840445m@aucs.UUCP (Mic Mac) (04/12/89)
I have recently purchased the Excellence! word processor from MSS, and, well I dont' want to say it sucks, but the more I use it the less I like it. Even a slow touch typist can get way, way, way ahead of it. It has a number of other problems, one of which includes the fact that it f**ked up a 2500 word paper on me that I had to do again. Anyway, the purpose of this posting is not to hack the program to pieces. I would like to know what THE best word processor is for the Amiga, and don't say WordPerfect because it is not Amigized. Some basic requirements are: WYSIWYG (WP is not), ability to move graphics into it, speller, thesaurus ... I guess that covers it. Oh, macros would be invaluable too! I used to see a word processor advertized by the name of VizaWrite, I went looking for it in my Amiga mags last night and could not find it. Is this little critter still around? Thanks in advance for you help. Maybe if people email info to me I can summarize and post the results. -- % Alan W. McKay % % % Acadia University % " The world needs more Socrates % % Wolfville N.S. % walking the streets today " % % CANADA % - S. Corbett %
pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) (04/14/89)
In article <1777@aucs.UUCP> 840445m@aucs.UUCP (Mic Mac) writes: >I would like to know what THE best word processor is for the Amiga ProWrite is ok. Not a whole lot of features, but it's usable for simple things. No thesaurus, no macros, no index, no table of contents, etc. It does have a spelling checker, and is WYSIWYG. If I wanted to produce serious documents, I'd get AmigaTeX, though it's not WYSIWYG. >I used to see a word processor advertized by the >name of VizaWrite Believe me, you don't want it. I've been through 3 releases of it, and all of them guru early and often. I found it to be completely unusable. -- -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ...!sun!quintus!pds
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (04/14/89)
Stay away from Vizawrite. It is not a very stable program. My advice would be
to get Pen Pal from Brown-Wagh software. I saw a demo of it at AmiExpo NY.
It was a beta version, but none the less, it was a fantastic program. The
output is clean, and it has one of the *BEST* user interfaces I have ever
seen on the Amiga, or ANY other computer for that matter. Something to look
into.
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Comhgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Hal G. Meeks) (04/15/89)
In article <17133@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: >Stay away from Vizawrite. It is not a very stable program. My advice would be >to get Pen Pal from Brown-Wagh software. I saw a demo of it at AmiExpo NY. >It was a beta version, but none the less, it was a fantastic program. The >output is clean, and it has one of the *BEST* user interfaces I have ever >seen on the Amiga, or ANY other computer for that matter. Something to look >into. > > - Doug General question: I've seen the ads, and it does look impressive, especially at the price. No mention is made of Postscript support. I am interested, but need PS. I wonder what file format they'll use, as in will ProScript convert it? Side note: If you are using excellence!, and running it in 8 color mode, it will be slow. Try just using 2 (aka Mac). Also be aware that Brown-Wagh has a version that is optimised for +1 meg memory. It still has rough edges, but shows a lot of promise. The user interface is clean, and PS is built in. I must be in the minority that thinks excellence! is alright. And yes, Vizawrite is wretched. They just can't seem to get it right. --hal -- ---------------- hgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu "Everything is a reaction" netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet
iphwk@TERRA.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU (Bill Kinnersley) (04/17/89)
[In "Word Processors", Mic Mac said:] : : I would like to know what THE best word : processor is for the Amiga, and don't say WordPerfect because it is : not Amigized. Some basic requirements are: WYSIWYG (WP is not), : ability to move graphics into it, speller, thesaurus ... : : -- : % Alan W. McKay % % : % Acadia University % " The world needs more Socrates % : % Wolfville N.S. % walking the streets today " % : % CANADA % - S. Corbett % : Alan, could you explain further what you mean when you say that WordPerfect is not Amigaized? True, it doesn't meet your other requirements (WYSIWYG and graphics). Maybe I was misled by all the windows, menus, requesters and so on that they added. You can like WordPerfect or not, but it seems to me that within the constraint of porting an existing and well-known MSDOS program to a quite different environment, they did a decent job of cap- turing the Amiga flavor. -- --Bill Kinnersley Physics Department Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 INTERNET: iphwk@terra.oscs.montana.edu BITNET: IPHWK@MTSUNIX1 226 Transfer complete.
