lance@amcad.UUCP (Lance Antrim) (05/08/88)
The vapor has coalesced! FullWrite is on the shelves (at least at Egghead Software - it should get to other stores next week). Fancy box, with a discount price under $300. A companion book is announced but not available at the moment. I hope it was worth the wait. -- _____________________________________________________________________ Lance N. Antrim Program on the Processes UUCP: husc6!amcad!lance of International Negotiation ARPA: lantrim@sloan.mit.edu
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/09/88)
>The vapor has coalesced! FullWrite is on the shelves (at least at >Egghead Software - it should get to other stores next week). Fancy box, >with a discount price under $300. A companion book is announced but not >available at the moment. >I hope it was worth the wait. I think so, so far. I picked up my copy at ComputerWare for about $260. I haven't played with it a lot yet, but I have pored through documentation and done a little prodding and pushing, and I think I'm going to really like Fullwrite. It's definitely not perfect, but it has the power of Word 3.0. It's also a very intuitive program. As you read through the manual, you start to realize just how intuitive it is (in many ways, you don't need to read the manual. For a program of this power, that says something). There are some areas that I've flagged as things to be aware of. Some of these are plusses, some minuses. This isn't in any particular order (yet): + The documentation is generally well written. There are two volumes: a learning guide and a reference manual. - However, the manual does not have a tutorial. There are a bunch of samples on the disk, but no structured tutorial introduction. The learning manual is basically a "take a look at this" and assume's you're poking at it on your own. A structured tutorial would help the startup time. - The manual is incomplete in some areas. It mentions, but never explains, stationery (read-only documents that are used as templates). It barely mentions something called background files, which are (I think!) used to import stuff like EPS files into stationery. I really don't understand what they do, how, or why. I'm hoping that the examples shipped with the program explain it, since the manual ignores them. This looks to be, also, the only way to get postscript code into your documents. Hope I'm wrong on that one. - Style sheets are functional, but more limited than Word 3.0. No "based on" or "next style" options. Styles seem to be additive, also: if they set up a bold/italic style and impose it on underlined text, it comes up bold/italic underlined. + They've implemented something called a variable. A more generalized flavor of the various page/date/time icons in Word headers. you can define your own, too (I'm not sure why yet, though). One that I find missing is the # of words (variables exist for pages and characters). - You don't seem to be able to save drawings from the draw layer independently. You can grab them via the clipboard, but you could almost obsolete the need for a separate drawing program if you could save it conveniently. - Startup is rather slow, and it brings up a copyright message every time. Not really bad, but it stays up long enough to be irritating, and I almost get the feeling AT has a wait loop in the initialization code for the startup screen. If that's true, I hope someone finds a patch for it. If not, there's a lot of initialization going down. + Change bars. Real, honest to god, decent, integrated change bars. You can turn them on or off, reset them after every save, reset them on request, all sorts of things. You may not care about change bars, but once you've worked with them in a serious writing project, you'll hate to lose them. It's nice to be able to scan through and edit only those parts that have been changed, rather than having to search for all the new text (and probably missing some of it). + Bookmarks. In a large document (or even, for that matter, a small one) how many times have you found yourself bouncing between two or three places, verifying one thing, rewriting another, checking to make sure the narritive matches in disparate parts of the story? On paper, you just keep the pages next to each other. On computers, you go crazy. Bookmarks let you set a pointer to a specific place in the document, and reference it by name. A "go to " label for your writing. I wish I'd thought of it..... o Performance seems reasonable. Once it's started, that is. I'm also not hurting for memory. You have to have 1Meg to run it, 2 meg to run it with Multifinder. This won't work very well on a floppy system, either -- I wouldn't try less than a hard disk. o Spell checker is on a part, probably a little better, than the Word checker. A little less powerful, a little more intuitive. Goodenuf, as they say. o A thesaurus. I'm not terribly convinced a computer thesaurus buys you anything over a desk model (and the desk model is cheaper). But we'll see. o Imports Write and Word files. Exports only Write files. Initially I was bothered by this, but it makes sense. The Word 3.0 file structure is an amazing bitch to work with. And if you're exporting, you lose most of the special features -- and you're likely setting things up to import into another program that is also likely to read Write, not word files (or both). Macwrite is the primary text-transfer format for the Mac -- even Word reads it. So there's no real reason to export in anything else. All in all, it looks to be a definite step up from Word 3.0. Easier to use, a lot more writer friendly, a lot more intuitive. It is definitely, definitely a word hacker's program, not for the casual writer. But it set itself off for the high end, and it seems to have achieved it. This is a first impression, though. I'll tell you more when I have a couple of weeks under my fingers. chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ I come to preach to a religion that doesn't exist. It has no members. It has no clergy. It has no doctrine. It has no collection plate.
