clive@drutx.UUCP (05/11/88)
From article <3694@fluke.COM>, by moriarty@fluke.UUCP: > Customs styles, why they look adequate for my purposes, are still missing > two features I understand a third very substantial missing feature is inheritance -- FullWrite styles can't inherit from other styles as Word's can. It's a part of the object-inheritance model I think very powerful and convenient. If Microsoft would (perhaps graphically) illustrate that this is how their program really works, I think it would be much clearer to everyone what Word is about, and show it to be quite easy to use. At least I personally find it so. This leads to the solution to your problem, probably. > I had a *very* bad > experience with MS Word 3.01 the other night, where it wouldn't change the > font according to the Style Sheet, and I am not feeling particularly > generous towards them of late. > Think this one is easy. If you have changed the font of a paragraph over what the original style had (instead of changing the style itself), this has priority, which is very likely the case here. Afterwards, alterations to the font of the style underneath (following me?) continues to be over-ridden by what you put on top. The solution is to select the whole paragraph, and from Format menu, select Plain Text, which clears any formatting above the basic style. If you like keyboard shortcuts, you could instead type clover-shift-spacebar against the selection. Have fun -- I'd like to try FullWrite, being just as interested as anyone else. It does unfortunately sound a lot less powerful than Word, so far, and the notes about bombs on large selections, etc., don't bode well. But maybe they'll fix it... others have done so! Give my regards to Seattle. And where should I consult to there, who will pay me for my time??? Clive Steward
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/13/88)
In article <7821@drutx.ATT.COM> clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes: >Have fun -- I'd like to try FullWrite, being just as interested as >anyone else. It does unfortunately sound a lot less powerful than >Word, so far, and the notes about bombs on large selections, etc., >don't bode well. But maybe they'll fix it... others have done so! Hmm, in my opinion FWP is a significant upgrade from Word, I have found it able to do things that word just doesn't do. About the only area that word is better is it's style sheets, but the rest of the program pales in comparison For example word has no support for Sidebars, ChangeBar, Variables, citations {such as [see figure 1 on page 3]} fullwrite will automaticaly number and keep track of such references, Bibliographies. Just on those features alone FWP exceeds word. I have also converted most of the English class here at the University also! There is not one person in the past 6 months who I've shown FWP to that didn't immediatly realize how much better a WP can be. I used to be a dedicated Word fan, but now..... David M. O'Rourke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer: All opinions in this message are mine, but | | | if you like them they can be yours too. | | | Besides I'm just a student so what do I | | | know! | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign | | that there are TOO many Lawyer's. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/13/88)
>Have fun -- I'd like to try FullWrite, being just as interested as >anyone else. It does unfortunately sound a lot less powerful than >Word, so far, and the notes about bombs on large selections, etc., >don't bode well. But maybe they'll fix it... others have done so! I haven't found anything broken yet. Just unimplemented and unoptimized. As to bombs, while I'm certainly not testing exhaustively, I am beating the hell out of it right now (what else would you call four open 50K files while cutting and pasting 20K chunks from one place to another, all under Multifinder?). It can get rather slow, but it hasn't even burped, much less given up and died. All in all, FWP is a lot more stable than Word 3.0, and probably more stable than 3.01. The next release had better be faster, though. If I have one complaint, it's that FWP is so interested in keeping up the WYSIWYG interface that it starts getting in the way of the person using it. Some visual operations (especially graphics mixed with text) are quite fast, but a lot of text and scrolling operations are sludgy. And if you make some changes at the top of a document and then move to the end, everything grinds to a halt while it reformats. It almost makes you wish for Word's "repagination" option. (The key word there is almost). This had better be much faster next time, or else there needs to be some way to turn it off for us folks who prefer to worry about getting the text IN the document now, and making it pretty later. One neat thing that is almost always a feature: FWP notices when you stop typing and turns off it's internal timers. If you load up a document and don't touch it for an hour or so, the session log doesn't include that time. Nice stuff. One not-so-nice offshoot of this is that there are some internal timers that also shut off and shouldn't. If you have auto-save set, make some changes to the document and then go away, FWP won't save the document until you come back and start working. I find it VERY irritating to sit down at my mac, move the mouse, and see "Auto-saving document" come up in a dialog. FWP really should save it while it's idle, not when I start getting busy again. And a definite bug. I've reproduced this multiple times, and it needs fixing. FWP missing mouse clicks and menu-selects. I'm constantly pulling down a