amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (12/31/88)
Responding to the example I saw set a bit ago, I'll play Dvorak and list
some raves and list some peeves. Differences between what you and I
observe can be explained by guessing that A) you are wrong, or B) I have
no idea what product you have in mind. I'm sure there are droves of
goodies I've never run across.
Things that make you GLAD you own a computer:
Borland Compilers - Pascal 3 & 4 are nice. So is TC 2.0, though I
haven'tsunk my teeth in. If you don't like the polish to these
products, you are trying to be difficult. TP 4.0 in particular seems to
compile your code before you ask it to.
Turbo Pascal 3.0 - the editor. I seldom use v3.0 for any compilation
unless it's pretty small stuff, but all my miscellaneous editting needs
are met by this little 35K gem. It is fast, and does what you EXPECT.
The limitations are line length, no word wrap, and file size of 64K.
But I seem to find that speed and predictability are hard to find
combined in one simple package (see Word Flaw below)
ls.exe - forget who wrote this program which is free for non-commercial
use. The name is NOT Buerg, I know. Life on a harddisk with just dir
is unthinkable and this is the answer.
USENET boards - Where else can you get 50 people from Sweden to
Australia involved in a huge campaign game based on Battleship? Only
here. And it has Ray Frank, too.
INTEL INBOARD386/PC - a $650 doodad that moves your 4.77MHz 8088 machine
into the stratosphere of 16MHz 386 computing - with a free Megabyte
thrown in! With free disk cache software (and sometimes even bundled
with Windows 386!), everyone can be a superuser.
So it's just 5. I'll think of more the moment I send this...
Bad things that make you yearn for the age of steam.
Word Perfect - This thing has caused me more headaches. The best
software can be used by new users immediately, yet devotional use
provides key insights to multiply your time spent with it. Has the most
idiotic function-key based design I ever saw. Nothing ever once came
out on the laser printer correctly the first time, thanks to the WYGIPDR
theories it embodies. (That's What You Get is Pretty Damn Random) Even
on the theoretical level, it is poorly implemented - to move a block of
text, press several function keys and it vanishes from where it was.
THEN, go to where you want it; the text you cut is nowhere to be seen -
it exists in some ether state. Then, press another unrelated jumble of
function keys to bring it back. Take the disk down to the printer and get
a completely unexpected result. Sheesh.
Statgraphics and GrafTalk - the slowest software ever put on this
planet. We called the latter one GuessTalk due to its inability to give
you what you wanted on the first try.
That's it. Go ahead, flame me about Word Perfect - you are dead wrong
and God knows it.
--
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963.cdold@starfish.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold) (01/01/89)
From article <5066@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell): > Things that make you GLAD you own a computer: > > Borland Compilers - Pascal 3 & 4 are nice. So is TC 2.0, though I I bought QuickC before I started reading the Net, where I hear all of the wondrous things about TC, but I really do like QuickC. It works for my applications, almost all of which run on MSDOS and UNIX SysV. > > ls.exe - forget who wrote this program which is free for non-commercial The simple things in life are best. ls is one of them. Thank you, whoever you are, I tried e-mailing back to the posted author with no luck. > > INTEL INBOARD386/PC - a $650 doodad that moves your 4.77MHz 8088 machine Almost makes up for putting up with a PC, when your friends had ATs. Battle Chess - Watch it run on the Amiga, then buy it for your PC. I have to stop killing off pieces just to see the graphics. Someone on the net asked about realistic sounds on a PC speaker? Listen to a bishop die. > > Bad things that make you yearn for the age of steam. > vi.com - I thought it would be like ls (read: MKS for cheapskates), but I find it impossible to use without more of the : commands, like :22, or :.,'xs/this/that Why does ls a: change the current drive to a:, causing a 'hang' if a: is unformatted? dir a: just gives the A/I/R message, ls dies. -- Clarence A Dold - cdold@starfish.Convergent.COM (408) 434-2083 ...pyramid!ctnews!professo!dold MailStop 18-011 P.O.Box 6685, San Jose, CA 95150-6685
ward@chinet.chi.il.us (Ward Christensen) (01/01/89)
I'd have to put as my #1 PC software find for '88 as "Overview", by Jim Mathews, who moved from the East coast to go the (North)West to go work for Microsoft, and in the process sold OverView to the very competent Magee Enterprises (the AutoMenu people). Due to a conflict with a MAC (?) program by the same name, the new one is now called TreeView, and is available from Compuserve as shareware ($40 registration). What is it? One of those products that is hard to describe. Let me call it a "disk/directory/file manager". Main screen is a 1, 2, or 3 column file listing, sorted as you like it - name, extension, date, or size as the key, either ascending or descending (or unsorted, i.e. "directory order", also 'up' or 'down'). Via customization, you can link in your own (1) browser (like Vern Buerg's excellent LIST) and (2) editor, so that a simple alt-key while positioned to a line will bring up one or the other. Its built-in browser is not bad (scroll, search, mark, goto, top, bottom, etc - but not "mark" and "write" and other LIST goodies). User definable functions: You can set up to 30 function keys (all the shift, alt, or ctrl ones) as "what ever you want" - with quite flexible substitution of filename, or full path\filename, etc. Point & shoot: in addition to executing COM and EXE files by hitting alt-X, you can define 10 additional file extensions and the actions to be take upon them (.bak => erase this; .arc = arc-v this, .bas = basica this, etc). Somewhat obscure, but my favorite "feature" is the use of WordStar keys for cursor movement around the screen - makes it "so friendly" if you know those keys. Fully customzable colors, start-up environment (everything from write verify, confirm overwrites, copy tagged files, newer only, etc). Built-in functions for either the current (under the cursor) file or all tagges files include: erase, copy, move, user-defined-action, change attributes, etc. Owell, enough. It is GREAT. Magee Enterprises are at 6577 Peachtree Industrial Blvd, Norcross GA, 30092-3796; 404-446-6611; CIS 70167-2200. I am not affiliated with Magee; I beta tested Overview when Jim M was enhancing it - and he took about a dozen of my suggestions and implemented them.