alh@hprmokg.HP.COM (Al Harrington) (04/17/89)
I know you don't want WordPerfect but it is the best I've seen on the Amiga. They have done a fairly good job of Amigatizing it (most functions are on pull down menus and they use sizable windows for the various functions -- document, print menu). When 6.0 comes out (I've heard they are skipping past 5.0 for the Amiga) it'll have a view mode that'll give you WYSIWYG. The thesaurus and spell checker are the best I've seen. And you can find a thousand books on how to become an expert at it. Students can get WP for just under $100. +-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | -Al Harrington //// | Instant Guru BBS | | ________ //// | (916) 488-9278 | | |__/\__| \\\\ //// | 120 Megs - All Amiga! | | \\\X/// | Over 1000 files online | | alh@hprmo.HP.COM \XXX/ | Baud: 1200/2400 Hours: 24 | | ..{hplabs,hp-sde}!hprmo!alh | PCPursuit: CASAC 1200/2400 | +-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | My comments in no way reflect the views or opinions of Hewlett-Packard | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (04/17/89)
In article <8904162118.AA00937@terra.oscs.montana.edu>, iphwk@TERRA.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU (Bill Kinnersley) writes: > [In "Word Processors", Mic Mac said:] > Alan, could you explain further what you mean when you say that > WordPerfect is not Amigaized? It really isn't. Just take a look at their file requester. Want to change a directory? Want to retrieve a file? ugh! Cheers! neil
mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) (04/18/89)
In article <1142@apss.apss.ab.ca> nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) writes: >In article <8904162118.AA00937@terra.oscs.montana.edu>, iphwk@TERRA.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU (Bill Kinnersley) writes: >> [In "Word Processors", Mic Mac said:] >> Alan, could you explain further what you mean when you say that >> WordPerfect is not Amigaized? > >It really isn't. Just take a look at their file requester. Want to change >a directory? Want to retrieve a file? ugh! At the risk of starting another "let's flame WordPerfect to a crisp" party, I think the point about Amiga WordPerfect not being "Amigatized" is a relative thing. To the best of my knowledge, the Amiga was the first "port" of WP to an environment other than the PC (with the exception of maybe the VAX version, and the fact that WP originally was ported FROM a Data General system TO the PC 'way back in the dark ages). From one who first learned WP on a PC at work (and who still uses it more on that platform than he does at home on his Amiga), it is pretty obvious (at least to me) that WordPerfect Corp. *intentionally* didn't fully 'Amigatize' the program, as they wanted to maintain as much commonality between the Amiga version and the IBM version. To that point, it is virtually keystroke compatible with the PC version, if you choose to do things via the keyboard (i.e., F7, N, Y will get you out of either program without saving your work). Now, I'm not saying that I am personally in favor of this underlying "goal" of the Amiga version, but I guess I defend WP's right to this decision, as they are still (to the best of my knowledge) the only major word processing program on a reasonably wide range of platforms, and the ONLY one who includes the Amiga! They obviously feel that one salable feature of a program is that versions which run on different platforms should be similar enough in operation to be able to be used by people who are fluent on more than one kind of computer, and one way to do that is to make them key-compatible and menu-compatible, which they have done to date (at least on the Amiga and PC, which are the only two flavors I've personally used). Unfortunately, this makes the pull-down menu equivalents a bit non-standard, as compared to the "standard" Amiga program (the ones that have "Open", "Save", "Save As...", etc.). It will be interesting to see what Amiga WP 6.0 looks like, as it is my bet that it will NOT look much like any of the versions of WP that we've seen to date, but will probably have a definite OS/2 PM or MS-Windows-type interface (which is close enough to the Amiga to keep me happy...) -- - Mike Shawaluk (mikes@lakesys.lakesys.com OR ...!uunet!marque!lakesys!mikes) "Where were you on the night of August 12?"