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/09/88)
In article <52428@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >I think so, so far. I picked up my copy at ComputerWare for about $260. I >haven't played with it a lot yet, but I have pored through documentation and >done a little prodding and pushing, and I think I'm going to really like >Fullwrite. I agree I've been using the Pre-Release version since I got it, I liked it better than word, even with the bugs. >It's definitely not perfect, but it has the power of Word 3.0. It's also a >very intuitive program. As you read through the manual, you start to realize >just how intuitive it is (in many ways, you don't need to read the manual. >For a program of this power, that says something). It kind of grows on you, as you learn the program it keeps getting better. >There are some areas that I've flagged as things to be aware of. Some of >these are plusses, some minuses. This isn't in any particular order (yet): > > think!) used to import stuff like EPS files into stationery. I > really don't understand what they do, how, or why. I'm hoping that > the examples shipped with the program explain it, since the manual > ignores them. This looks to be, also, the only way to get postscript > code into your documents. Hope I'm wrong on that one. It's there to support background pictures. You can have FullWrite print a picture on every page, or just the first page. It's a simple way to add fancy boarders or letter head to a document, and since it's a picture you don't have to worry about where it is in relation to text. >+ They've implemented something called a variable. A more generalized flavor > of the various page/date/time icons in Word headers. you can define > your own, too (I'm not sure why yet, though). One that I find > missing is the # of words (variables exist for pages and > characters). Variables are wonderful, when you insert a variable in several places in the document, and then you want to change what the variable says, you don't have to do a search and replace, you can just change it in the variable dialog, and boom, all references to that variable are automatically updated. Try it it's real nice. >- Startup is rather slow, and it brings up a copyright message every time. > Not really bad, but it stays up long enough to be irritating, and I > almost get the feeling AT has a wait loop in the initialization code > for the startup screen. If that's true, I hope someone finds a patch > for it. If not, there's a lot of initialization going down. I agree, anyone at Ashton-Tate reading this. I love FullWrite! I have found it to be more than very useful in the past 5 months, and now the release version is out. Thank god! 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) (05/11/88)
> It kind of grows on you, as you learn the program it keeps getting better. This is very, very true. Cautionary tale time. I was working with FWP last night redesigning my letterhead. Much to my dismay, FullWrite doesn't support Word's concept of "First Header" and "First Footer". I spent a good hour trying to muck FWP into giving me a first header. You only want the letterhead on the first page, after all. I finally gave up in disgust and started laying the letterhead out in the main body of the document. Almost immediately thereafter, I realized that if you put the letterhead in a sidebar, and tied the sidebar to the top of page 1, you had a first header. Even better, it was a good, generalized solution to the same problem and rather than build a customized feature to support letterhead, they built a generalized feature that happens to support it as well as other things. It works wonderfully, by the way. By trying to force FWP into a Word paradigm, I had major problems. When I stopped trying to reproduce my Word letterhead in a FWP document, and instead designed a FWP document, the thing fell into place cleanly and easily. And I'm more impressed with FWP than before -- general answers to general problems are better than specific features. Sidebars are really, really neat things. The more I play with them, the more I think their power is still under-appreciated. > It's there to support background pictures. You can have FullWrite print > a picture on every page, or just the first page. It's a simple way to add > fancy boarders or letter head to a document, and since it's a picture you > don't have to worry about where it is in relation to text. Here's an exceptionally stupid question. I can't get FWP to read either a background picture or a background EPS file. I have to open them up with MINIwriter. So how do your create/change/maintain these files in FullWrite? It isn't documented, and I can't find the feature. Do I really need a text-only DA to work with text so FWP can use it? I'm starting to look forward to pulling Word off my disk. I don't think it's going to be long, now.... Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ I come to preach to a religion that doesn't exist. It has no members. It has no clergy. It has no doctrine. It has no collection plate.
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/11/88)
In article <52688@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >I was working with FWP last night redesigning my letterhead. Much to my >dismay, FullWrite doesn't support Word's concept of "First Header" and ............................ more stuff, read original posting. >Almost immediately thereafter, I realized that if you put the letterhead in >a sidebar, and tied the sidebar to the top of page 1, you had a first >header. Even better, it was a good, generalized solution to the same problem >and rather than build a customized feature to support letterhead, they built >a generalized feature that happens to support it as well as other things. > >It works wonderfully, by the way. Possible better solution. Full Write allows you to have as many header as you want, if you define a header on the first page, it shows up there. If you define a header on the next page that header takes over all of the following pages up until the end of the document, or the next header which then takes over. >Here's an exceptionally stupid question. I can't get FWP to read either a >background picture or a background EPS file. I have to open them up with >MINIwriter. So how do your create/change/maintain these files in FullWrite? >It isn't documented, and I can't find the feature. Do I really need a >text-only DA to work with text so FWP can use it? No question is stupid, answers are stupid sometimes, but never questions. FullWrite will allow you to print *EXISTING* Paint, PICT, and EPS pictures on a LaserWriter, if you are using an ImageWriter you can only print Paint, PICT files. This function doesn't show the pictures on the screen first, you have to get hardcopy before you can see the picture. It's a pity you can't edit these files in FullWrite, but I guess you have to draw the feature line somewhere. For you lucky net hacker who have the documentation see page 3-37 & 3-38 in the "FullWrite Professional Reference Guide" >I'm starting to look forward to pulling Word off my disk. I don't think it's >going to be long, now.... My copy of Word left my hard disk right after recieving the Pre-Release, even with the bugs FullWrite was better than that other Word Processor, now it's just superior! 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. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/11/88)
