dee@linus.UUCP (David E. Emery) (06/16/88)
If SPRINT is Borland's version of Final Word, (I think it is), then I can very highly recommend it. I've been using Final Word for 4 years now, and am a very satisfied customer. FW's approach is basically that of a very strong text editor with a document compiler. The editor closely resembles EMACS (and was done by the same people who did MINCE a long time ago), and has a macro programming language. There is (was) a lot of public domain stuff for the macro language, including things like 'electric c mode', etc. The formatter is very similar to Scribe. In fact, I've 'ported' very large Scribe documents (Mil-Std 'B' Specification for Software...) almost without modification. If you've used Scribe, you'll love having it on your PC. It supports Scribe's inheritance model, which is still my favorite model for word processing, in terms of building large scale documents. The formatter also supports laser printers and has a facility for including 'embedded postscript'. FW's greatest strength is large, structured documents. I've developed FW templates for doing Army Operations Orders (a very strangly structured document) for my Guard unit. The last good thing about FW is that it's very portable. I run it on a TI Professional, which is as un-Clone as a MS-DOS machine can be. FW supported defining your own printer and display setups, so you could run it on just about anything that can conceivably run MS-DOS and any printer that MS-DOS can send bytes to... The documentation is very good (comprehensive), and looks nice, too. dave emery emery@mitre-bedford.arpa
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (06/20/88)
I ported the MicroEMACS documentation to FinalWord, and I only changed a
few lines where the examples had to be force into a fixed width font so
the tabbing would line up. I also used the checking features to remove a
*lot* of spelling, usage, and duplicated word errors. I sent the changes
to the author when 3.9e came out.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -metdt@sfsup.UUCP (T.Thomas) (07/21/88)
Does anybody have any experience with Borland's new word processor,
Sprint? I can get it for $99 and was wondering if it was worth it.
I am leaning towards getting it, because I have never been disappointed
with anything I have purchased from them.
Thanks in advance;
--------
____________ ____/--\____
\______ ___) ( _ ____) "Damn it Jim!,
__\ \____/ / `--' I'm a programmer not a Doctor!"
) `|=(-
\------------'
Timothy D. Thomas AT&T Bell Laboratories
..!{ihnp4,allegra}!attunix!tdt tdt@attunix.att.combljpl@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Lavigne) (07/25/88)
I've been using Sprint for about three weeks and so far I'm very satisfied. It seems to have a powerful and well-documented macro language, a very capable editor and formatter, and I find the standard Borland interface logically organized and easy to use. The real selling point seems to be that you can customize almost everything about the program. It comes with alternative interfaces that let you use Word Perfect, MicroSoft Word, or Wordstar commands and you can apparently change any of the editor commands you don't like. Borland also seems to provide quick support through a forum on CompuServe. I got an answer the next day to an obscure question I had. One thing Sprint does NOT give you is a good WYSIWYG preview mode. But since I use Ventura for that anyway, I don't need it. The formatter is very powerful, however, even if you need to print your text out to see what you're doing. Sprint can do some things -- e.g. automatically numbered lists and three-level index entries -- that even Ventura can't do. The program is certainly worth $99.00.