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (04/18/89)
In article <49861@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: >ProWrite supports: ... >The only features you desire that ProWrite doesn't support are macros >and a thesaurus. > >Steven Litvintchouk >MITRE Corporation (a.k.a. "The Closed Software Foundation" :-) ) >Bedford, MA 01730 >Fone: (617)271-7753 >ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa >UUCP: ...{att,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl I see many people post messages ending like this, yet have seen nobody mention whether it supports tables or mathematical formulas. Personally, I can handle the thesaurus myself. It's the little greek letters that I don't want to be drawing by hand. Only TeX (which I can't stand) and Lotus Manuscript (which I can't find for the Amiga) even mention mathematical formulas in advertisements or reviews. Not everyone out there is publishing newsletters :-). -- Darren
jal@wsu-cs.uucp (Jason Leigh) (04/18/89)
Since Amiga WordPerfect handles the Apple LaserWriter so poorly, I have just abandoned it completely. LaTeX is still the way to go. Is there some kind of WYSIWYG system on the Amiga that supports good mathematical formula manipulation? Jason Leigh jal@zeus.cs.wayne.edu
miller@intvax.UUCP (Dave Miller) (04/18/89)
In article <13299@louie.udel.EDU>, new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: > In article <49861@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: > >ProWrite supports: > ... > >The only features you desire that ProWrite doesn't support are macros > >and a thesaurus. > > > >Steven Litvintchouk > >MITRE Corporation (a.k.a. "The Closed Software Foundation" :-) ) > >Bedford, MA 01730 > >Fone: (617)271-7753 > >ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa > >UUCP: ...{att,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl > > I see many people post messages ending like this, yet have seen nobody > mention whether it supports tables or mathematical formulas. > Personally, I can handle the thesaurus myself. It's the little > greek letters that I don't want to be drawing by hand. > Only TeX (which I can't stand) and Lotus Manuscript (which I > can't find for the Amiga) even mention mathematical formulas in > advertisements or reviews. Not everyone out there is > publishing newsletters :-). -- Darren I have been using my Amiga to produce my dissertation in Computer Engineering and it contains many complex equations. I use a combination of the following to do this: 1) Scribble! word processor for text 2) CityDesk desktop publishing software for page layout/font support 3) JetSet Utilities from CLtd. for HP fonts and download utilities 4) Greek font set from HP 5) HP LaserJet II printer Admittedly this is not a cheap solution, but good quality desktop publishing never is. This combination may also sound like an awkward way of producing documents, but once you have things set up and become familiar with the software, it is pretty easy to use. It is not WYSIWYG, although you can look at your pages the way they will print from CityDesk after you have imported your text. The one big disadvantage of this approach is that CityDesk currently does not handle grayscale images very well. Whenever I want to incorporate one in my document, I just leave space for it on a page, print out the labels using CityDesk, and then reinsert the paper in the printer and print the image from DPaint. This does require some manipulation of preferences parameters in order to get the image sized and placed on the paper where you want it. It would be much nicer if CityDesk did this for you - if version 2.0 ever comes out, maybe it will. CityDesk also supports postscript, but not as well as Professional Page. I prefer the HP to Postscript printers - it's much cheaper and faster. I hope this gives you some ideas. Dave Miller Sandia Labs, Albuquerque
Sullivan@cup.portal.com (sullivan - segall) (04/18/89)
>In article <8904162118.AA00937@terra.oscs.montana.edu>, > iphwk@TERRA.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU (Bill Kinnersley) writes: >> [In "Word Processors", Mic Mac said:] >> Alan, could you explain further what you mean when you say that >> WordPerfect is not Amigaized? > >It really isn't. Just take a look at their file requester. Want to change >a directory? Want to retrieve a file? ugh! > Have you really used it? Admittedly it isn't the best file requester in the world, but it is much better than many. (Dpaint III comes to mind.) My problem with wordperfect is that it is too slow. (And doesn't handle anything other than topaz 8, but that is another subject.) But I would run in horror if it were any more amigaized. >Cheers! > >neil -Sullivan Segall _____________________________________________________________ /V\ Sully set the example: to fly without moving. We shall ' learn to soar on wings of thought. And the student will surpass the teacher. To Quote the immortal Socrates: "I drank what?" -Sullivan _____________________________________________________________ Mail to: ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Sullivan or Sullivan@cup.portal.com