menu, selecting something, and nothing. I have to pull the menu down twice, and the second time the operation goes through. For a while, I thought I was just being sloppy, but even being very slow and careful, FWP drops them on the floor. Not nice. Same with mouse clicks. If you have multiple windows on the screen, if you try to bring one forward by clicking on the title bar, FWP will in most cases ignore you. You either have to click on the window itself (which isn't always visible....) or go to the "Windows..." menu item. VERY un-nice. These deserve a bugfix release, and as soon as I get a chance, I'll be reporting them to AT through channels. Neither is serious, except that they drive someone who's used to the Mac interface and relies on consisten user interfaces crazy.... Trust me on that.... I'm rapidly approaching full time use of FWP. I've yet to find anything that would make me consider switching back to Word. Now, all they need to do is make it faster, make it smaller, and add some of the missing features (for me, the critical missing features are paragraph layouts and the custom style functionality that Word has. Neither critical, by any means, although a "Based on" style format is a major win....) Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
derek@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Derek J. LeLash) (05/15/88)
In article <53134@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes about FWP: >The next release had better be faster, though. If I have one complaint, it's >that FWP is so interested in keeping up the WYSIWYG interface that it starts >getting in the way of the person using it. Some visual operations >(especially graphics mixed with text) are quite fast, but a lot of text and >scrolling operations are sludgy. And if you make some changes at the top of >a document and then move to the end, everything grinds to a halt while it >reformats. It almost makes you wish for Word's "repagination" option. (The >key word there is almost). This had better be much faster next time, or else >there needs to be some way to turn it off for us folks who prefer to worry >about getting the text IN the document now, and making it pretty later. Funny you should say that - I've been using a borrowed copy of FWP for awhile now, until the local stores (or the College) get it, and while I love the program's features, my deep dark secret is that I still physically type my papers in MacWrite 4.6, and then import them into FWP to have some formatting fun with them. I suspect that for most people, such a dualism makes sense; the pre-release version of FWP is just too slow to keep up with me when I'm struck by the digital muse :-), but the features it offers for manipulating an existing body of text are excellent. So there you are. Don't tell anyone. :-) Derek [28 days] LeLash '88 Derek LeLash '88 |"People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles Derek.LeLash@Dartmouth.EDU | of my shoes ----------------------------| Well, that's one way to lose these walking blues (Grand Old Senior at last) | Diamonds on the soles of my shoes."
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (05/17/88)
In article <7821@drutx.ATT.COM> clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes: >From article <3694@fluke.COM>, by moriarty@fluke.UUCP: >> Customs styles, why they look adequate for my purposes, are still missing >> two features > >I understand a third very substantial missing feature is inheritance -- >FullWrite styles can't inherit from other styles as Word's can. That's an excellent point, one I'll have to add to the checklist between FW and Word. However, I'd again have to point out how difficult it is to use the Style Sheets in Word, and inheritance; however, MS is supposed to be working very hard on making Style Sheets easier to use. >The solution is to select the whole paragraph, and from Format menu, select >Plain Text, which clears any formatting above the basic style. If you like >keyboard shortcuts, you could instead type clover-shift-spacebar against the >selection. That does work, but it's not very intuitive. The trouble with Word is, I run into problems with Word just often enough that I've forgotten the solution to the problem. However, it's rumored that Word 4.0 will have intelligent style sheets which eliminate this problem (among other good things), so MS isn't ignoring the problem. >Have fun -- I'd like to try FullWrite, being just as interested as >anyone else. It does unfortunately sound a lot less powerful than >Word, so far, and the notes about bombs on large selections, etc., As power goes, I side with Chuq; there are a ton of things that I can do with FW that I can't with Word, and only a few that I can't do with FW. More importantly, the things I *want* to do with a word processor are supported in FullWrite, and are extremely easy to understand to boot. However, Microsoft is certainly not sitting on their laurels, so we will hopefully have two good high-level word processing programs by the end of the year. At this point, I'm not experiencing any bombs with FW, and have no reason left to use Word. We'll see when 4.0 comes out... "I've got to concentrate. I've got to concentrate! ..Hello? ..Echo! ..Pinch hitting for Pedro Forfone, Manny Moto!" --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (05/18/88)
I've had the same frustration with full WYSWYG editors. My friends
and I used a full-WYSWYG editor while working for Xerox, and still we
typed in our papers using a straight text editor, then imported them
to WYSWYG (STAR) for the final touches. My conclusion that WYSWYG was a
closet failure for anything but page layout tasks.