funkstr@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (-=/ Larry Hastings /=-) (01/02/89)
+-In article <5066@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) wrote:- +---------- | | Things that make you GLAD you own a computer: | Borland Compilers | Turbo Pascal 3.0 | ls.exe | USENET boards | INTEL INBOARD386/PC | | So it's just 5. I'll think of more the moment I send this... | amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. +---------- How about: * The Norton Utilities, Advanced Edition, v. 4.5 About 4 or 5 of the things this does are, alone, worth the price of admission. The batch file utilities are great, the control panel is great, NCD is great, the speed disk stuff, the "write FAT stuff" thing is great, the list goes on and on. * The Norton Commander, v. 2.0 Goodness, gracious, it's fun. * DESQview 2.2 and QEMM 4.2 (or is it 4.3?) Actually, they're up to 2.2.2 right now, and I think 2.2.3 is due soon. A remarkable program, made better, cleaner, faster. * Sprint 1.0.1 A very remarkable program in many ways. Not WYSIWIG, but more powerful than any WYSIWIG program yet (IMHO). * Procomm Plus Came out early last year, and a fine program it is too. -- /|\ /|\ .. . . . . . . . . . . | |\| |\| .. . . . . . . . . . . |/|\|/|\|/|| _ _ _ _ |_| _ _ |_ -__ _ _ARPA: funkstr@ucscb.ucsc.EDU | |/| |/|L_ (_\( ( (_/ | |(_\_) (_ || )(_)_)UUCP: *!ucbvax!ucscb!funkstr \|/ \|/ larry / hastings _/ WORK: sun!acad!metaware!funkster MetaWare Incorporated Disclaimer: It was a bad day. "If any of your OSF force are caught or killed, the Secretary will deny any knowlege of your activities." --from the new Mission: Impractical
smann@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Mann) (01/05/89)
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'? -- /\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\ Sherry Mann Reality is nothing more than a att!ihlpa!smann collective hunch. -Trudy /\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\*/\
dmimi@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Miriam Clifford) (01/05/89)
I have been using WordPerfect since version 4.0 first came out. It is, in my (and many others) opinion far from the worst word processor around. It is in fact, one of the best. It is not, and is not intended to be, a programmers editor. But aside from that, it is powerful, has many, many features, and seems relatively easy to use. You learn what you need of it, if you are smart, you learn some additional things that will help you (like using macros, merges, etc), and ignore what you don't need. The only other word processor I know of that is somewhat comparable is WORD, and I hate that one. I have used Library a little bit--it's nice, some of it's parts are really nice, but I find it gets in my way. On the other hand, I use a non-clone for my calendar, roldex address list, modem program, calculator, etc., so I don't need it. I have not use Data Perfect but have heard good things about it. I have not heard or read of anything good about Plan Perfect and have read some quite negative reviews.