STU00@vx.acss.umn.edu (Stuart Stanley) (04/18/89)
Someone mentioned that Excellence handles PS format and I would like to make a few addums to that. First, excellence does support PS, but the quality of it is HORIBLE! At least it is when you write the PS to a file. (I have never tried going right to a printer) Excellence writes out the entire file as a bitmap! The result is jaggies everywhere. Also, the files are huge. One page = 170,000bytes of disk space. YUCK! umm,hmm, flame off I guess. ;) Stuart
tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) (04/18/89)
In article <1142@apss.apss.ab.ca> nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) writes: >In article <8904162118.AA00937@terra.oscs.montana.edu>, iphwk@TERRA.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU (Bill Kinnersley) writes: >> [In "Word Processors", Mic Mac said:] >> Alan, could you explain further what you mean when you say that >> WordPerfect is not Amigaized? > >It really isn't. Just take a look at their file requester. Want to change >a directory? Want to retrieve a file? ugh! > According to the April "WPCorp Report" there is a new version of WP for the Amiga which now uses standard Amiga file requesters. You can now scroll through directories and change directories just like you do on your other favorite Amiga software. This new releasee also has a few new bells and whistles too which are pretty minor changes in my mind. Anyway, if you are a registered owner of WP you probably know about this update already, it costs $10.00 if you write WP for it. Just to get in my $.02 I feel that WPCorp did a pretty good job moving WP over to the Amiga and supporting the version they have. There have been many updates to WP 4.1 and the current version I have is a very solid program and I like it better than 4.2 on the PC. I have tried several other Amiga word processors and found that I liked WP the best and they definately have some of the best support in the market right now. Tim Harris - I don't work for WPCorp or know of anyone that does, these opinions are all mine.
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (04/19/89)
STU00@vx.acss.umn.edu (Stuart Stanley) writes: > First, excellence does support PS, but >the quality of it is HORIBLE! At least it is when you write the PS to >a file. (I have never tried going right to a printer) Excellence writes >out the entire file as a bitmap! The result is jaggies everywhere. Also, >the files are huge. One page = 170,000bytes of disk space. YUCK!First of all the quality of it is not Horrible, it is exactly the resolution available WITH the FONTS or graphics you used. I have excellence, and have been using it to do Lab reports by postscript printing them to a file then uploading and printing from andrew. To get laser quality output you have to use LASER fonts! This is the same as with the mac (not that in some mac programs there are fonts names that a filled in and others that are outlined? try printing one of the really BIG solid fonts, I'll bet you see a really jagged font from a laser printer. The deal is that if you use a laser font (ie phelvetica,ptimes,psymbol) then you will get laser quality output, however if you don't then it HAS to print it bitmapped, (unless you can magically produce all the information to get a laser quality font). The same goes for graphics, you give it a bitmapped picture, don't expect it to be able to get mor information to make it look nice when printed. BTW using actual ps fonts will make the files a lot smaller, not to mention that they look nicer too... Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (04/24/89)
In article <1094@mcrware.UUCP> tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) writes: > According to the April "WPCorp Report" there is a new version of WP for >the Amiga which now uses standard Amiga file requesters. [ ... ] > ^^^^^^^^ Say what? Ain't no such thang. :-) _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
dbk@teroach.UUCP (Dave Kinzer) (04/25/89)
In article <11391@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <1094@mcrware.UUCP> tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) writes: >> According to the April "WPCorp Report" there is a new version of WP for >>the Amiga which now uses standard Amiga file requesters. [ ... ] >> ^^^^^^^^ > Say what? Ain't no such thang. :-) > [return of Leo's old .sig] How about another 1.4 wish. Standard file requestors! Of course, while I'm at it I'll add a few others... Postscript printer driver Generic SCSI device for 2090(a) [So we can back off to tape :^)] User selectable port for printer (so one could specify SCSI, for instance) | // GOATS - Gladly Offering All Their Support Dave Kinzer (602)897-3085| | // >> In Hell you need 4Mb to Multitask! << uunet!mcdphx!teroach!dbk | | \X/ #define policy_maker(name) (name->salary > 3 * dave.salary) |