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
{gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu}dorner@uxg.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (05/18/88)
>typed in our papers using a straight text editor, then imported them >to WYSWYG (STAR) for the final touches. My conclusion that WYSWYG was a >closet failure for anything but page layout tasks. I can't agree. It may be that some WYSIWYG editors are slow enough to be painful to use, but they are not all that way. I do a fair amount of writing, and do it all with such an editor (WriteNow, if that matters). I think the real problem is that the right combination of features/per- formance has not been found in a lot of programs. And that may be because it makes good ad copy to say ``Our word processor does it ALL'', while to say ``Our word processor is really FAST'' doesn't seem to make it nowadays. >Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois ---- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: dorner@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu UUCP: ihnp4!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 333-3339
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/19/88)
In article <76000207@uiucdcsp> gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I've had the same frustration with full WYSWYG editors. My friends >and I used a full-WYSWYG editor while working for Xerox, and still we >typed in our papers using a straight text editor, then imported them >to WYSWYG (STAR) for the final touches. My conclusion that WYSWYG was a >closet failure for anything but page layout tasks. Why is being able to see what your output is going to look like a falure. Then presentation Manager, and the Macintosh and Windowing enviroments in general are failures also? I don't think so. People who can't understand why we need WYSWYG are failures, and personally I like to be able to see what my work is going to look like while I'm working on it. David M. O'Rourke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer: All opinions in this message are mine, but | | | if you like them they can be yours too. | | | Besides I'm just a student so what do I | | | know! | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign | | that there are TOO many Lawyer's. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/19/88)
> Why is being able to see what your output is going to look like a falure. >Then presentation Manager, and the Macintosh and Windowing enviroments in >general are failures also? I don't think so. People who can't understand >why we need WYSWYG are failures, and personally I like to be able to see >what my work is going to look like while I'm working on it. I think this is being overly harsh. I'm a BIG fan of WYSIWYG. But I'm also a hardcore writer who types 100WPM or so. And when I'm writing, I dont' want to edit, I don't want to format, and I don't want to make it pretty. All my work goes through at least three phases: getting the damned words into the system, getting the damned words spelled write and getting the damned words looking right and back out of the system. The problem with most WYSIWYG systems is that they are designed with doing all three at the same time, and fight anyone who just wants to dump words into the system at the greatest possible speed with the fewest interruptions. This is very true of FullWrite, for instance. Microsoft Word's one great advantage is that when I just want to write, it'll sit back and stay out of the way -- although they to some degree go too far in that direction and make it hard tweak the words with that ugly user interface of theirs. If there was one thing I'd really like to see in FWP in a future release, it is a "Turn off the repagination and WYSIWYG" mode. The delays it tosses at me when I cross a page boundary ("Oh! Page boundary! Draw a new page! move the text! put up the header! scroll the screen! Okay, you can write again now") can be very distracting if they hit at the wrong time -- writing is hard enough work without having the word processor arguing with you. Another thing I'd like to be able to turn off is FWP's insistence on showing the entire page of blank paper when you have things like pictures that shift to the next page. I'd love to be able to scrunch that page down to just the size necessary to show what's on it -- the WYSIWYG setup is nice enough that I can still tell where the beginning and ending of the page are, which is Good Enough. (and if this sounds like Griping, well, yes, it is. Bul I'll be damned if I go back to Word 3.0, and I'm already finding that I'm retraining my writing habits to take FWP's quirks into account. Another couple of weeks, and I probably won't be bothered at all by most of them, except possibly subliminally. Just to put the griping into perspective....) Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Robert A. Heinlein: 1907-1988. He will never truly die as long as we read his words and speak his name. Rest in Peace.