A followup to my last posting regarding FullWrite. For those on the net who think "gosh" you can't see graphics on the screen before lyou print them. What kind of lousy program is this anyways. Well FullWrite has *EXTENSIVE* support for graphics in the body of the text, support that you've rarely seen outside of Page Layout software. What all the questions about graphics and FullWrite is regarding the printing of a background picture on every page that is printed from the document, as well as the graphics found in the body of the text. For those of you who realized this, I apologize, but a friend made a comment that this point was unclear to him, and I might want to explain to the rest of the net that hasn't had a chance to experience FullWrite. 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. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) (05/11/88)
In article <52428@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >I think so, so far. I picked up my copy at ComputerWare for about $260. I I hope we get ours (we ordered 3 of them in February)... >- The manual is incomplete in some areas. It mentions, but never explains, > stationery (read-only documents that are used as templates). It > barely mentions something called background files, which are (I > think!) used to import stuff like EPS files into stationery. I > really don't understand what they do, how, or why. I'm hoping that > the examples shipped with the program explain it, since the manual > ignores them. This looks to be, also, the only way to get postscript > code into your documents. Hope I'm wrong on that one. You can always use Postscipt Escape to incorporate postscipt in your documents. This works even with programs like MacWrite and MacDraw. >+ They've implemented something called a variable. A more generalized flavor > of the various page/date/time icons in Word headers. you can define > your own, too (I'm not sure why yet, though). One that I find > missing is the # of words (variables exist for pages and > characters). I think people will find a lot of uses for them. I guess the version number or name of the document could be one. My address would make a good variable. :-) >- Startup is rather slow, and it brings up a copyright message every time. > Not really bad, but it stays up long enough to be irritating, and I > almost get the feeling AT has a wait loop in the initialization code > for the startup screen. If that's true, I hope someone finds a patch > for it. If not, there's a lot of initialization going down. I did some digging with TMON (and removed the demo text from my demo version) and found out that FullWrite uses packed code resources. It checks if the code is packed and unpacks every time it loads from disk. Unfortunately it has a lot of code resources to unpack when it starts up, so it is very slow. Fortunately it does check first if the code is packed (I bet they use an unpacked version of FullWrite at Ann Arbor and Aston Tate). I wrote a small FKEY that saves a code resource once that it has been unpacked. It worked fine, but I haven't had time to do any serious experimenting. Of course an unpacked version of FullWrite no longer fits on a disk, but then again...who cares. I would REALLY like to get in touch with the developers of FullWrite. (E-Mail would be great and TeleFAX is ok...) I'd like to help them internationalize FullWrite because we need a version with Finnish hyphenation and probably a Finnish spelling checker too. So, if you know how to contact them, please tell me how. Juri Munkki Helsinki University of Technology, Computing Centre Microcomputing Support Division Otakaari 1, Room Y250A SF02150 Espoo, Finland Internet: jmunkki@santra.hut.fi Bitnet: jmunkki@fingate.bitnet Telex: 125161 htkk sf TeleFAX: +358 0 465 077
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (05/12/88)
I think I'd emphasise the point Chuq made -- the program is extremely intuitive. I've been spending the last few hours trying to explain to my manager how to format a document in Word 3.02 for our documentation people. He uses Framemaker at work on a Sun/3 and has a Mac at home, and after about an hour we had come up with some extremely choice curses for Microsoft, Bill Gates, and the MS Word user interface engineer in particular. Yes, MS Word can do almost anything, but getting there is such a pain-in-the-ass; and it's easy to forget the sequences for doing tasks between uses of Word. And we all know what the manuals are like... A few comments on chuq's FullWrite article: In article <52428@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >- The manual is incomplete in some areas. It mentions, but never explains, > stationery (read-only documents that are used as templates). It > barely mentions something called background files, which are (I > think!) used to import stuff like EPS files into stationery. I > really don't understand what they do, how, or why. I'm hoping that > the examples shipped with the program explain it, since the manual > ignores them. This looks to be, also, the only way to get postscript > code into your documents. Hope I'm wrong on that one. No question that they screwed up in describing this. For the record, FW documents saved in format "Stationary" are basically read-only formats for future letters -- you can't save them under the name they're opened under. I find this more preferable than the MS Word "Read-only" option, which I will forget to set every 10th iteration... And yes, that's the only way to get EPS files into FullWrite. Backgrounds basically allow you to import paint, EPS and (I think) PICT pictures into the "background" of the document -- as if it were the pattern for stationary. Has the option to only show up on the first page, thus making letterheads easier. It's easier to use than MS Word 3.02's methods for dealing with Postscript, but I assume Word 4.0 will have EPS support in the future. Both programs need improvement here. >+ They've implemented something called a variable. A more generalized flavor > of the various page/date/time icons in Word headers. you can define > your own, too (I'm not sure why yet, though). One that I find > missing is the # of words (variables exist for pages and > characters). The idea of user-definable variables is so that you can set the variable to a string, place the variable all over the document (person's name, etc.). To change the string throughout the document, you need only change the variable once. >o A thesaurus. I'm not terribly convinced a computer thesaurus buys you > anything over a desk model (and the desk model is cheaper). But > we'll see. I've been using the Microlytics on-line thesaurus for a while now, and I'm divided on it, too. It is a lot easier to use the Microlytics model, and it is fairly good; on the other hand, I'm a thesaurus snob, and Roget's has a better selection (though the words found exclusively in Roget's tend to be fairly esoteric). Improve your word power, kids... >o Imports Write and Word files. Exports only Write files. Initially I was > bothered by this, but it makes sense. The Word 3.0 file structure > is an amazing bitch to work with. And if you're exporting, you lose > most of the special features -- and you're likely setting things up > to import into another program that is also likely to read Write, > not word files (or both). Macwrite is the primary text-transfer > format for the Mac -- even Word reads it. So there's no real reason > to export in anything else. Still, if you're writing articles for various magazines, you have to hope that FullWrite will be available there soon. I know I want to write my articles in FullWrite, and hope that the rest of the world comes around soon. But it's a crap shoot. PS The one feature no one seems to mention is that the Change/Replace option not only allows you to specify text to change, but also look for/replace specific styles/fonts of text. Very, very handy... >All in all, it looks to be a definite step up from Word 3.0. Easier to use, >a lot more writer friendly, a lot more intuitive. It is definitely, >definitely a word hacker's program, not for the casual writer. But it set >itself off for the high end, and it seems to have achieved it. This is a >first impression, though. I'll tell you more when I have a couple of weeks >under my fingers. Me too -- mine arrived today, and I'm certainly going to give it a workout right off. Word 4.0 will be nice, I've heard; but unless they're going to make Style Sheets and the user interface a LOT easier to use, I won't be interested. "Spare me, gentle knight! Tenure shalt thee have, and gold, and several attractive female teaching assistants." --- 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! <*>
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/12/88)
>No question that they screwed up in describing this. For the record, >FW documents saved in format "Stationary" are basically read-only formats >for future letters -- you can't save them under the name they're opened >under. I find this more preferable than the MS Word "Read-only" option, >which I will forget to set every 10th iteration... Much nicer than Word. One thing I wish they'd implement, though, is the ability set a read-only bit on material IN a document. Set up your letterhead, then define all of the pieces imported from the stationery as unchangeable. So you can't delete or modify it accidentally. It'd even be really nice to generalize this and be able to set something like a sidebar (or some generic "thing" like a block of text) read-only. So if you're working on something, once you get part of it into its final form, you can freeze it cleanly. >And yes, that's the only way to get EPS files into FullWrite. Damn. I'd like to be able to load postscript into a random document and download it. The way they have it, I probably will find other ways of dealing with it. >Still, if you're writing articles for various magazines, you have to hope >that FullWrite will be available there soon. I know I want to write my >articles in FullWrite, and hope that the rest of the world comes around >soon. But it's a crap shoot. Not necessarily. I plan on shipping my stuff in both FullWrite and MacWrite. As long as you're careful about formatting, you should be okay. Most articles don't get that fancy that MacWrite can't handle them... >PS The one feature no one seems to mention is that the Change/Replace >option not only allows you to specify text to change, but also look >for/replace specific styles/fonts of text. Very, very handy... yeah... Two more comments: o There are places where Fullwrite is Sludgy. Reading/writing files and program startup are my two big gripes. Another one is when you do a page break, because of the WYSIWYG stuff. Word might have been ugly, but FullWrite is a lot slower at going to the next page. o Plan on buying QuicKeys, and if you haven't considered it, get a Datadesk keyboard. You're going to want to set up function keys for a lot of stuff -- or plan on using the mouse a lot. Lots of fairly common functions aren't mapped to the keyboard, like page/column breaks, printing, etc.... Of course, you want QuicKeys anyway. neat stuff. 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.
6029334@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Robert G. Trevor) (05/12/88)
In article <52688@sun.uucp>, chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> It kind of grows on you, as you learn the program it keeps getting better. >I'm starting to look forward to pulling Word off my disk. I don't think it's >going to be long, now.... >Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ What about equations...does FWP have an 'math typesetting' facilities similar to or better than Words? (I know Words are pretty basic, but for many things it beats the cut&paste approach of DA's etc. NO flames please - I know about Tex.) ROB TREVOR DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRINCETON, NJ 08544 USA
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (05/12/88)
In article <52871@sun.uucp>, chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > o Plan on buying QuicKeys, and if you haven't considered it, get a Datadesk > keyboard. You're going to want to set up function keys for a lot of > stuff -- or plan on using the mouse a lot. Lots of fairly common > functions aren't mapped to the keyboard, like page/column breaks, > printing, etc.... > > Of course, you want QuicKeys anyway. neat stuff. > I agree that you want QuicKeys anyway, but if you look, you'll find that every menu item is accessible from the keyboard using cmd-n,cmd-m where n and m are integers corresponding to the menu (left to right) and the item (without an explicit cmd-key equivalent) from top to bottom. It's even discussed in the help file under Walk-Down menus. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are those of the author.