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (04/26/89)
In article <11391@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > In article <1094@mcrware.UUCP> tim@mcrware.UUCP (Tim Harris) writes: > > According to the April "WPCorp Report" there is a new version of WP for > >the Amiga which now uses standard Amiga file requesters. [ ... ] > > ^^^^^^^^ > Say what? Ain't no such thang. :-) Too right but there are some standard features that you'd expect it to have. I'd vote for the file requestor in Introcad as being the best I've seen. Anyone got any other recommendations? neil
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (04/27/89)
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) writes: > I'd vote for the file requestor in Introcad as being the best I've seen. > Anyone got any other recommendations? > > neil I haven't seen Introcad, but the 1.3 ARP File Requester is getting pretty spiffy. You can interact with it whilst it is reading a directory, you can get a list of volumes and logical names and click on the one you want, and it even puts the scroll arrows together instead of at opposite ends of the scroll bar, the way MacImitators incorrectly do (there is less pointer movement when they are next to each other). The gadgets have dropshadows and it doesn't look ugly. -- Michael Portuesi * Information Technology Center * Carnegie Mellon University INET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu * BITNET: mp1u+@andrew UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ MAIL: Carnegie Mellon University, P.O. Box 259, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 "Why do I live the way I do ain't it obvious I'm just a man like you" --Boy George
a3@mindlink.UUCP (Dave Allen) (04/28/89)
In case this had not made the rounds....
The following is a cross-post from CI$. If anyone is interested in
having me send WP a message, let me know.
#: 45802 S3/Hot News and Rumors
28-Apr-89 21:20:43
Sb: #WPCorp Backs Off
Fm: Pete Peterson WPCorp 72067,3552
To: All
I spent some time on the phone today with an Amiga user who wanted to tell me
how upset he was to learn that we have cancelled PlanPerfect for the Amiga and
put on hold any plans for a major revision to WordPerfect. The person was
especially upset to learn that the decision was based largely on monetary
considerations.
All of this is true. This week we took five programmers from the Amiga group
and moved them to OS/2 or Unix. That left two programmers to maintain (fix the
bugs) in the current versions of WordPerfect and Library. We will continue to
sell these versions, and we will from time to time issue minor releases to fix
bugs.
For those of you who are unhappy or upset about the decision, I offer the
following explanation. I know it may not help much to understand the reasons,
but I will offer hem to you so you at least know what happened.
As has been discussed on this forum, we have a few problems in the Amiga
market. I would suggest our problems are as follows: 1--We do not show fonts
on screen; 2--We do not support any graphics on screen or in a document; 3--Our
price is too high for the market; and 4--Some people feel our software has too
many bugs. 4 is, of course, something we can do something about (and there is
an interim release coming in a couple of weeks). 1, 2 and 3 are tougher.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 45803 S3/Hot News and Rumors
28-Apr-89 21:21:14
Sb: #45802-#WPCorp Backs Off
Fm: Pete Peterson WPCorp 72067,3552
To: Pete Peterson WPCorp 72067,3552
[Continued]
We don't have an easy way of getting fonts and graphics on screen. 5.0 for the
PC handles fonts and graphics well, but not on screen. We probably won't have
a WYSIWYG DOS version that can be ported for another year, and a port of a DOS
version would take 18 months after that.
The Amiga programmers had been planning on porting the next Mac version, but
the big problem with using the Mac code (which is 68000 assembly) is that we
rely completely on the Macintosh facilities for printing. That means the Amiga
group would have to write all the printing code themselves, in addition to the
code translation. Such a product could not be ready until mid-1990 at the
earliest--and probably longer. We thought of using our printing code from the
C (Unix) version, but the codes is just too big to be used effectively on the
Amiga.
The third alternative is to write a word processor rom scratch. Such a project
would take 6 or 7 programmers about 18 months (an optimistic guess).
So whatever we do, we arrive very late to the market--probably the end of 1990
at the earliest. And once we arrive, we probably have to enter with a price
closer to $195. At that price (distributor price of $80-$100) given the
salaries we pay our programmers and the support we offer, we don't feel we can
make money.
