erik@nososl.UUCP (Jan Erik Sevland) (07/30/90)
Do anybody know about UNIX implementations of current (popular) PC wordprocessors like : Microsoft Word Word Perfect etc. Hope this question is'nt too trivial. Jan Erik -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Jan Erik Sevland | erik%nososl@nac.no | | Nordic Offshore Systems a.s. | uunet!mcsun!sunic!nuug!nososl!erik | | P.box. 185, N-1321 Stabekk, NORWAY | (47 2) fax: 125401 voice: 125580 |
lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) (07/31/90)
In article <60@nososl.UUCP> erik%nososl@nac.no (Jan Erik Sevland) writes: >Do anybody know about UNIX implementations of current (popular) >PC wordprocessors like : > Word Perfect We have Word Putrid running on our 3b2/1000's under SVR3.2. "Ugly" doesn't even come close to describing it ... -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,cbmvax,mips}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca Practice Safe Government Use Kingdoms
dold@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold) (08/01/90)
in article <13@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>, lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) says: > We have Word Putrid running on our 3b2/1000's under SVR3.2. "Ugly" > doesn't even come close to describing it ... Compared to what? If you have a keyboard that looks anything like a PC keyboard, it looks a lot like the MS-DOS WordPerfect. If you don't like that, that's another story. The keyboard mapping for the vt100 was a little hard to get used to. It wasn't until after I used it via MS-Kermit, with the "natural" keyboard that I learned how to use it properly, then the vt100 keyboard made sense. Again, "ugly" verses your favorite, which is ??? -- --- Clarence A Dold - dold@tsmiti.Convergent.COM (408) 435-5293 ...pyramid!ctnews!tsmiti!dold FAX (408) 435-3105 P.O.Box 6685, San Jose, CA 95150-6685 MS#10-007
lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) (08/03/90)
dold@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold) writes: >> We have Word Putrid running on our 3b2/1000's under SVR3.2. "Ugly" >> doesn't even come close to describing it ... >Again, "ugly" verses your favorite, which is ??? troff. (You were expecting me to say "WGS" maybe? ;-) W.P. is a pig for system resources. Try running a couple of spell checks in parallel on the above machines. We have one of them dedicated to running W.P. jobs. It's configured with 4 CPU's. Can you say "MIPS?" Well, running a pair of W.P. spell jobs is sufficient to bring the machine to its knees. I'm not impressed :-( Besides, I administer the mailers around here. Ever seen sendmail try to deal with a WP document file :-( Gotta go, the card reader's ready for the next stack ... -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,cbmvax,mips}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca Practice Safe Government Use Kingdoms
kevin@utekza.UUCP (Kevin Gribble) (08/03/90)
In article <60@nososl.UUCP> erik%nososl@nac.no (Jan Erik Sevland) writes: > > %Do anybody know about UNIX implementations of current (popular) %PC wordprocessors like : % % Microsoft Word % Word Perfect % etc. % % %Hope this question is'nt too trivial. % %Jan Erik There is now Wordperfect Ver.5.0 available for Unix, but exactly for which Unix I am not to sure. According to the June issue of the Byte magazine, they have released version 5.0 of micrsoft Word for Unix. Kevin Gribble kevin@utekza.UUCP
bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey) (08/05/90)
In article <10@utekza.UUCP> kevin@utekza.UUCP (Kevin Gribble) writes: >In article <60@nososl.UUCP> erik%nososl@nac.no (Jan Erik Sevland) writes: >%Do anybody know about UNIX implementations of current (popular) >%PC wordprocessors like : >% Microsoft Word >% Word Perfect >There is now Wordperfect Ver.5.0 available for Unix, but exactly for which >Unix I am not to sure. According to the June issue of the Byte magazine, >they have released version 5.0 of micrsoft Word for Unix. WordPerfect 5.0 is available for SCO Xenix, SCO Unix and about to be released on several other environments. It works very much like WordPerfect 5.0 on a PC. AND, will even allow graphics to a basically non-graphics terminal such as a Wyse 60. It will do a page preview using the graphics mode of the terminal. Really slick looking. You appear to have a graphics terminal. It is not particually quick in the graphics mode (which you would expect) depending on your line speed. Hope this helps. ... bob willey, cdp ... -- >.. CCS Enterprises, Inc. .. Bob Willey, CDP ..< >.. P.O. Drawer 1690 .. uunet!consult!bob ..< >.. Easton, Maryland 21601 .. (301) 820-4670 ..< >.......................BBS: (301) 476-5098.....................<
alan@mq.UUCP (Alan H. Mintz) (08/06/90)
In article <10@utekza.UUCP>, kevin@utekza.UUCP (Kevin Gribble) writes: > In article <60@nososl.UUCP> erik%nososl@nac.no (Jan Erik Sevland) writes: > > > > > %Do anybody know about UNIX implementations of current (popular) > %PC wordprocessors like : > % > % Microsoft Word > % Word Perfect > % etc. > % > % > %Hope this question is'nt too trivial. > % > %Jan Erik From the WordPerfect Corp. technical docs: Memory Requirements: WP 4.2 WP5.0 ------ -------- 1st User 634K 1.6M !!! Each Add'tl user 258K 385K These figures are for SCO XENIX 386 (the only supported UNIX platform for 5.0 as of May 1990). I would seriously evaluate the need for the additional features found in 5.0 versus the bizarre memory requirement difference. As far as Word is concerned, there have been mumblings about problems with dropped keystrokes. One of my customers experienced this with 4.0 (I think) and another gent I spoke with in Australia had the same problem. It seems to be some kind of interaction between an un-orthodox method of keystroke handling and certain brands of multi-port serial cards (the problem does not occur on the console). -- < Alan H. Mintz | Voice +1 714 980 1034 > < Micro-Quick Systems, Inc. | FAX +1 714 944 3995 > < 10384 Hillside Road | uunet: mq!alan > < Alta Loma, CA 91701 USA | Internet: [pending] >
tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain) (08/06/90)
In article <29@mq.UUCP> alan@mq.UUCP (Alan H. Mintz) writes: >Memory Requirements: > WP 4.2 WP5.0 >1st User 634K 1.6M !!! Hmm, amazing it works under DOS! Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT represent IBM tif@doorstop, sc30661@ausvm6 512/838-7008 | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) (08/07/90)
In article <13@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >In article <60@nososl.UUCP> erik%nososl@nac.no (Jan Erik Sevland) writes: >>Do anybody know about UNIX implementations of current (popular) >>PC wordprocessors like : >> Word Perfect > >We have Word Putrid running on our 3b2/1000's under SVR3.2. "Ugly" >doesn't even come close to describing it ... >-- > Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University > {alberta,cbmvax,mips}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca I feel honour-bound to defend WordPerfect. I use WordPerfect all through my day to write a variety of documents for internal use as well as presentation use. It drives my LaserJet II perfectly, and produces excellent output without hassle. Many of our clients also use. And we all use it under Unix. I am really impressed with WordPerfect as a word processor and productivity aid. #include <std.disclaimer> -------------------- David | mason@oct1 (David M Mason) | olsa99!oct1!mason@ddsw1.mcs.com