bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (07/14/90)
In article <3596@zorba.Tynan.COM> uunet!maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca!art (Art Mulder) writes: >Hello all, I manage a Microvax II runing 4.3 BSD unix. It is rather under >used, so I am considering getting Wordperfect for it. I was wondering if >anyone out there in net land has any experience with wordperfect under UNIX >that they can share with me. > - I understand that 4.2 is the most recent WOrdperfect release for unix. I have just have my first experience with WP - running 5.0 under SCO Xenix, so the WP 5 should be out for Unix, if not now, soon. >My questions: > 1) how well does it work with different terminals? ie: most of our > terminals do not have function keys, so the WP commands would have to > be <Ctrl> key combinations to work for us. The terminals we are using are DASI terminals. Dual ports, with a polled select environment to a Burroughs mini, and the RS232 ports to an ACER 1100 with Digiboards serial ports. The DASI emulates a Vt100. Since the original WP on the PC was designed to use 10 (or more) function keys, in combination with shift, alt, and cntrl to give a minimum of 40 function keys this is the approach that WP uses on these terminals. On Vt100s you can set the keypad to application mode. The 9 key becomes help, and 6 becomes exit. The PF1 thru PF4 keys are used as lead in sequence keys to the needed commands. A sequence might be PF1 - NumKey 4 for example. Thus all commands, execept help and exit, are two key strokes. No real problem since most of the WP commands in the PC require holding the cnt,alt, or shift and pressing a function key. > 2) is it horribly slow compared to Wordperfect on the PC? Can't answer that because I have avoided WP on the PC - but seems to work just fine in this environment. > 3) is the command structure similar to that of wordperfect on the PC's? There was a DOS partition that everyone was using until the Xenix side was brought up. The only difference is the using a color monitor in DOS all fancy stuff, bold, undeline, etc, was done with colors. On these DASIs the only things we can do are bold and underline but they appear that way on the screen. That's the only difference the users saw. > 4) any personal opinions? Yup! I don't like wordprocessors that encode their files. It makes it a pain to transport them elsewhere in the Unix environment. But that doesn't mean much for a lot of users. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
marks%mgse@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Mark Seiffert) (07/14/90)
In article <3596@zorba.Tynan.COM> you write: >Hello all, I manage a Microvax II runing 4.3 BSD unix. It is rather under >used, so I am considering getting Wordperfect for it. I was wondering if >anyone out there in net land has any experience with wordperfect under UNIX >that they can share with me. > - I understand that 4.2 is the most recent WOrdperfect release for unix. We have Unix 5.0 in house now, i go to work tomorrow (or this morning) to install it. The wp binary is 1.5MB, the first user requires 1.2MB to run and each additional user requires 512k. >My questions: > 1) how well does it work with different terminals? ie: most of our > terminals do not have function keys, so the WP commands would have to > be <Ctrl> key combinations to work for us. <Ctrl> or <Ctrl><Shift> works on one of the terminals we have, the rest all have F-keys. > 2) is it horribly slow compared to Wordperfect on the PC? That depends if you call in on a modem at 300 baud, or on a terminal at 38.4K baud. Of course, you are not going to be as fast as a PC, the PC version writes directly to video RAM. > 3) is the command structure similar to that of wordperfect on the PC's? Yes, very similiar if the keyboard are like the PC and the terminal is able to provide the correct key responses back to the Unix system. We are using Link MC5 terminals (mostly), they have a <Alt> key, but the terminal does not use it in wyse60 emulation, so WP is not able to use it. WP50 is supposed to be able to display graphics on Wyse 60 and VT220 terminals. > 4) any personal opinions? The install is on Sat., i just have to see graphics on a ASCII terminal. We have used 4.0 for quite some time, and overall it is a good product considering the environment it is used to running on. > >thanx for any help you can give! >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Art Mulder, art@maccs.DCSS.mcmaster.ca ( <- best), art@maccs.uucp, > ...neat.ai.toronto.edu!maccs!art uwocc1gate%"art@maccs.uucp" >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Mark Seiffert, Metairie, LA. uucp: rex.cs.tulane.edu!mgse!marks or rex!mgse!marks bitnet: marks%mgse@REX.CS.TULANE.EDU internet: marks%mgse@rex.cs.tulane.edu
lagaipa%moncol@princeton.edu (Joseph La Gaipa) (07/14/90)
I can offer that we at Monmouth College have a license for 100 users on our Administrative Computer which is a DEC 5810 under Ultrix. We we recently BETA users prior to the production release. Currently our 5810 is being setup under the DATATEL administrative software and WP4.2 for wordprocessing. WP 4.2 is working well. Currently we only have about 16 users because it's early in the coversion process but performance is outstanding. WP4.2 provides numerous terminal interfaces which fall in three categories. Recommended, Supported, and workable but not recommended. I think anything without function keys would be difficult to use. I use a PC emulating a VT220 over Ethernet PC/TCP. This works nice, however I had to make my own template since two mappings were involved. Key combinations are however different than the PC combinations that I am use to on the PC version. Its a little awkward at first.
prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) (10/11/90)
In article <3673@zorba.Tynan.COM>, bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes: > I have just have my first experience with WP - running 5.0 under SCO Xenix, so > the WP 5 should be out for Unix, if not now, soon. SCO Xenix is the first port. After it, NCR Tower, Sun and 88open BCS will follow in rapid succession with further ports coming. > > 2) is it horribly slow compared to Wordperfect on the PC? > > Can't answer that because I have avoided WP on the PC - but seems to work just > fine in this environment. I use it on a Wyse 185 terminal at 38.4 Kbps off a Xylogics Annex II terminal server. Its screen updates are not as fast as on a PC (nothing can be -- hosts usually don't have access to the terminal's screen memory), but almost, and many other things, such as spell checking and searching, are magnitudes faster than on a PC. > > 4) any personal opinions? > > Yup! I don't like wordprocessors that encode their files. It makes it a pain > to transport them elsewhere in the Unix environment. But that doesn't mean > much for a lot of users. WordPerfect encodes its files in a character-set and machine independent format so that files can be moved freely between systems without the need to convert them. -- Robert Claeson |Reasonable mailers: rclaeson@erbe.se ERBE DATA AB | Dumb mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@sunet.se | Perverse mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@encore.com These opinions reflect my personal views and not those of my employer (ask him).