platt@emory.uucp (Dan Platt) (07/25/88)
In article <563@lindy.Stanford.EDU> bljpl@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Lavigne) writes: >... .. .. ....... ........ . .... One thing Sprint does NOT give >you is a good WYSIWYG preview mode. But since I use Ventura for >that anyway, I don't need it. The formatter is very powerful, >however, even if you need to print your text out to see what >you're doing. Sprint can do some things -- e.g. automatically >numbered lists and three-level index entries -- that even Ventura >can't do. The program is certainly worth $99.00. Actually, there is an option under the print window to select preview to the screen. It may not have all the symbols that some formats may support, but it will do a good job (I've been satisfied). It doesn't do WYSIWYG directly but you can certainly get a preview before you get a printout. One problem is that the processor does a format before the printout (rather than while the printout is being done -- which without multitasking is much slower; the formatting could be done between printer buffer fills). Hope this is a help for those considering whether to buy sprint. Dan
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (07/26/88)
In article <3580@sfsup.UUCP> tdt@sfsup.UUCP (T.Thomas) writes: | | Does anybody have any experience with Borland's new word processor, | Sprint? I can get it for $99 and was wondering if it was worth it. If that's the one which was MINCE/Scribble and then called Final Word, it's a goodie. I heard that Borland bought the rights. Is it using script (ie millions of things like @begin(big))? If so that's the one. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
lupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (-=/ Larry Hastings /=-) (07/27/88)
+-In article <11640@steinmetz.ge.com>, | davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) wrote:- +---------- | If [Sprint]'s the one which was MINCE/Scribble and then called Final Word, | it's a goodie. I heard that Borland bought the rights. Is it using | script (ie millions of things like @begin(big))? If so that's the one. +---------- | bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) +---------- Yep, that's the one. I was a Sprint beta-tester, and was (before that) a Final Word user. I have always been very impressed by Final Word, and now that it's become a whole new product AGAIN it's even better. Very robust (Final Word II proclaimed itself to be "the world's first uncrashable software") and very MS-DOS compatible (Final Word would run on anything that ran DOS-- used only BIOS calls). It's a speed demon, and works really really well with PostScript printers. Its only shortcoming is that it has 3 different languages: the formatting language ( @Begin(Numbered)/@End(Numbered), @B(Bold text), etc. goes on and on), the macro language (which is both infix and postfix, depending (apparently) on what the programmer felt like it should be), and the screen/ printer driver customiziation language (which 99% of everyone who uses Sprint will luckily never have to use, owing to the plethora of pre-defined printer and screen drivers it comes with). But (like anything else) you get adept at the formatter language quickly, and you probably won't start writing macros until you're done learning the formatter anyways. A few caveats-- Final Word users: Sprint _isn't_ really all _that_ compatible with Final Word. But, you can get the conversion macro suite (written by yours truly) which should turn out nice neat 100% Sprint-compatible documents. This should be available now somewhere in the Borland area on CompuServe (I dunno; I don't use it; Borland is putting it there). PC-MOS users: I discovered that Final Word didn't work with PC-MOS a while ago, and The Software Link basically looked at the problem (I sent them the exact details of the problem) and decided that Final Word users didn't make enough of a constituency to warrant making a patch to PC-MOS. The problem (actually a feature) of Final Word was inherited by Sprint; so perhaps they will see fit to patch PC-MOS after all. (Mail me for more detailed information; if there's enough interest I'll post.) PC-NFS users: I recently discovered (to my continued pain and suffering) that you can't print directly to PRN and have PC-NFS correctly redirect it to a remote printer attached to one of your servers. For some reason, PC-NFS loses the first chunk of the text (always a multiple of 256 bytes). I am talking to Sun tech. support about this, and we are trying to figure out some fix (I already have a work-around; formatting, directing the output to a file, and then printing the file works; I now have a pretty hacked-up workaround batch file). But until then, it's gonna be painful. Other than those few warnings, I would not hesitate in recommending Sprint to pretty much anyone. Sure, it isn't as pretty as Word or WordPerfect, but it's real cheap and REAL powerful and REALLY REALLY configurable. (In fact, a friend in Borland tech. support and I are trading macros back and forth, and will eventually collaborate in the ULTIMATE user interface... stay tuned!) Enjoy, -- /|\ /|\ .. . . . . . . . . . . | |\| |\| .. . . . . . . . . . . |/|\|/|\|/|| _ _ _ _ |_| _ _ |_ -__ _ _ARPA: lupin3@ucscb.ucsc.EDU | |/| |/|L_ (_\( ( (_/ | |(_\_) (_ || )(_)_)UUCP: *!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!lupin3 \|/ \|/ larry / hastings _/ BITNET: lupin3@ucscb@ucscc.BITNET MetaWare Inc. Durable Software, Constructed Automatically "Not much fun in Disclaimer:[MetaWare, UCSC]->opinion != lhastings->opinion Stalingrad, no." P.S. look in the Advanced User's Guide, in the Index, under Files... I reported that typo plenty early, and yet they didn't include it in the manual corrections listing on-line.
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (07/29/88)
My big question about Sprint: I have a lot of time invested in font
descriptor tables for proportional fonts. I generated these by sitting
and measuring how wide each character is, to the nearest unit of measure
(which I forget). This takes a *LOT* of time, and I'll use my old
obsolete Final Word II for a long time before I do it again.