scott@hpcvca.HP.COM (Scott Linn) (01/06/89)
/ hpcvca:comp.sys.ibm.pc / dmimi@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Miriam Clifford) / 4:10 am Jan 5, 1989 / >I have been using WordPerfect since version 4.0 first came out. It is, in >my (and many others) opinion far from the worst word processor around. It is >in fact, one of the best. It is not, and is not intended to be, a programmers ---------- I think it is one of the best, too. (I have used 4.2) My wife used it extensively in one of her jobs, then switched to Microsoft Word. She (and everyone else at the new job) absolutely *hate* Word. Scott Linn HP - Northwest IC Division
domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop) (01/06/89)
In article <5066@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes: >[Lotsa stuff deleted] > > Bad things that make you yearn for the age of steam. > >Word Perfect - This thing has caused me more headaches... [Potential bias warning: my company has been known to sell WordPerfect, but I'll try to be objective about it...] Strange. I use WordPerfect on my Mac, and find it quite tolerable. What it does, it seems to me to do with panache. Yes, I'd like to be able to put boxes around things. Yes, I sorely miss regular expressions, but basically, it gets the job done and -- on the Mac, at least -- what I see on the screen is what I get on the printer. Don't know about the PC-DOS version, as I haven't used it. What I have used is the UNIX/Xenix implementation. As with most UNIX software, it's severely limited by the character-based interface. There's no way (unless, perhaps, you use a monospaced font) that you can get what you see, but that's down to the outdated display technology. That said, WordPerfect has done a really great job of helping the user to customise for their terminal and printer. In fact, WordPerfect has the best installation procedure I've seen for any UNIX product. (Admittedly, some of the competition's ``procedures'' are crud of the highest order, but that's another story...) A colleague who knows the DOS product tells me that UNIX WordPerfect lacks only one non- essential feature (I forget what it is) relative to DOS, and tells you politely about the shortcoming if you try to select it. I've never seen a more conscientious port of a user-interface intensive DOS product to UNIX. Most I've seen (no names, no pack drill) seem to shed features like leaves in autumn as they make the transition. Where WordPerfect falls down in comparison to UNIX market leaders is in lack of ``integration'': DataPerfect and fellow travellers (yes, I have the British spelling dictionary) have yet to make it out of the DOS environment as far as I know. This means that Uniplex II (which my company also sells) and other products such as Q-Office and SCO's imminent Office Portfolio have the jump on it for those who want more than a word-processor. I suppose you could cook up some fancy WordPerfect macros to help in integration, but, so far we haven't bothered: those of our in-house users who need such things use Uniplex II. >That's it. Go ahead, flame me about Word Perfect - you are dead wrong >and God knows it. Well. OK. If that's what you want. Not so much a flame. More a draught of hot air... As a matter of interest, I wonder what editors/word- processors Anthony does like. Personally, I don't like MS Word. Maybe starting with WordStar, then er.. graduating to vi has marked me for life, just as having FORTRAN as my first programming language is supposed to have done. -- Dominic Dunlop domo@sphinx.co.uk domo@riddle.uucp
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (01/07/89)
>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'? It (WP 5.0) truly deserves to be on both the best and worst lists. Best because it does have all the needed features (i.e. it is the first word processor to be able to handle, including renumbering, the literature references in the way they are used by chemistry journals). And, indeed, the worst. The way it uses function keys is dreadful. Absolutely NO mneumonic value. I will NEVER be able to use it without one of those silly templates. Doug McDonald P. S. I use TeX, using Emacs as my editor. WordPerfect is essentially useless for equations - if I didn't need them all the time, WP would be my choice.
hazela@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Jose Reynaldo Setti) (01/08/89)
In article <5640006@hpcvca.HP.COM> scott@hpcvca.HP.COM (Scott Linn) writes: > >>I have been using WordPerfect since version 4.0 first came out. It is, in >>my (and many others) opinion far from the worst word processor around. It is >>in fact, one of the best. It is not, and is not intended to be, a programmers >---------- >I think it is one of the best, too. (I have used 4.2) My wife used >it extensively in one of her jobs, then switched to Microsoft Word. >She (and everyone else at the new job) absolutely *hate* Word. These opinions just reinforce my impression that the best word processor is the one people know all the commands from the top of their heads. I hate vi every type I have to look for a seldom used sequence of commands. Once I can memorize it, I love it. J.R. Setti, I'm not a nerd, , UofWaterloo I'm a civil engineer.
thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) (01/13/89)
Come on, WP5.0 is really a very good program. The support is good, the
program is fast, it has some of the best printer support I have ever
seen and it is quite programable in its macro language. Some people
start flaming about it because they have some obscure proplem, but
think about how many different printers and computers this program
supports correctly, and you will realize they are doing a good job. I am
not in love with the function key layout, but it is extremely easy to
customize to your requirements. There is a reason that it is by far
the most popular word processing program out there.
Maurice Thaler SYSOP Audio Projects BBS (608) 836-9473
SYSOP Power Board BBS (608) 222-8842 wagner@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Michael Wagner) (01/15/89)
I agree that Wordperfect is a lousy program. It kind of makes me feel, on the rare occasions that I am forced to use it, like that ad for the Norton Commander: Look at the dos prompt and it stares back at you. Even the help key is non-obvious; and the help for all the other keys is burried two levels deep in the help (if you ever remember what it is - it's non-standard). Michael