16016_1127@uwovax.uwo.ca (John Palmer) (01/07/89)
In article <11110@ihlpa.ATT.COM> smann@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Mann) writes: > >Not a flame, but a request for more opinions on Word Perfect. >I have a chance to get Word Perfect 5.0, WP Library, WP Plan, >etc., the whole package at a tremendous discount, someone please >tell me I won't be making a mistake :'). Seriously, is it >unanimously one of the 'worst'? I switched to WP so that I'd be compatible with everyone else. I'm not much pleased with it, but it's ok. I agreee that the keystrokes don't make much sense, but with a little exploration, you can switch them easily in the setup program. I don't like not being able to see the various codes inserted for bold, italics, and different fonts, so I always work with the "reveal codes" screen on. That's fine on a 43-line display, with the codes window taking up 12 lines, but it's not so easy to use on a regular 25-line display. I Beta tested Total Word (made by Lifetree (Volkswriter)) and preferred it to WP, but not enough to remain incompatible with the rest of the world (and especially those who have laser printers and use WP!) -= John Palmer (519) 661-3533, =- -= but I don't accept collect calls! =-
dmimi@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Miriam Clifford) (01/11/89)
In article <1213@uwovax.uwo.ca>, 16016_1127@uwovax.uwo.ca (John Palmer) writes: > > In article <11110@ihlpa.ATT.COM> smann@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Mann) writes: > > > >Not a flame, but a request for more opinions on Word Perfect. > pleased with it, but it's ok. I agreee that the keystrokes don't make much > sense, but with a little exploration, you can switch them easily in the setup > program. I don't like not being able to see the various codes inserted for > bold, italics, and different fonts, so I always work with the "reveal codes" > screen on. That's fine on a 43-line display, with the codes window taking up 12 If you have a color monitor, you can set WP to show virtually all of the various codes in different color combinations on the regular screen. For example, if you need super script to be visible, you set it to show in a different color combination from the regular text. Even on a CGA screen without color you get a fairly large selection of shades available. On an EGA screen, you have much less available but can mark some codes by reverse video, underline, bold, etc. Look at your setup, display, colors/fonts/ attributes. With a 16 color monitor you can spend hours picking and choosing, if you want to. I don't know what it does with vga--haven't seen wp on one yet.
rogers@orion.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) (01/11/89)
I have a qustion for Word processing fans.
what can W*** do that makes it better than EMACS ??
^^^ substitute favorite W.P. ^^^^^ any version.
I would welcome answers from anyone who knows Emacs and W***.
'Seek out new life and civilizations' | Brynn Rogers Honeywell S&RC
| Internet: rogers@src.honeywell.com
"Honey, come see what I | UUCP: rogers@srcsip.uucp
found in the refrigerator!" | !: {umn-cs,ems,bthpyb}!srcsip!rogersles@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (01/13/89)
In article <14622@srcsip.UUCP> rogers@orion.UUCP (Brynn Rogers) writes: > > I have a qustion for Word processing fans. >what can W*** do that makes it better than EMACS ?? > ^^^ substitute favorite W.P. ^^^^^ any version. Probably nothing that couldn't be done by the combination of emacs/vi and tex/troff, but the integration of editor/formatter makes it a lot easier to use. For example, with WP 5.0 you can set up columns on the screen and change fonts and font sizes at will (by selecting from a menu since the program knows what the printer can do). The word wrap within the columns will be done correctly according to the character sizes. There is no way a stand-alone editor like emacs can do that. It can also give you a reasonable screen preview of the printout including any graphics you may have attached. If you don't do columns/font changes/graphics or you can remember all of the TeX commands and envision their effects it probably doesn't matter. Les Mikesell
dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (01/13/89)
In article <7444@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >In article <14622@srcsip.UUCP> rogers@orion.UUCP (Brynn Rogers) writes: >> >> I have a qustion for Word processing fans. >>what can W*** do that makes it better than EMACS ?? >> ^^^ substitute favorite W.P. ^^^^^ any version. > >Probably nothing that couldn't be done by the combination of emacs/vi >and tex/troff, but the integration of editor/formatter makes it a >lot easier to use. WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) is MORE than just a feature. It changes the whole nature of things. Assertion: TROFF/TEX IS NOT A WORD PROCESSOR, IT'S A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. When I use an editor + troff, I have to DEBUG MY DOCUMENT. The process of "debugging" is exactly like debugging a UNIX(tm) shell program (except when I'm making straightforward use of the MM macros). When I use a WYSIWYG word processor, I concentrate on the content of the document (or what I want it to look like), NOT how to tell the computer what I want it to look like. The difference is the ability to just throw something from your keyboard to the screen and know it will look that way on the page. The other stuff, like word wrap, is a frill (powerful, convenient, but not THE central issue). Just so you can calibrate where I'm coming from, I'm not a novice who's afraid of a separate formatter and editor; just the opposite. I like my documents to put a given point across with the way they present information, not just the words and sentences. Therefore, I am in the habit of hacking raw troff into macros to do what I want. Yesterday, I shot an hour while preparing a viewgraph talk, trying to get troff to give me the point-size changes I wanted in a page footer. With Windows WRITE (my current WYSIWYG tool), I'd have accomplished it in under a minute; just change things till it looks right on my screen, not the troff way of: - Change the troff program (not document, PROGRAM). - Run the program through the troff interpreter. - Wait till the results come off the printer (4 aisles away, but I need the exercise). - Iterate till it's right. TEX is a little more intuitive than TROFF as a programming language, but not different in kind (do you prefer C or Pascal?) Both are more powerful than the WYSIWYG word processors I use, but they're programming languages, NOT word processors. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...att!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (rogerson) (01/14/89)