Please say that I can move my tables.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -melupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (-=/ Larry Hastings /=-) (07/29/88)
+-In article <11678@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) wrote:- +---------- | | My big question about Sprint: I have a lot of time invested in font | descriptor tables for proportional fonts. I generated these by sitting | and measuring how wide each character is, to the nearest unit of measure | (which I forget). This takes a *LOT* of time, and I'll use my old | obsolete Final Word II for a long time before I do it again. | | Please say that I can move my tables. | -- | bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) | {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen | "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | +---------- You can move your tables. BUT: why did you go to all that trouble in the first place? They should have already had font width tables for all the standard printers and their standard (and even optional) fonts, and even if not--you should have found a way to automate it. For instance, I remember seeing a utility somewhere (I believe it was thrown in with Final Word 2.20) for Postscript printers that would generate the font width tables _for_ you. You'd just edit it to tell it the name of the font, and the size (this was Final Word II, without scalable fonts) and you ship it out to the printer, and capture what it sent back, and presto! you had font width tables. -- /|\ /|\ .. . . . . . . . . . . | |\| |\| .. . . . . . . . . . . |/|\|/|\|/|| _ _ _ _ |_| _ _ |_ -__ _ _ARPA: lupin3@ucscb.ucsc.EDU | |/| |/|L_ (_\( ( (_/ | |(_\_) (_ || )(_)_)UUCP: *!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!lupin3 \|/ \|/ larry / hastings _/ BITNET: lupin3@ucscb@ucscc.BITNET MetaWare Inc. Durable Software, Constructed Automatically "Not much fun in Disclaimer:[MetaWare, UCSC]->opinion != lhastings->opinion Stalingrad, no."
ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) (07/30/88)
In article <11678@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > Please say that I can move my [proportional font width] tables. You can move your tables. There, happy? I think it's probably true, too. The Sprint font width tables give the width of the letters in the font in units of the finest horizontal printer motion you've told Sprint how to do. I presume that's similar to what you've got, because that's the only reasonable way to represent such information. (Incidentally, I've got an interesting problem with my qms kiss laser printer; the proportional fonts seem to be defined in terms of real laser dots, 300dpi; the finest positioning options I've got only give me 120th's of an inch... such fun!) -- -- David Dyer-Bennet ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (08/03/88)
In article <4326@saturn.ucsc.edu> lupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (-=/ Larry Hastings /=-) writes: | You can move your tables. BUT: why did you go to all that trouble in the | first place? They should have already had font width tables for all the | standard printers and their standard (and even optional) fonts, and even if | not--you should have found a way to automate it. The version I have certainly didn't even include the width tables for the 200 or so HP softfonts, much less the 3rd party proportional fonts. Actually printing and measuring the characters seems like a good way to find out how wide they are. I got suggestions including downloading a binary program to the LJ and running it by an undocumented escape sequence, and an offer of a program for the C64 which analized the font table (in BASIC). Perhaps the LJ+ doesn't fit someone's idea of standard, or is limited to the few cartridge fonts available, but there are hundreds of fonts available, and I will do what I have to to get a good looking final result. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
N51L5201@NCSUVM.BITNET (David Auerbach) (08/16/88)
If you buy a good word processor, like XyWrite III+, you get much of that done for you. If you are talking about HP laser fonts there are two programs that I know of that do automatically what you did by hand. One is called CTABLE and the other name I forget. I use CTABLE and it works. Think twice about sprint; unless you have special needs that mesh with its peculiar nature I don't see why you would want it.
rogerb@aegir.isc-br.com (Roger Bailey 99) (02/08/90)
Hello, Does anyone know if Borland is going to upgrade Sprint to work like the latest word processers (i.e. WordPerfect 5.x, Word 5.x with different fonts on the display, graphs in the text, etc.)? Thanks for anyone's help. Email me, and I will summarize. Roger -- Roger Bailey | DOMAIN: rogerb@aegir.ISC-BR.COM ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp. ms LL2-2B | UUCP: ...!uunet!isc-br!aegir!rogerb E. 22425 Appleway / Box TAF-C8 | Ma Bell: +1 509 927-5600 Spokane, WA 99220-4008 |