Most of our Amiga programmers are very discouraged with the decision. They love
the machine and they like working together. They have worked hard without much
commercial success. But Bruce, Alan and I (the Board of Directors) cannot fund
the new products without some hope that the products will be successful. Given
the timing, the price point, and the costs of development, it just doesn't make
sense.
[More]
There is 1 Reply.
#: 45804 S3/Hot News and Rumors
28-Apr-89 21:21:51
Sb: #45803-WPCorp Backs Off
Fm: Pete Peterson WPCorp 72067,3552
To: Pete Peterson WPCorp 72067,3552
[Continued]
We had hoped the German market would generate enough money to pay for the
projects, but unfortunately we are not selling in Germany. While sales of the
Amiga are strong, most of the sales are for 500s, and we don't run well at all
on the 500.
We're sorry. We kno a lot of ustomers will be unhappy with these decisions.
We entered the market because a few of our programmers loved the machine. It
was a decision of the heart, not the head. We tried to pull back last summer
when our WordPerfect sales fell off badly, but the programmers pleaded for more
time. We reconsidered the decision in January, and again (with our hearts)
decided to give it a little more time. Since then sales have fallen off even
more, and now we don't see any way to justify the new products.
WordPerfect is a great word processor and the Amiga is a great machine. Our
4.1, 4.2 or 5.0 versions, however, are not the right versions for the Amiga. We
need 6.0, and 6.0 isn't ready yet. Once it's ready, we may change our
decision, but in the meantime, we can make better use of the programmers on
other machines. Pete
--
RSI-where WEDGES come from // Multi-Tasking is my life!
9651 Alexandra Road // Name: Dave Allen
Richmond, B.C. Canada \\ // Phone: (604) 278-6694 - MIND LINK (604) 533-2312
V6X 1C6 \X/ UseNet: uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Dave_Allenjeff@wisdom.UUCP (Jeff Ross) (08/13/90)
is there any word processor out there that offers good support for PostScript printers? WordPerfect just doesn't cut it for anything more than about 2 or 3 pages because of the way it generates its output the printer must pause after each and every page even though the font, pitch and style stay the same from one page to the next. oh, and WYSIWYG would be nice too, but not required. Jeff -- If 1 man can dig a ditch in 60 seconds, then 60 men can dig a ditch in 1 second. uucp: jeff@wisdom /* ...uunet!wisdom!jeff */ arpa: jross@pilot.njin.net MaBell: 201-299-1819
dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) (11/28/90)
Okay, let's hear some opinions on word processors. Is excellence 2.0 a good choice if graphics will never be output? How's ProWrite 3.0? Does anybody like Transcript besides me? Does anybody like Dr. Science besides me? How do these run under WB 2.0? -- Dan
ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) (11/28/90)
I test drove excellence 2.0 on a 3000. It was awful slow (you watched as your selected text changed font or resized). Excellence (on the phone) said that they have no plans now or in the future to support the ESC modes (productivity and 1000*800 whatever) which really stinks. Unless you mind splintering text and cursor from motion artifact, the resolution of hires interlaced is pretty good but when your given a mode like 640*480 or 1000*800 why not support it? Micro-Systems has a great wordprocessor, though. There were loads of features. Id like to see this thread grow. Are there any good PD or shareware ones? Doug -- ---------------------------------//------------------------------------- Doug Dyer Clemson University // "Splunge!" - MP ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu \\ // -----------------------------\X/----------------------------------------
dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) (11/28/90)
In article <11903@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) writes: > >Micro-Systems has a great wordprocessor, though. There were loads of features. >Id like to see this thread grow. Are there any good PD or shareware ones? Okay, has anybody used the new Wordperfect which is supposed to be 2.0-compatible? I'm concerned almost exclusively with text output, except for the inclusion of perhaps some tables or graphs. Will WordPerfect do these things?? Another area I seldom see addressed in magazines is the quality of output for a modest printer (not all of us can afford a postscript device). I have a 24-pin Toshiba-compatible Citizen printer and I certainly don't want to send a 30-page term project to it as an IFF graphics dump! I did that once. (ONCE! :-). Does excellence 2.0 utilize preference printers well? What's the latest version of WordPerfect? Transcript? >---------------------------------//------------------------------------- >Doug Dyer Clemson University // "Splunge!" - MP >ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu \\ // >-----------------------------\X/---------------------------------------- -- Dan
bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) (11/28/90)
>In article <4035@vela.acs.oakland.edu> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes: >Okay, has anybody used the new Wordperfect which is supposed to be >2.0-compatible? I'm concerned almost exclusively with text output, except >for the inclusion of perhaps some tables or graphs. Will WordPerfect do >these things?? I talked to WordPerfect yesterday, and they told me the 2.0 compatible version won't be available for another two weeks. -- bruce@zuhause.mn.org
blgardne@javelin.es.com (Blaine Gardner) (11/29/90)
dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes: >Okay, has anybody used the new Wordperfect which is supposed to be >2.0-compatible? I'm concerned almost exclusively with text output, except >for the inclusion of perhaps some tables or graphs. Will WordPerfect do >these things?? The release of the latest version of Word Perfect 4.1.x has been pushed back yet again. The word last week was that it will be out in late December. Other than 2.0 compatibility, I don't know of any changes. Since it's version 4.1, it has great text output on nearly any printer ever made, but no graphics ability at all. -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 blgardne@esunix.UUCP BIX: blaine_g {decwrl, utah-cs}!esunix!blgardne PLink: BlaineG DoD #0046 My other motorcycle is a Quadracer.
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (11/30/90)
That's a shame about WP delaying *again*. Does anyone have any info on their decision of whether to write v.5.x for the Amiga? Now that the 2,000,000 mark has passed the Lotus/Microsoft etc. rumors are flying again--I would think that WP would find Amiga a market worth supporting (at the very least). I know they\ have some Amigaphiles on staff, but it's not their decision, alas. I'm sure CBM, among others, is doing some official leaning and coaxing. ProWrite 3.0 is good if you're in for a basic WP. They keep enhancing it which is nice--it may well grow with you. It's plenty fast, works cleanly. Postscript output is a separate module (annoying) which will only write to the same disk that the original ProWrite file was on (extra annoying), so that you have to copy it separately if you're using CrossDOS to take it to a PC-based laser printer. I *like* ProWrite, but it doesn't do footnotes. Let's send out a mighty yelp for the wordprocessor writers to get in gear and bring us a Mac Word equivalent. -- ---- Thom Cleland "It is easier tcleland@ucsd.edu to get forgiveness Amiga User's Group at UCSD than permission"
dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu (Dale Larson) (11/30/90)
In article <bruce.4960@zuhause.MN.ORG> bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) writes: >I talked to WordPerfect yesterday, and they told me the 2.0 compatible version >won't be available for another two weeks. WP had compitibility problems when 1.3 came out, especially with FFS (which made its List Files "feature" crash at seemingly random intervals - as if that release of WP didn't crash often enough on it's own). It took WP about nine months to release a compatible release and for most of that time, "two more weeks" was the story off of the support line. I have a letter dated June, '90 from somebody there responding to my complaints about WP's compatibility with a beta 2.0, and stating that WP would notfix compatibility problems until a release 2.0 was available, but would do so as soon as possible. (The 3000 had been released a week or two before the date of that letter :-) So far, here is my record of the delays in getting a 2.0 compatible WP (My notes on calls to Amiga WP @ 1-800-321-3204): 13-SEP-90 Dave says 2.0 update planned for mid-October. 01-OCT-90 Dave says update still planned for mid-October. 19-OCT-90 Shawni says update bumped to November 07-NOV-90 Mike says will be released in three weeks. 19-NOV-90 Shawni says Dec. 1, still can't order in advance. "They should never have said October, they knew it wouldn't be ready." 26-NOV-90 Shawni says "It'll be out in a couple of weeks." -- -Dale Larson (dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu)
