word 5.0. I needed about 4 Mbytes of disk space for WfW and the runtime Windows. This is a lot of disk space to use just to run a word processor. Display modes: Draft mode is fairly quick, but all formatted characters (bold, underline, etc.) are underlined. This is a step down from previous versions where they were color coded in the draft mode and more or less WYSIWYG in the graphics mode. In the normal mode and the WYSIWYG mode in WfW you have to put up with some very hard to read Windows fonts and WfW can't display 80 characters across the screen. Even if you have normal margins you can't see the whole width of a page at one time. I don't like it that I have to scroll to look at the words near the right margin of my document. Document Summary: Under Word 5.0 you can look at a list of files and look at the summary of each file at the same time. In WfW I have to pick out a file and let it display the file's summary. I may be screwing something up, but so far I can't get WfW to just give me a list of all the files and the summaries at the same time. Keyboard mapping: The keyboard template for WfW has very little in common with Word 5.0. There are up to 5 functions for each function key (key, alt-key, shift-key, control-key, control-shift-key, etc.) and many are different than they were in Word 5.0. It's like learning a new program. Some good points of WfW: - It is extremely easy to do tables. - It could serve as a low-cost DTP package (since it only cost me $150 to upgrade). - There are probably other good points, but I haven't had time to try out all the features. I may decide to keep WfW just to use in the final layout of my documents, since it's cumbersome for routine editing. I can use Word 5.0 to create my drafts and then read them into WfW for the final output. However, I'm still trying to decide if its worth $150 for something that I will probably use very infrequently. Once again, I would appreciate hearing anyone else's opinions on WfW. Maybe there is something I am missing. Bruce Carlson carlson@gateway.mitre.org
kxb@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Karl R. Buck) (03/07/90)
In article <100289@linus.UUCP> carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) writes: >In article <DSAMPSON.90Feb26100742@x102a.harris-atd.com> dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) writes: >>In article <2113@milton.acs.washington.edu> yjkim@milton.acs.washington.edu (Yong Kim) writes: >> >>> I have tried to use MS WORD 5.0 for Window this afternoon to realize >>> that it's working so slow on PS-2 55SX (836SX) with 30 Mbytes. >>> What is the problem? Is the problem related to the WINDOW 386? >> >>I don't think an upgrade is going to improve things for you. As they >>add capabilities they may improve the overall execution speed, but >>they might also make it slower too. Word for Windows is indicative of > >I would appreciate hearing any comments/problems that anyone has found >with Word for Windows. I bought my upgrade about a week ago and at this >point I'm about ready to use the 30 day return option and give it back to >Microsoft. > You may want to wait for MSW 3.0. InfoWorld had some screen shots of the new version and one of the big improvements is supposed to be that it can run in protected mode. Supposedly there is a special 386 mode also that features improved memory usage. The new version may fix the bugs you are experiencing. In the article they specifically said that they tried word for windows on the new and old windows. The result was that the new version of windows ran w for w "significantly faster" whatever that means. I hate to tell you I reccomend one or the other (return or not). I'll just say that I'm pretty excited about ver. 3.0 and am looking forward to its release. It promises to be a big improvement. -- | 731 Moro | POPEYE@KSUVM.KSU.EDU | Be cool, be hip, | | Manhattan, KS 66502 | kxb@phobos.cis.ksu.edu | be an Engineer. |
bradb@ai.toronto.edu (Brad Brown) (03/08/90)
kxb@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Karl R. Buck) writes: >In article <100289@linus.UUCP> carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) writes: >>In article <DSAMPSON.90Feb26100742@x102a.harris-atd.com> dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) writes: >>>In article <2113@milton.acs.washington.edu> yjkim@milton.acs.washington.edu (Yong Kim) writes: >>> >>>> I have tried to use MS WORD 5.0 for Window this afternoon to realize >>>> that it's working so slow on PS-2 55SX (836SX) with 30 Mbytes. >>>> What is the problem? Is the problem related to the WINDOW 386? >You may want to wait for MSW 3.0. InfoWorld had some screen shots of the >new version and one of the big improvements is supposed to be that it >can run in protected mode. Supposedly there is a special 386 mode also >that features improved memory usage. The new version may fix the bugs you >are experiencing. >In the article they specifically said that they tried word for windows >on the new and old windows. The result was that the new version of windows >ran w for w "significantly faster" whatever that means. I'll second this. I'm running WfW on my 12MHz '286, and it's unacceptably slow. There are a lot of small problems with the program that are not going to go away with Windows 3.0, but I have seen Windows 3.0 in beta and the beta testers told me that it ran WfW "quite a bit faster." I don't have any benchmarks about what that means, either, but there is hope... (-: Brad Brown :-) bradb@ai.utoronto.ca
mp2k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Palmquist) (03/08/90)