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/12/88)
>What about equations...does FWP have an 'math typesetting' facilities >similar to or better than Words? (I know Words are pretty basic, but >for many things it beats the cut&paste approach of DA's etc. NO flames >please - I know about Tex.) No. There was a fairly long discussion of this in January when the FWP demo came out. AAS (now Ashton-Tate) specifically didn't include formula processing because they felt it was a fairly obscure feature and there are already a number of independent products taht they felt covered the territory well enough. And you can always go in the draw layer and build it up manually, much as you would in something like MacDraw. I'm not even going to get into whether this is a good or bad decision. We had this flame war last time. But no, there's no math processing. 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.
samalone@athena.mit.edu (Stuart A. Malone) (05/13/88)
>What about equations...does FWP have an 'math typesetting' facilities >similar to or better than Words? (I know Words are pretty basic, but >for many things it beats the cut&paste approach of DA's etc. NO flames >please - I know about Tex.) No, FullWrite doesn't have equations yet. You could use the drawing environment, but it would be tedious. HOWEVER, if you look at FullWrite under ResEdit, you'll see that there are small icons in the program with sigmas on them. It seems pretty obvious that someone at Ashton Tate/Ann Arbor intends to add equation formatting to FullWrite. --Stuart A. Malone
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/13/88)
In article <52871@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Much nicer than Word. One thing I wish they'd implement, though, is the >ability set a read-only bit on material IN a document. Set up your >letterhead, then define all of the pieces imported from the stationery as >unchangeable. So you can't delete or modify it accidentally. Try making the Read only text a variable, at least that way you have to make a concerted effort to change 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. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/13/88)
In article <5246@pucc.Princeton.EDU> 6029334@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >What about equations...does FWP have an 'math typesetting' facilities >similar to or better than Words? (I know Words are pretty basic, but >for many things it beats the cut&paste approach of DA's etc. NO flames >please - I know about Tex.) Well, kinda sorta, It has built in MacDraw style drawing enviroment. 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. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DN5@PSUVM.BITNET (D. Jay Newman) (05/13/88)
I have seen the pre-release version of FullWrite, and plan on getting the
real version (after using FW, I hate MacWrite!) as soon as I can, but I
have found one problem.
I would like to find an easy way of keeping a block of text together, without
inserting explicit page breaks. Inserting page breaks don't work well because
if I insert something in the middle of the text, I have to go through and
recalulate the page sizes. Also if I globally change the font or the style.
I hope that there is something easier than putting each paragraph into a
sidebar or something...
Jay, etc...
Disclamer: I am big enough to speak for myself, but not big enough to
speak for anybody else.leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (05/13/88)
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM(Chuq Von Rospach) writes in comp.sys.mac >o Plan on buying QuicKeys, and if you haven't considered it, get a Datadesk > keyboard. You're going to want to set up function keys for a lot of > stuff -- or plan on using the mouse a lot. Lots of fairly common > functions aren't mapped to the keyboard, like page/column breaks, > printing, etc.... > > Of course, you want QuicKeys anyway. neat stuff. Although this is one option (and it is the one that I use (but only since Tempo II is not yet compatable)), please note that you can many of the menus in FullWrite just like you can any other menus using ResEdit. Some of the menus are not available though, do to their non-standard nature, but they are available in the ^MEN resource (the ^ is a Delta) which stands for Delta Menus (or the Flippy Menus) and the TMPL for those is in the PRE-RELEASE version ONLY. (I guess that AT made them take it out of the release, too bad!) +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ + + Any thing I say may be taken as + + Leonard Rosenthol + fact, then again you might decide+ + President, LazerWare, inc. + that it really isn't, so you + + + never know, do you?? + + leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu + + + GEnie: MACgician + + + Delphi: MACgician + + + + + +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (05/13/88)
jmunkki@santra.UUCP(Juri Munkki) writes in comp.sys.mac >{Lots and Lots Removed} >I did some digging with TMON (and removed the demo text from my demo version) >and found out that FullWrite uses packed code resources. It checks if the code >is packed and unpacks every time it loads from disk. Unfortunately it has a lot >of code resources to unpack when it starts up, so it is very slow. Fortunately >it does check first if the code is packed (I bet they use an unpacked version >of FullWrite at Ann Arbor and Aston Tate). I wrote a small FKEY that saves a >code resource once that it has been unpacked. It worked fine, but I haven't had >time to do any serious experimenting. Of course an unpacked version of FullWrite >no longer fits on a disk, but then again...who cares. > You've got it exactly. The reason for the packed code resources IS SO IT WOULD FIT ON FLOPPY!! There is no reason why you could not do exactly as Juri has done and save lots of time on startup. In fact, if you could post the FKEY (or the source) there are others of us who would like to do that as well. >I would REALLY like to get in touch with the developers of FullWrite. (E-Mail >would be great and TeleFAX is ok...) I'd like to help them internationalize >FullWrite because we need a version with Finnish hyphenation