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) (05/20/88)
In article <53839@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >I think this is being overly harsh. I apologize. SORRY. But to call WYSIWYG a failure was originally a little harh also. Anyway I was out of line and I apologize. >hardcore writer who types 100WPM or so. And when I'm writing, I dont' want > continues with a good argument for why WYSIWYG might not be desirerable. I have a couple of things to say about that. 1) You're right! Motorola we need 350 mhz 68060's like NOW!!!!!!!!!!! Then things might go fast. 2) You also suggested that you be able to turn off the repagination. Funny you should mention that, I sent a *LONG* bug report to Ann Arbor and also suggested that they make the automatic updating optional. You think a page break is bad, try using an index. I added a page and it took three min. to "Update the Document", well I have my autosave set for 2 min., so FWP would "Update the Document", and it would save, causing it to again "Update the Document", then it would save. Any Computer Science people recognize this loop? You can turn off the re-calculation in a spreadsheet to speed data entry, why not a word processor. If word 4.0 is going to win my aproval over FWP, then one of the many things it needs to have is a optional auto update feature. 3) If you're **REALLY** interested it just getting the D*MN words in then I suggest that you use a text editor. I sympathise with your complaints and if I really just want to blaze on the keyboard I use a text editor than does almost NO formatting, then read it into the WP of my choice. Bit of a hack, but it works, and I don't lose my train of thought. Thankyou for your comments, and again I apologize. -- David M. O'Rourke Disclaimer: I don't represent the school. All opinions are mine!
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (05/22/88)
Well, I've been using FW for almost 20 minutes know and I've discovered a
few things.
1. This is the first WP for the mac to make FULL use of the mac interface
2. BUG: If you have a sidebar icon selected, then choose a command from
the sidebar menu, when you return to the document the icon will still
be selected but the menu will be gone.
3. FEATURE: You have to know the dimensions of your sidebar to begin with
in order to place it. Your can't size it to fit your text or picture
or whatever. I was converting my resume to FW from MSWORD. My resume
had two side-by-side paragrams (not supported as such in FW) for
my school and home addresses. These were a little less then a half
an inch thick, which is the lower limit for sidebar height.
Getting the paragraphs into the sidebar was easy, the hard part was
getting it to fit properly in my document. See, what I really want is
a little drag handle in the sidebar panel which changes the stuff
defined by the place command. I also want to be able to drag the
sidebar around in the page view.
Note that for most things, this isn't a problem as you can flow the
text around strangely shaped objects easily, its just in this case that
I have the problem because I have a long, thin, sidebar which I didn't
know the dimensions of.
4. I love it.
Pierce
----------------------------------------------------------------
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu Race For Space Grand Prize Winner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Useless Advice #986: Never sit on a Tack.sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (05/25/88)
In article <15200015@uxg.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@uxg.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >I think the real problem is that the right combination of features/per- >formance has not been found in a lot of programs. And that may be because >it makes good ad copy to say ``Our word processor does it ALL'', while to say >``Our word processor is really FAST'' doesn't seem to make it nowadays. In the IBM PC world, Xywrite has made a name for themselves for just that reason -- they have a user-interface from hell (they use a command-line for everything), but they're fast fast fast.