In an earlier post, Bruce Carlson writes: "I would appreciate hearing any comments/problems that anyone has found with Word for Windows. I bought my upgrade about a week ago and at this point I'm about ready to use the 30 day return option and give it back to Microsoft." I've been using Word for Windows for a few weeks now and I'm generally happy with it. I've got a weird setup on my computer -- I'm using an XT with a Quadram 386xt (which is a lot like the Intell Inboard 386). I initially used it with the smartdrive that comes with the run-time version of MS Windows that's bundled with WFW. That worked okay, but I've found that things work much more quickly if I run the program out of a ramdrive. So I've set up an 864k ramdrive and I load the program and the two .ini files in and execute the program from there. So far, the only problems I've had is some sort of compatibility problem with the bios on my floppy disk controller (XT's can't run 1.44 drives, so you have to use either a software patch or use a controller with its own bios). I haven't figured it out yet, but other than that, it's fine. It seems about as quick as Word 4.0 on a Mac II and in general it runs about as fast as Word 5.0 did on the same machine -- and I don't have any problems updating the display or scrolling quickly through text. If I could figure out the problems I'm having with my floppies, I'd be much happier. If anyone has any ideas, I'd appreciate it. I'm using a Northgate UFDC to control a 360K and a 1.44M floppy. I've relocated the address that the bios use a few times, but the problem doesn't go away. According to Microsoft, the runtime version of windows needs four full page frames to load. It seems like I've given it that, and the program works fine as long as I just use the hard drive and the ram drive. But the program sometimes blows up when I try to read or write to the floppies. Mike Palmquist ************************ mp2k@andrew.cmu.edu Department of English Carnegie Mellon University voice: 412/268-5636
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (03/09/90)
In article <100289@linus.UUCP> carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) writes: >I would appreciate hearing any comments/problems that anyone has found >with Word for Windows. I bought my upgrade about a week ago and at this >point I'm about ready to use the 30 day return option and give it back to >Microsoft. Well I'm an avid WordPerfect user (but who admits it isn't really perfect), but got a copy of Word for Windows thinking it would be the way of the future. Well, I came to the conclusion it has a way to go. Major gripes: 1. It gets out of memory errors too easily (and I have a 16Mb system). Does anyone not have this problem? 2. It isn't really WYSIWYG. Of course the screen fonts don't necessarily match the printer fonts, but the on screen microjustification is based on the screen font and doen't match what gets printed. In this respect WP is more WYSIWYG. 3. I couldn't get the kludgy EPS import macro to work (Out of Memory, of course). In general, handling of graphics is more difficult than WP. While WfW does allow dragging a graphic into position, you can only do it in page preview mode, and the text is greeked in page preview. WfW's closest competitor Ami is much better here. 4. Windows printer drivers aren't as sophisticated as WP's drivers. With a Postscript printer you are limited to a certain set of font sizes (WP allows any size resolved to a tenth of a point). With the Epson driver only the Elite (10cpi) font works properly, the compressed, expanded, pica, and proportional fonts are not displayed properly (they are all displayed the same size and the displayed margins are wrong to compensate). This dificulty appears in Windows Write as well (but to a lesser degree with AMI). 5. I would have expected more typographic control, but WP comes out ahead in adjusting character and line spacing. At least WfW now has kerning, but there is no way to adjust the kerning tables. 6. I guess because of competitive presure the nice manuals of earlier Word versions has been replaced with an alphabetical order reference manual reminiscent of WPs massive impenetrable tome. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (03/09/90)
I was a beta tester for WinWord. I now own it, but don't use it. I've gone back to using PC Word 5.0. Like other posters, I'm fed up with all the "out of memory" messages. What good is WYSIWYG if you don't have enough memory to display the fonts. When in WYSIWYG mode, the fonts are difficult to read. I've tried it in EGA, VGA and Super VGA. I guess for decent WYSIWYG, you need a 2K by 2K screen. I just got a new VGA card that supports 1024x768 and will try it with WinWord. I don't think it will help though. All the higher res- olutions buy for you is a larger screen - they don't use more pixels to draw the fonts. That's what it really needs. The printer support sucks. That's because it's Windows that does it. It doesn't support the full resolution of Epson LQ printers. It requires one to download fonts to the LaserJet EVERY TIME YOU PRINT. It's as bad as WordImperfect. At least with PC Word, I can modify the Epson driver to add the double density support. With Windows, I can't. With PC Word, the user is asked if (s)he wants to download newly added fonts, all fonts or no fonts when (s)he goes to print. Much better. A Microsoft support person told me that they put more effort into PC Word drivers than Windows drivers. It's SLOW. I have a 386/25 and it takes forever to do anything. Granted, I have only 4 MB RAM and an ESDI drive, but still... 8-) To be honest, it is a very impressive program - it just barely misses the mark. I think future versions of it and Windows will win me back. Every- one I've showed it to was very impressed - that even includes WordImperfect users. The basic program is great - it's the details that let you down. I hope to upgrade to a 486/33 by the end of the year and will give it another try. Maybe it won't be so painfully slow on it. I've used and support PC Word, WinWord and WordImperfect. I'll take PC Word over the others any day. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@wind55.seri.gov Senior Computer Engineer VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