and probably >a Finnish spelling checker too. So, if you know how to contact them, please >tell me how. Don't hold your breath!! Unfortunately, do to many things that they had to do to get FullWrite to be FullWrite, they had to do some things that will/do make internationalization VERY difficult (if not impossible!). I (and others_) had discussions with them relatively early in development about Script Manager compat and the answer was IMPOSSIBLE!! I wish I could get it to work at least 'sort of' with ANY of the Int'l Scripts, but alas, NO! Not even the draw layer works (but it does work better than the main program!!!) +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ + + Any thing I say may be taken as + + Leonard Rosenthol + fact, then again you might decide+ + President, LazerWare, inc. + that it really isn't, so you + + + never know, do you?? + + leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu + + + GEnie: MACgician + + + Delphi: MACgician + + + + + +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (05/13/88)
In article <5246@pucc.Princeton.EDU> 6029334@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >What about equations...does FWP have an 'math typesetting' facilities >similar to or better than Words? (I know Words are pretty basic, but >for many things it beats the cut&paste approach of DA's etc. NO flames >please - I know about Tex.) No; they recommend buying one of the various equation-writing DAs and placing the output in a FullWrite sidebar. "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!" --- 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! <*>
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/13/88)
In article <12788@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes: >I did some digging with TMON (and removed the demo text from my demo version) >and found out that FullWrite uses packed code resources. It checks if the code >is packed and unpacks every time it loads from disk. Unfortunately it has a lot >of code resources to unpack when it starts up, so it is very slow. Fortunately >it does check first if the code is packed (I bet they use an unpacked version >of FullWrite at Ann Arbor and Aston Tate). I wrote a small FKEY that saves a >code resource once that it has been unpacked. It worked fine, but I haven't had >time to do any serious experimenting. Of course an unpacked version of FullWrite >no longer fits on a disk, but then again...who cares. Packed CODE????? How did they do this, and how do I undo it, FullWrite,, takes too long to load. Perhaps that nice person from the DBase Mac team who I've seen on the board could tell us net.people how to make our copies of FWP even better by explaining how we could unpack the code. 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)
>I agree that you want QuicKeys anyway, but if you look, you'll find that every >menu item is accessible from the keyboard using cmd-n,cmd-m where n and m are >integers corresponding to the menu (left to right) and the item (without an >explicit cmd-key equivalent) from top to bottom. It's even discussed in the >help file under Walk-Down menus. Very true. But when I'm in a hurry, multiple key sequences are a pain (it's hard to be in too much of a hurry with FWP, though), and with all those function keys sitting there on my Datadesk, well..... >Dennis Cohen >Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division >dBASE Mac Development Team Hmm.... That company sounds familiar..... 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.
fisher@gazelle..UUCP (Chuck Fisher) (05/14/88)
When I talked to the product manager for FullWrite a couple of weeks ago I asked him about the inability to keep lines of text or paragraphs together on the same page. He remarked that they had indeed been aware of the problem and said that they would try and have a solution implemented in the next release due this fall. Chuck
ecs165s052@deneb.ucdavis.edu (0000;0000013882;4000;250;216;ecs165s) (05/16/88)
In article <12788@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes: >I did some digging with TMON (and removed the demo text from my demo version) >and found out that FullWrite uses packed code resources. It checks if the code >is packed and unpacks every time it loads from disk. Unfortunately it has a lot >of code resources to unpack when it starts up, so it is very slow. Fortunately >it does check first if the code is packed (I bet they use an unpacked version >of FullWrite at Ann Arbor and Aston Tate). I wrote a small FKEY that saves a >code resource once that it has been unpacked. It worked fine, but I haven't had >time to do any serious experimenting. Of course an unpacked version of FullWrite >no longer fits on a disk, but then again...who cares. PLEASE!!!!! POST THIS FKEY!!!!!!!! Since FullWrite won't run on floppies anyway, why doesn't Ashton Tate make an "installer" like PageMaker 3.0 that would do this trick. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Registrar: from the latin "registrarum" meaning "screw the student" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeMichillie |{ucbvax, lll-crg, sdcsvax} lgdemichillie@ucdavis.edu | !ucdavis!lgdemichillie or ecs165s052@ucdavis.edu | AppleLink : ST0178 | ----------------------------------------------------------------
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (05/16/88)
I haven't got the official FullWrite release yet (I'm one of those
pre-paid customers), but I have had some chance to play around with
the pre-release version. There are comments that it is much more
intuitive than Word, and that may well be. I unfortunately found
the pre-release version *much* too slow, especially for larger
documents, and too buggy to do ant serious work in. However, I
did notice that one particular command certainly is not more
intuitive than Word. In Word, shift-arrow is used to extend a
selection, in the same way shift can be used in many other ways
in other program to extend a selection. Why in the world did
FullWrite decide to use cmd-arrow. That is not standard in the
Mac user interface.
I'm prepared to switch, but I sure hope the release version is faster
and can handle large documents better...
