ericson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (04/22/87)
Diane@st138ak.UCSD.EDU writes: [deletions...] >(3) hardware - Mac Plus or hold out for the Mac II? > (a) is it possible to get a Mac Plus with a hard disk? I don't > really want to deal with teaching people how to continually > swap disks if it can be avoided > (b) while the Mac II sounds great (especially the eventual UNIX > possibilities), what's the difference in cost between a > comparable memory Mac Plus and the Mac II? Also, when are > the Mac IIs going to be available? While many are excited by the Mac II, You should realize that this is like buying a Sun or a MicroVax II - it is a HIGH end machine. Besides, Apple has repeatedly said that it won't be available in any quantity until late in the year. I would suggest you look into the new Mac SE. It has two internal disks (one of them can be a 20 Meg hard disk) it has an internal fan, choice of keyboards, and the SE (systems expansion) slot. I think this combination has a lot to offer, and when compared to a Mac plus with an external Apple, hard disk, is a good deal. Besides, they're available NOW!! A low end Mac II will cost nearly twice as much as a Mac Plus or Mac SE because of the full expandability and high-performance chips, which will mostly unused by your set of applications. >Thanks for your help in advance. Well I hope it helps... Stuart Ericson {ihnp4,convex,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!ericson ericson@a.cs.uiuc.edu
cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (04/24/87)
I don't think that the power of the MAC II would be wasted even on something as mundane(sp) as wordprocessing. Consider a problem I ran into trying to change the font of a 32 page document using MAC Write and a MAC Plus. It took the machine over 30 minutes to change the font from Geneva to Monaco. For more than 30 minutes I had to wait and watch the watch! Even if the new MAC II is 6 times the speed of the MAC Plus, I would still have 5 minutes... Enough time to get a mug of coffee and read the paper. /Carl uucp: ...decvax!mcnc!unccvax!cbenda
jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) (04/24/87)
In article <690@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: > Consider a problem I ran into trying to change the font of a >32 page document using MAC Write and a MAC Plus. It took the machine >over 30 minutes to change the font from Geneva to Monaco. Your problem is that you would even c o n s i d e r using MacWrite for a n y word processing operation. :-) Flip side, joe piazza --- Cogito ergo equus sum.
RLWALD@pucc.Princeton.EDU (? ?) (04/25/87)
In article <690@unccvax.UUCP>, cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: > I don't think that the power of the MAC II would be wasted even >on something as mundane(sp) as wordprocessing. > Consider a problem I ran into trying to change the font of a >32 page document using MAC Write and a MAC Plus. It took the machine >over 30 minutes to change the font from Geneva to Monaco. > For more than 30 minutes I had to wait and watch the watch! Even if >the new MAC II is 6 times the speed of the MAC Plus, I would still >have 5 minutes... Enough time to get a mug of coffee and read the >paper. Ah, but Apple has neatly stepped around this problem with the Mac II. By making it incompatible with MacWrite, it forces you to use a word processor that can do such a change swiftly. So the Mac II will do it even swifterly. -Rob Wald Bitnet: RLWALD@PUCC.BITNET "BLAM! BLAM!, Uucp: {ihnp4|allegra}!psuvax1!PUCC.BITNET!RLWALD Avon calling." Arpa: RLWALD@PUCC.Princeton.Edu "They're unfriendly,which is fortunate,really. They'd be difficult to like"-Avon "Its Sulphuric Acid, you're soaking in it" -Dark Madge
cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) (04/26/87)
In article <3124@sunybcs.UUCP>, jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: > In article <690@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: > > Consider a problem I ran into trying to change the font of a > >32 page document using MAC Write and a MAC Plus. It took the machine > >over 30 minutes to change the font from Geneva to Monaco. > > Your problem is that you would even c o n s i d e r using MacWrite > for a n y word processing operation. :-) > Tell me this Joe, why does MS Word take 7 minutes to repaginate a 91k document on a MAC Plus, and another 3 to save the document. I hate to think what will happen when my thesis is 300 pages, let alone 61 measly pages. I am not sure about other users out there, but for me, the MAC II can not arrive soon enough. Hopefully that machine will reduce disk I/O by 80%. /Carl ...mcnc!unccvax!cbenda The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules....