akm@spencer.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (03/09/90)
In article <7042@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: >Major gripes: > >1. It gets out of memory errors too easily (and I have a 16Mb system). Does > anyone not have this problem? > How much of the 16MB is set up as expanded memory that WinWord can use? I was looking at a display copy in our local computer shop, and I got the out of memory message when I tried to load one of their demo files. HOwever, I was not sure whether it was because of the way the people in the shop had set up that machine, or whether it really was out of memory. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Department of Computer Science akm@oregon.BITNET University of Oregon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Department of Computer Science akm@oregon.BITNET University of Oregon
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (03/09/90)
> >Bruce Carlson writes: > >I would appreciate hearing any comments/problems that anyone has found > >with Word for Windows. I bought my upgrade about a week ago and at this > >point I'm about ready to use the 30 day return option and give it back to > >Microsoft. > Tom Almy writes: > Well I'm an avid WordPerfect user (but who admits it isn't really perfect), > but got a copy of Word for Windows thinking it would be the way of the > future. Well, I came to the conclusion it has a way to go. Major gripes: I got a copy because I am doing an evaluation. Here are my major gripes: 1. It's even slower than Ami. 2. It has almost no provision for horizontal and vertical rules. It appears to be possible to put a horizontal rule over a paragraph, but only the same width as the paragraph. For user documentation, we frequently use a format that includes horizontal rules wider than the paragraph (usually margin to margin), and also use horizontal rules above and below figures, tables, etc. 3. The import facilities for images and artwork are limited to the clipboard and TIFF (realistically -- nothing else seems to work). It is also not possible to hot-link to artwork similar to the image-on-disk feature in WordPerfect. This means that when the art department updates a figure, it has to be reimported instead of being picked up automatically. 4. It has no ability to control leading. It allows any size type with single, line-and-a-half and double spacing, but I can't specify 10 on 12 or 10 on 10 -- WordPerfect is not a lot better in this respect in that it's specification is global rather than local. 5. It's even slower running in a beta version of Windows 3.0 on a 286 machine with 1 MB. It can't even keep up with typing speed. In general, Ami is an easier to use program with almost all the features you might need for unsophisticated work except for mail-merge. WordPerfect has far more power than either Ami (including Professional) or WORD for WINDOWS, and is far better for technical documentation, particularly with regard to page layout and integrated graphics -- it's also harder to use. Jim Winer -- jwi@mtfme.att.com -- Opinions not represent employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ...I've had some womderful daydreams about how the FAA controllers would react to suddenly discovering a dragon on short final into O'Hare on a busy night in IFR conditions... -- J.C. Morris, The MITRE Corp., McLean, VA
dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) (03/09/90)
Bruce, My original comments about speeding up Word for Windows still holds. I added SmartDrive and HiMem.SYS to my config.sys files and noticed dramatic improvements in execution and in painting the screen on a 10MHz 286 at work. I finally got my Gateway 2000 20MHz 386 yesterday. WFW zips right along in that environment. I'm convinced that the "optimum" environment for WFW is a 386. Your problem sounds like a setup problem. Try the MS technical support line again. I ocassionally have to wait, but I've never had a problem getting through. My general opinion of WFW is that it is a super program. The hard part about using it is a) having the "right" environment, b) having the correct setup for your full up version of Windows. Once these two things are taken care of (item b) can dramatically affect your results) you shouldn't have a problem. David -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Sampson Harris Corporation dsampson@x102a.ess.harris.com Gov't Aerospace Systems Divison uunet!x102a!dsampson Melbourne, Florida -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/10/90)
In article <7042@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: |1. It gets out of memory errors too easily (and I have a 16Mb system). Does | anyone not have this problem? I don't often get out of memory errors, but chkdsk shows 607 Kbytes. I also have the extended memory support for windows configured. I can actually do DDE from Excel to WfW. |3. I couldn't get the kludgy EPS import macro to work (Out of Memory, of | course). In general, handling of graphics is more difficult than WP. This I couldn't do either. We'll just have to wait for Windows 3.0. |6. I guess because of competitive presure the nice manuals of earlier Word | versions has been replaced with an alphabetical order reference manual | reminiscent of WPs massive impenetrable tome. Yeah, the manual really sucks. But the tutorial isn't bad, it just doesn't go very far at all. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil The Microsoft Mouse is the only mouse worth having on a PC.