--
Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst
Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}dalcs!aucs!Peter
BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDUb39756@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.JUNET (Martin J. Duerst) (05/17/88)
leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (Leonard Rosenthol) writes in comp.sys.mac >jmunkki@santra.UUCP(Juri Munkki) writes in comp.sys.mac > >{Lots and Lots Removed (about compression of CODE ressources)} > >>I would REALLY like to get in touch with the developers of FullWrite. (E-Mail >>would be great and TeleFAX is ok...) I'd like to help them internationalize >>FullWrite because we need a version with Finnish hyphenation and probably >>a Finnish spelling checker too. So, if you know how to contact them, please >>tell me how. > Don't hold your breath!! Unfortunately, do to many things that they had >to do to get FullWrite to be FullWrite, they had to do some things that will/do >make internationalization VERY difficult (if not impossible!). I (and others_) >had discussions with them relatively early in development about Script Manager >compat and the answer was IMPOSSIBLE!! I don't belive that exactly. > I wish I could get it to work at least 'sort of' with ANY of the Int'l >Scripts, but alas, NO! Not even the draw layer works (but it does work better >than the main program!!!) Here is an idea that could help to solve a lot of problems with the internationalization of FullWrite and many other Word Processors(WP). It is very clear that elaborated WP don't use the (new) TextEdit and the ScriptManager because their (relative) lack of speed and functionality. On the other hand, many users in the US and in many other countries would shurely appreciate it if they can use non-roman characters in their documents. So why not create a new category of document parts, in the same way as may be graphics, tables, headers, footnotes, etc., are part of the document. As for graphics, where e.g. Word 3.0.x just lets Quickdraw draw a picture on screen or paper without caring about its contents, text in non-roman scripts could be treated in a similar way. Instead of calling Quickdraw, the WP would call TextEdit. As the script depends on the font, it is very easy to make this changement between WP code and TE (allmost) transparent. Also, speed is not affected for pure Roman-Script users, because in this case the only additional check needed is to see wether a font selected by the user has script Roman or not. For users that just want to insert small blocks of foreign text, e.g. linguists that write an English thesis with foreign-language examples, the preformance degradation will not be significant, but the additional functionality very, very valuable. (This is, with some tricks, allmost possible in WriteNow (don't know about the other WP). Using a Script Manager compatible draw program, you 'draw' the text you want, then cut and paste it into the document as an inline graphic. Unfortunately, the margin for the inline graphic is too big and blows up the corresp. lines, but I am shure there are ways to correct this.) For users that write a document completly in a non-roman script, the speed, as well as the functionality, will degrade, but this will depend on the properties of the individual script. A lot of the nice features of the WP can still be used, although sometimes not without tricks. Tabulators for example, not included in the new TE, can be used by taking a tab in a Roman-Script font. As for users with languages like Finish, German, French, etc., where the script is the same as for English, and where the main problems are spelling and hyphenation, most WP nowadays have two alternative dictionaries for British and American English, and if some additional code (for different scanning strategies/word endings) is included in these dictionary files instead of being built into the WP, it will not be very difficult to internationalize these programs. (I'm not considering the economic aspects (how many users are needed to make producing a foreign dictionary profitable) nor the linguistic aspects (spelling checkers are much more difficult for most other languages than for english), but only the software engineering aspects, which seem to be farely simple.) This is only an idea, and I don't know if it really works, but if not, I would like to hear why not. Also, if any (or many, or all) WP companies want to adopt any of the ideas in this article, please feel free to do so (the sooner, the better). Martin J. Duerst, Graduate Student, Kunii Lab., Dept. of Inf. Sc., Fac. of Sc., Univ. of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, 113 Tokyo, Japan
leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (05/18/88)
b39756@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.JUNET(Martin J. Duerst) writes in comp.sys.mac >leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (Leonard Rosenthol) writes in comp.sys.mac > >>jmunkki@santra.UUCP(Juri Munkki) writes in comp.sys.mac >> >>{Lots and Lots Removed (about compression of CODE ressources)} >> >>>I would REALLY like to get in touch with the developers of FullWrite. (E-Mail >>>would be great and TeleFAX is ok...) I'd like to help them internationalize >>>FullWrite because we need a version with Finnish hyphenation and probably >>>a Finnish spelling checker too. So, if you know how to contact them, please >>>tell me how. >> Don't hold your breath!! Unfortunately, do to many things that they had >>to do to get FullWrite to be FullWrite, they had to do some things that will/do >>make internationalization VERY difficult (if not impossible!). I (and others_) >>had discussions with them relatively early in development about Script Manager >>compat and the answer was IMPOSSIBLE!! > > I don't belive that exactly. > Well let me try to explain it to you as best as possible. In order for software to be Script Manager compatable, it needs to follow certain guidelines that Apple has put together. If if does not follow these guidelines, it may or may not be compatable depending on how far from the guidelines it differs. For example MacWrite is not truly Script manager compatable, but yet you can do some very simple foriegn word processing without too much difficulty with it. MS Word n the other hand is a noted rule-breaker and it shows when trying to use it with any of the international scripts. >> I wish I could get it to work at least 'sort of' with ANY of the Int'l >>Scripts, but alas, NO! Not even the draw layer works (but it does work better >>than the main program!!!) > > Here is an idea that could help to solve a lot of problems with the >internationalization of FullWrite and many other Word Processors(WP). >It is very clear that elaborated WP don't use the (new) TextEdit and >the ScriptManager because their (relative) lack of speed and functionality. >On the other hand, many users in the US and in many other countries >would shurely appreciate it if they can use non-roman characters in >their documents. > So why not create a new category of document parts, in the same way as >may be graphics, tables, headers, footnotes, etc., are part of the >document. As for graphics, where e.g. Word 3.0.x just lets