gustav@swanee.UUCP (04/29/87)
In article <692@unccvax.UUCP>, cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: > > Tell me this Joe, why does MS Word take 7 minutes to repaginate a > 91k document on a MAC Plus, and another 3 to save the document. I hate to > think what will happen when my thesis is 300 pages, let alone 61 measly > pages. I am not sure about other users out there, but for me, the MAC II > can not arrive soon enough. Hopefully that machine will reduce disk I/O > by 80%. > It's not a productive idea to use wysiwyg for writing 300 pages long documents like books or theses. To use TeX or troff is much faster and easier. You can get TeX for Mac these days (which is apparently a very good implementation). Why not to have a go at it? ARPA : gustav%swanee.oz@seismo.css.gov UUCP : ...!{seismo,mcvax,ucb-vision,uks}!munnari!swanee.oz!gustav
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (04/30/87)
In article <690@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP writes: > I don't think that the power of the MAC II would be wasted even ^ `-- surely, you DO think (judging by what follows)? >on something as mundane(sp) as wordprocessing. > Consider a problem I ran into trying to change the font of a >32 page document using MAC Write and a MAC Plus. It took the machine >over 30 minutes to change the font from Geneva to Monaco. Nobody in their right mind uses MacWrite for serious word processing, by which I mean several hours a day, every day, of variegated work. As you have already discovered, while MacWrite can be used to successfully create large and even quite complex documents, it is of little use for all sorts of document processing tasks, such as global font change. Hence the creation of numerous MacWrite helpers, e.g. (in this case) FaceLift which was recently posted to the net. > For more than 30 minutes I had to wait and watch the watch! Even if >the new MAC II is 6 times the speed of the MAC Plus, I would still >have 5 minutes... Enough time to get a mug of coffee and read the >paper. As it happens, MacWrite in it's current form won't run on the Mac II. But yes, you would be crazy to buy a Mac II to do word processing alone unless you derived sufficient benefit to justify the cost. However, the Mac II stands a good chance of becoming the desk-top publishing workstation of choice, and word processing is a major component of DTP. In this case the Mac II, but not MacWrite, would be an excellent choice for word processing. Now, if only Microsoft could get the font stuff right .... <<word processing would be so much more fun if there were fewer letters>> -- Robert Stanley decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts Voice: (613) 738-1440 (on EST) Tuesdays only don't ask-----' Cognos Inc., 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 3N3 CANADA
anson@elrond.CalComp.COM (Ed Anson) (05/01/87)
In article <324@swanee.OZ> gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) writes: >In article <692@unccvax.UUCP>, cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: >> >> Tell me this Joe, why does MS Word take 7 minutes to repaginate a >> 91k document on a MAC Plus, and another 3 to save the document. I hate to >> think what will happen when my thesis is 300 pages, let alone 61 measly >> pages. I am not sure about other users out there, but for me, the MAC II >> can not arrive soon enough. Hopefully that machine will reduce disk I/O >> by 80%. >> >It's not a productive idea to use wysiwyg for writing 300 pages long >documents like books or theses. To use TeX or troff is much faster and >easier. I beg to differ! To me, the larger (and more complex) the document is, the more important it is to have wysiwyg. Having done it both ways, I feel confident in that opinion. As for the time required to load and store large documents: That's rather unfortunate. But you needn't spend all that money for a faster computer just for that reason. Simply break the document into a separate file per chapter, and most of your problems are solved with a lot less expense. If you bought the Word 3.0 upgrade (of course, you did), you can easily chain the separate documents together for printing. Of course, if you're looking for an excuse to buy the Mac II... :-) Generally, I've found that most problems can be solved better by smarter software than by faster hardware. (Not always -- just usually.) Anybody at Microsoft listening? -- ===================================================================== Ed Anson, Calcomp Display Products Division, Hudson NH 03051 (603) 885-8712, UUCP: [decvax, wanginst, savax]!elrond!anson (Just blame me; my boss isn't even certain about just what I do.)
cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (05/06/87)
In article <324@swanee.OZ>, gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) writes: > It's not a productive idea to use wysiwyg for writing 300 pages long > documents like books or theses. To use TeX or troff is much faster and > easier. You can get TeX for Mac these days (which is apparently a very > good implementation). Why not to have a go at it? > Horse hockey. My job is typing papers, and I've used both systems. TeX or troff/eqn is quicker and more straigtforward for TYPING mathematics (so far: I haven't experimented with the new Word's way of formatting math yet), but troff is a real pain in the ass compared to wysiwyg for formatting and typing plain text. First of all, formatting troff is far from instantaneous. If, for example, you have a 40-page document, you have to wait a good while for the thing to be formatted before it will print out. Then, if you found out you've made a mistake on, say, page 20, the computer has to completely reformat the first 19 pages again before page 20 can print out! There is a lot MORE time involved here than in pagination and saving with Word. I guess you could format once with troff, cat the file into postscript, and then edit that, but what a pain in the butt; in addition, you'd have to edit your text file too (to keep things straight). As of yet there is no troff previewer (at least none around here), so you can't preview things to prevent having to print everything out first to make sure you got everything right. Second, special page numbering formats (which have to be used in theses and dissertations) are so much easier to create in the new Word; with troff, you have to learn how to create macros, etc. There's simply no question that the new Word is better than using troff/eqn. cheers, from charles s. geiger ARPA: cgeiger@ngp.cc.utexas.edu cgeiger@ut-ngp.ARPA UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!cgeiger allegra!ut-ngp!cgeiger gatech!ut-ngp!cgeiger seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger
willc@tekchips.UUCP (05/08/87)
In article <5149@ut-ngp.UUCP> cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) writes: >In article <324@swanee.OZ>, gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) writes: >> It's not a productive idea to use wysiwyg for writing 300 pages long >> documents like books or theses. To use TeX or troff is much faster and >> easier. You can get TeX for Mac these days (which is apparently a very >> good implementation). Why not to have a go at it? >> >Horse hockey. My job is typing papers, and I've used both systems. >TeX or troff/eqn is quicker and more straigtforward for TYPING >mathematics (so far: I haven't experimented with the new Word's way of >formatting math yet), but troff is a real pain in the ass compared to >wysiwyg for formatting and typing plain text. [goes on to condemn troff, saying nothing more about TeX] Then let me speak up for TeX. A 300-page document is not that different from software: Consistency has to be maintained in the face of change, at the least while it is being written and possibly long beyond. A typical change is to use a different font for section headings throughout the document, while leaving other fonts alone. This is trivial in TeX but very tedious in Microsoft Word 1.05. (I haven't seen Word 3.0.) Properly used, TeX lets you delay all such stylistic decisions: page layout, fonts, indentation, spacing, items, tables, headings, footnotes, marginal notes, and so on. You can change such things globally by changing your style macros. Most wysiwyg systems handle a few of these things well but fall short of TeX's abilities. Furthermore TeX's hyphenation, line- and page-breaking algorithms are much better than those of any wysiwyg I've seen, so you don't have to spend as much time messing with such things when you change something. Finally, TeX gives finer control than Word 1.05, so if you care enough you can get better-looking output. I'll hardly even mention that TeX runs on a wide variety of machines. Have you seen Apple's new style of documentation? I suspect it would be a lot of work for Apple to convert from its old Word format to the new (which may also be done in Microsoft Word for all I know). Maybe that's why some of the new draft documents have some chapters in the old style and others in the new. I've been helping to maintain a programming language manual that was formatted using Microsoft Word 1.05. The use of Microsoft Word has made it too expensive for us to make significant stylistic improvements in the format. We have finally bitten the bullet and are now converting it to TeX format. We use TeXtures, which does indeed have a previewer. It also permits the inclusion of MacPaint pictures, et cetera. For large or highly technical documents I would recommend it over wysiwyg, especially for documents that will be maintained for some time. For short plain text documents I still use MacWrite because it is easier to use than Microsoft Word. Word 3.0 and similar products may be excellent for the vast middle ground, but my experience has been at the extremes. Peace, William Clinger