moss@ttidca.TTI.COM (Les Moss) (03/10/90)
To those who are disappointed with the performance of Word for Windows, I suggest you try Ami Professional. I use this program regularly and am quite happy with it's performance. Ami Pro's functional capabilities are about the same as W f W. and the price is similar. There is also a version called Ami (no Pro) which sells for about $100. This version has all of the features most people need and probably performs even better. Ami has been out for about a year and thus has had some time to mature (relative to WfW). -- Les Moss moss@tti.com Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2982 Santa Monica, CA 90405
feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) (03/11/90)
WfW is a little slow, but a 486 will fix that. Take a look at the WfW
Technical Reference to get an idea of just how powerful the macro
capability is. I suspect that this program may require Windows 3.0 to
get acceptable performance. I miss the W5.0 style bar but I'm keeping
the program.
--
Phone: (home) 219-482-9631
E-mail: feustel@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax,apple,hplabs,pacbell}!well!feustel
USMAIL: Dave Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) (03/12/90)
In article <16605@well.sf.ca.us> feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) writes: > I miss the W5.0 style bar but I'm keeping the program. Go to your VIEW -> Preferences menu. Enter .25 or .5 in the STYLE AREA WIDTH box and you'll see the styles that you've applied to your paragraphs and headers. David -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Sampson Harris Corporation dsampson@x102a.ess.harris.com Gov't Aerospace Systems Divison uunet!x102a!dsampson Melbourne, Florida -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (03/13/90)
dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) writes: >In article <16605@well.sf.ca.us> feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan >Feustel) writes: >> I miss the W5.0 style bar but I'm keeping the program. >Go to your VIEW -> Preferences menu. Enter .25 or .5 in the STYLE >AREA WIDTH box and you'll see the styles that you've applied to your >paragraphs and headers. The Style Bar does NOT get displayed when in Page View mode. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@wind55.seri.gov Senior Computer Engineer VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
indra@pepsi.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (03/13/90)
In article <29440@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@pepsi.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <7042@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: >|6. I guess because of competitive presure the nice manuals of earlier Word >| versions has been replaced with an alphabetical order reference manual >| reminiscent of WPs massive impenetrable tome. > >Yeah, the manual really sucks. But the tutorial isn't bad, it just >doesn't go very far at all. > I am trying to develop some macros for WFW and am stumped with the documentation at hand. I called MS and they said that the Tech Reference is published by MSPress and is available to anyone for $19.95. I have looked at several local book stores (Yes, including CLBS: computer literacy book store) and no one has it. A few WFW books have started showing up... each caters to the novice. Oh well, I'll wait for CLBS to send me a card when they get the book in. Until then, lets play with Ventura Publisher !!! iNDRA | indra@amdcad.AMD.COM (Indra Singhal) (408) 749-5445 | {ames decwrl apple pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!indra | MS 167; Box 3453; Sunnyvale, CA 94088
jeffmu@microsoft.UUCP (Jeff MUZZY) (03/16/90)
In article <16605@well.sf.ca.us> feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) writes: > >WfW is a little slow, but a 486 will fix that. Take a look at the WfW >Technical Reference to get an idea of just how powerful the macro >capability is. I suspect that this program may require Windows 3.0 to >get acceptable performance. I miss the W5.0 style bar but I'm keeping >the program. >-- VIEW PEFERENCES and Style Width Area = .5 will give you a style bar Jeff Muzzy ----- Word Processing and Email group. #include <disclaimer.h> -- jeffmu@microsoft or uunet!microsoft!jeffmu MaBellNet: (206) 882-8080 <Insert your favorite disclaimer about opinions and companies here>