Quickdraw >draw a picture on screen or paper without caring about its contents, >text in non-roman scripts could be treated in a similar way. Instead >of calling Quickdraw, the WP would call TextEdit. >As the script depends on the font, it is very easy to >make this changement between WP code and TE (allmost) transparent. >Also, speed is not affected for pure Roman-Script users, because in this >case the only additional check needed is to see wether a font selected >by the user has script Roman or not. Can you say, UGH!!! First of you no Word Processor would EVER use TextEdit (New (styled) or otherwise as it is too underpowered to be useful) and secondly you are making the asssumption that TextEdit is Script Manager compatable. (Contrary to the docmentation (IMV), the new Styled TE IS NOT compatable - So says that author of the Script Manager (Mark Davis at Apple)) What needs to be done is for developers (not matter what they are developing) be it Word Processors or Math Packages, to follows that internationalization guidelines, and to use the routines in teh Script manager so that their code can be used in other countries and in other languages. > For users that just want to insert small blocks of foreign text, e.g. >linguists that write an English thesis with foreign-language examples, >the preformance degradation will not be significant, but the additional >functionality very, very valuable. > (This is, with some tricks, allmost > possible in WriteNow (don't know about the other WP). Using a Script > Manager compatible draw program, you 'draw' the text you want, then cut > and paste it into the document as an inline graphic. Unfortunately, > the margin for the inline graphic is too big and blows up the corresp. > lines, but I am shure there are ways to correct this.) Using the graphic method is not a bad work around in many cases, but what I have found is that most of the WP's out there will at least allow text Entry in a foreign script for small items, but later editing can be a PAIN!! > As for users with languages like Finish, German, French, etc., where the >script is the same as for English, and where the main problems are spelling >and hyphenation, most WP nowadays have two alternative dictionaries for >British and American English, and if some additional code (for different >scanning strategies/word endings) is included in these dictionary files >instead of being built into the WP, it will not be very difficult to >internationalize these programs. > (I'm not considering the economic > aspects (how many users are needed to make producing a foreign dictionary > profitable) nor the linguistic aspects (spelling checkers are much more > difficult for most other languages than for english), but only the > software engineering aspects, which seem to be farely simple.) > Ah, but that's the problem!! You would need specialized code for each different languae to be implemented in your program on a generalized method of retrieving such information from the dictionary or associated file. This is the nice thing with the Script Manager, the program writes ONE program and it does not matter if it will be used in Kanji, Hebrew or Malayalam. >This is only an idea, and I don't know if it really works, but if not, >I would like to hear why not. Also, if any (or many, or all) WP >companies want to adopt any of the ideas in this article, please >feel free to do so (the sooner, the better). > It doesn't as discussed above, but thanks for the ideas anyway... +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ + + Any thing I say may be taken as + + Leonard Rosenthol + fact, then again you might decide+ + President, LazerWare, inc. + that it really isn't, so you + + + never know, do you?? + + leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu + + + GEnie: MACgician + + + Delphi: MACgician + + + + + +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) (05/21/88)
In article <1942@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.JUNET> b39756@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.JUNET (Martin J. Duerst) writes: > So why not create a new category of document parts, in the same way as >may be graphics, tables, headers, footnotes, etc., are part of the >document. As for graphics, where e.g. Word 3.0.x just lets Quickdraw >draw a picture on screen or paper without caring about its contents, >text in non-roman scripts could be treated in a similar way. Instead >of calling Quickdraw, the WP would call TextEdit. A very good idea... > As for users with languages like Finish, German, French, etc., where the >script is the same as for English, and where the main problems are spelling >and hyphenation, most WP nowadays have two alternative dictionaries for >British and American English, and if some additional code (for different >scanning strategies/word endings) is included in these dictionary files >instead of being built into the WP, it will not be very difficult to >internationalize these programs. The right way to do it is to create a standard interface between the word processor and hyphenator/spelling checker module. I posted my proposal in comp.sys.mac.programmer a few months ago. The goal was not to force a strict standard, but to generate talk about a need for such a standard. I hoped that Apple would be interested in this aspect of localization, but as the local Apple people told me, Apple isn't really interested in the international market. I guess it's all just marketing hype. > (I'm not considering the economic > aspects (how many users are needed to make producing a foreign dictionary > profitable) nor the linguistic aspects (spelling checkers are much more A standard interface would solve this problem. It would also help users choose the best word processor and spelling checker separately instead of having to live with the choices that someone else made when developing a program. The programmer probably had other reasons besides quality, when he/she chose the spelling/hyphenation routines. > difficult for most other languages than for english), but only the > software engineering aspects, which seem to be farely simple.) Writing a spelling checker for Finnish is a very hard task, but fortunately the government was interested in creating one. I believe the original program was written in LISP and later on ported to the PC. Everyone agrees that TEKO+, which includes MORFO (the spelling checker) is the worst PC word processor in the market, but the Finnish government has declared it a standard. This spring they decided the Mac was important enough to benefit from MORFO, so they started porting TEKO+ to the Macintosh...I can guess what that will lead to. They even asked if I was interested in writing the program or helping them. I told them that they had the wrong approach to the problem. Juri Munkki Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre jmunkki@santra.hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet Disclaimer: Hey, what do I know about these things anyway? P.S. We got our FullWrite yesterday. I had to add modified international resources and the license agreement clearly states that the program should only be used in the US or Canada. I guess we'll have to do our own product support.