>>Probably nothing that couldn't be done by the combination of emacs/vi >>and tex/troff, but the integration of editor/formatter makes it a >>lot easier to use. The word processor I used to use was Allwrite. It was written for the TRS-80 Model III and IV. It consisted of a loosely intergrated editor/formatter in which the editor would call the formater for you. The text you prepared was controlled by the use of imbeded commands like Tex/Troff have. This situp is ALOT more powerful than any of the standard word processing programs like Word or Word Perfect. However, it is not has easy to learn. You must change and reprint a lot. Once you figure out what you are doing things are not so bad, it ends up in many ways being faster. However, the problem comes when you have a deadline and must do something unusual or new to you. These WYSIWYG word processors have the advantage here. >When I use a WYSIWYG word processor, I concentrate on the content of >the document (or what I want it to look like), NOT how to tell the >computer what I want it to look like. The difference is the ability The key issue is that computers should not interfere with the way YOU want to do something.. >Yesterday, I shot an hour while preparing a viewgraph talk, >trying to get troff to give me the point-size changes I wanted >in a page footer. With Windows WRITE (my current WYSIWYG tool), >I'd have accomplished it in under a minute; just change things till >it looks right on my screen, not the troff way of: >| Dave Tutelman | My main word processor now is also WRITE! It is easy and quick. You do not have to think about which column you want your tabs at you just put them there. Plus, you get good font control and the ability to mix in graphics. (One of the nice things about writting Windows programs is that you can write the documentation in write and distribute it with your program. Instant online manual with figures! ) If I have to do something strange, then I use Microsoft Word ( and I can always load Word files into Write and kept the formatting). The key is to use the tool that best suits the application. Write does not do everything, but it will handle most of my needs. I have noticed that many of the features I HAD TO HAVE, were really not needed and when removed from my documents they looked better! BTW: The Apple Guru in Computer Shopper recommends that everyone who wants to use an Apple Laserwriter get an Apple II and a normal word processor and write directly in Postscript. This is indeed the most powerful way, but it is not the easiest, most convenient, faster, or economical way to do it. If power were the answer, everyone would program in assembler. -----Dale Rogerson-----
mattern@ncoast.UUCP (Duane L. Mattern) (01/19/89)
In article <1371@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman) writes: > >WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) is MORE than just a feature. >It changes the whole nature of things. >Assertion: > TROFF/TEX IS NOT A WORD PROCESSOR, IT'S A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. >TEX is a little more intuitive than TROFF as a programming language, >but not different in kind (do you prefer C or Pascal?) Both are >more powerful than the WYSIWYG word processors I use, but they're >programming languages, NOT word processors. > I agree. TROFF/TEX/LOTUS Manuscript are programming languages and very powerful. WordPerfect 5.0 and WordPerfect Library and Plan Perfect make a nice package (particularly for business types), but WordPerfect 5.0 is really flawed when it comes to processing math symbols and equations. Just to get the greek letter theta, I have to type <ctrl>2 8,16. That letter is only displayed if it is in the IBM character set. If it is not in the IBM character set a little square is displayed which represents graphic data. Sure you can use "REVEAL CODE" and see that the graphic block is <ctrl>2 8,16 , but that means I have to remember all the character set to edit the document. WordPerfect 5.0's preview mode is O.K. (fair) , but I use a WYSIWYG wordprocessor (T3 ,T cubed) to do equations and math symbols. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Duane Mattern (216)433-8186 (mattern@ncoast.uucp) | | Sverdrup Technology, Inc. at NASA Lewis Research Center| | 21000 Brookpark Rd, M/S 77-1 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
rzh@lll-lcc.llnl.gov (Roger Hanscom) (01/27/89)
In <14622@srcsip.UUCP> rogers@orion.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) asks: > I have a qustion for Word processing fans. >what can W*** do that makes it better than EMACS ?? > ^^^ substitute favorite W.P. ^^^^^ any version. > I would welcome answers from anyone who knows Emacs and W***. I don't know W*** very well (:^?), but I have used all kinds of W***'s and EMACS (all versions). I depend on EMACS. Not that it's such a great editor, but it is one of the few that I can run on SUN, PRIME, PYRAMID, ...etc. Most W***'s are easier/nicer/more full-featured, but unfortunately constrained to one particular environment. That's no good. Switching between editors was killing me ("now let's see.... this is ------, so to page down I do ------"). Now with uEMACS, I can even deal with the same command (sub-)set on my PC!!! Roger rzh@lll-lcc.llnl.gov