tmb@davinci.acc.Virginia.EDU (Thomas M. Breeden) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.144148.5720@javelin.es.com> blgardne@javelin.es.com (Blaine Gardner) writes: > >The release of the latest version of Word Perfect 4.1.x has been pushed >back yet again. The word last week was that it will be out in late >December. Other than 2.0 compatibility, I don't know of any changes. >Since it's version 4.1, it has great text output on nearly any printer >ever made, but no graphics ability at all. >-- The "WordPerfect Report" promises a print preview option for Amiga WordPerfect with the new release. Tom Breeden tmb@virginia.EDU - Tom Breeden tmb@virginia.EDU -> Internet tmb@virginia -> BITNET
ragg0270@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Richard Alan Gerber) (11/30/90)
dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu (Dale Larson) writes: >So far, here is my record of the delays in getting a 2.0 compatible WP >(My notes on calls to Amiga WP @ 1-800-321-3204): >13-SEP-90 >Dave says 2.0 update planned for mid-October. >01-OCT-90 >Dave says update still planned for mid-October. >19-OCT-90 >Shawni says update bumped to November >07-NOV-90 >Mike says will be released in three weeks. >19-NOV-90 >Shawni says Dec. 1, still can't order in advance. "They should >never have said October, they knew it wouldn't be ready." >26-NOV-90 >Shawni says "It'll be out in a couple of weeks." Well I can add: 29-NOV-90 (Didn't get name) wouldn't even give an estimate. Me: "So it's not real soon?" Answer: "No." >-- >-Dale Larson (dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu)
skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (12/02/90)
In article <11903@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) writes: > >I test drove excellence 2.0 on a 3000. It was awful slow (you watched as >your selected text changed font or resized). I use Excellence! on my 3000 regurlarly, and like it VERY much thank you! :) Resizing text might seem a little slow, but only if you reformat the entire document, and how many times will you probably do that? The spelling checker works well and I really like PostScript output. I should also mention that Excellence! is the only Amiga word processor that supports virtual memory, so it's possible to edit very large documents (900+ pages), if this is a serious consideration for you, then you should consider Excellence. >Excellence (on the phone) said that they have no plans now or in the future >to support the ESC modes (productivity and 1000*800 whatever) which really >stinks. That does stink... George
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Dec2.094401.29066@news.iastate.edu> skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) writes: >In article <11903@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) writes: >> >>I test drove excellence 2.0 on a 3000. It was awful slow (you watched as >>your selected text changed font or resized). > > I use Excellence! on my 3000 regurlarly, and like it VERY much thank >you! :) Resizing text might seem a little slow, but only if you reformat >the entire document, and how many times will you probably do that? The I never found the reformat to be that bad, but sometimes there is a noticable delay when you delete a highlighted block, which is really anoying. I will hovever note, that I am using a basic 3000 setup, with no scrams, but it still should run faster. >spelling checker works well and I really like PostScript output. I should The spelling checker is good, but it lacks basic features, like automaticly changing all of the words with the same misspelling. I do like the grammer checker, it's something I haven't seen on other word processers that I have used. While postscript may be good, I am having serious problems with their graphics output. If your screen has colors, it tries to print them. This is not a problem if you have the standard black text on a white backround, but I much prefer white text on a blue background, which gets printed a solid black on my printer. This is a serious problem that they need to correct soon. Also, while I'm on the subject of graphics mode printing, if you hit ESC to stop printing, the printing stops, but the program locks up, and I can't even get my printer to go off line. >also mention that Excellence! is the only Amiga word processor that supports >virtual memory, so it's possible to edit very large documents (900+ pages), >if this is a serious consideration for you, then you should consider >Excellence. A definate consideration for me, I have a thesis to write (well, ok, in 5 years i'll have one to write. hopefully by then they will have fixed the bugs. >>Excellence (on the phone) said that they have no plans now or in the future >>to support the ESC modes (productivity and 1000*800 whatever) which really >>stinks. > > That does stink... we all agree on this one. Its funny though, they support overscan perfectly. Rick Blewitt rblewitt@ucsd.edu
cs524a07@cs.iastate.edu (Class login) (12/09/90)
Does anyone know if we will ever get WordPerfect v.5.1 (or even 5.0) for the Amiga?