ELFJ@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (02/21/89)
I've used both Nisus and FullWrite extensively, and have recently switched from the latter to the former. Here's a brief comparison: FullWrite has more features, especially in the desktop publishing area, including hyphenation, kerning, styles, outlining, chapter organization, footnotes, endnotes, bibliographic references, and sidebars. It has an elegant interface, but is SLOW, SLOW, SLOW. Nisus is not as feature rich. It does do multiple columns, index and table of contents generation, glossaries and so on. It has a built in graphics mode, which is easier to use but not as powerful as FullWrite's. Nisus really shines with GREP, Global Regular Expression Parser, which allows complex pattern matching in search and replace. My Unix-experienced friend tells me Nisus' GREP is a superset of Unix's. Easy-GREP is a menu driven subset for the timid. The macro facility is far better than Word Perfect's. Footnotes and extended keyboard support are 2 features scheduled for the first upgrade, due this summer. Nisus uses a variety of techniques borrowed from FullWrite, such as extra menus when using certain features, icons in the left margin, and menus in the search/replace dialog box. It has a nice interface, is rock stable, and is FAST, FAST, FAST. In summary, if you need the dtp features and have Mac IIs (or SE/30's), go with FullWrite. If you are more interested in manipulating text than in pretty formatting, Nisus is worth a look. Linda Iroff Humanities Computing Center Cornell University elfj@crnlvax5 elfj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
stuartb@microsoft.UUCP (Stuart Burden) (02/22/89)
In article <8902211446.AA10018@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> ELFJ@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes: | I've used both Nisus and FullWrite extensively, and have recently | switched from the latter to the former. Here's a brief comparison: ... | Nisus really shines with GREP, Global Regular | Expression Parser, which allows complex pattern matching in search... Because of the huge volume of text processing I do, I use QUED/M, also from Paragon Concepts. What I would like to know is: 1. How do the GREP and Macro facilities in Nisus compare to QUED/M? 2. Can Nisus read and use QUED/M macros? 3. With the additional overhead of features in Nisus, can anyone give me a speed comparison between the two? | Linda Iroff Stu. __Paths to my door:_______________________ microsoft!stuartb@beaver.cs.washington.edu - Usual disclaimer, that all microsoft!stuartb@uw-beaver.arpa - the above is pure fantasy microsoft!stuartb@uunet.UU.NET - and Microsoft only [DE01HB]stuartb@DASNET# {from AppleLink} - gave me the Mountain Dew stuartb@microsoft.uucp {well connected} - to dream it all in a D2012 {@applelink.apple.com - shared acct} - caffeine haze :-) __________________________________________________________________________
svc@well.UUCP (Leonard Rosenthol) (02/27/89)
In article <710@microsoft.UUCP>, stuartb@microsoft.UUCP (Stuart Burden) writes: > In article <8902211446.AA10018@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> ELFJ@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU > writes: > > [ why Linda likes Nisus, and why Stuart uses QUED/M ] > > 1. How do the GREP and Macro facilities in Nisus compare to QUED/M? Both the GREP and Macro facilities of Nisus are SUPERSETS of the QUED/M stuff. The guys at Paragon started with the QUED/M routines and then proceeded to improve them and add to them. > 2. Can Nisus read and use QUED/M macros? To tell you the truth, I have not tried it but since both Macros file are stored as TEXT-type files you should be able to bring them in without much trouble. > 3. With the additional overhead of features in Nisus, can > anyone give me a speed comparison between the two? > There is, of course, a speed decrease between Nisus and QUED/M but you are comparing apple and oranges. A more realistic question is how does Nisus compare in speed to things like WORD and FWP - and the answer is it outspeeds them both!! -- +--------------------------------------------------+ Leonard Rosenthol | GEnie : MACgician Lazerware, inc. | MacNet: MACgician UUCP: svc@well.UUCP | ALink : D0025