tim@int13.hf.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) (04/26/91)
lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: >Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? I have been >using MS Word for the Mac for quite a while now and would like something >similar for my 386sx as it has spoiled me :> Geee!!! It sounds like what you want is .... wait for it ... WORD FOR WINDOWS (by none other that Microsoft) >Also, I would like to be able to have some way of using my MS Word for Mac >files with it without having to retype them, but this is not really necessary. Again, Word for Windows (known as WfW or W4W or winword on the net) does the trick, it can import Word for the Mac files. Just a question. Where have you been that you have never heard of Word for Windows? Tim Forsyth -- Tim Forsyth, Intel Corp., Desktop Computer Division, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA Internet: tim@int13.intel.com or Tim_Forsyth@ccm.hf.intel.com CompuServe: 74040,2712 (checked once a week)
joec@Morgan.COM (Joe Collins) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr26.004923.8553@int13.hf.intel.com> tim@int13.hf.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: >lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: >>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? I have been >>using MS Word for the Mac for quite a while now and would like something >>similar for my 386sx as it has spoiled me :> > >Geee!!! It sounds like what you want is .... wait for it ... > > WORD FOR WINDOWS (by none other that Microsoft) > I use AmiPro (from LOTUS) and like it a lot. It is FULLY windows compatible and can import a wide variety of documents created by other word processors. It is WYSIWYG and has so many features I couldn't begin to list them. I'm just a happy customer of theirs (and the price was right - $20). Does anyone else use AmiPro? Have you seen any problems with it? I find it slow printing if I use a font/style my printer doesn't readily handle. AmiPro does handle it but is slow printing. If I stick with text my printer knows, its fine. BTW my printer is Panasonic KXP1124 (i.e. not a laser). Any AmiPro users out there? joec@morgan.com
kps@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Karthik P Sheka) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.004923.8553@int13.hf.intel.com> tim@int13.hf.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: >lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: >>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? I have been >>using MS Word for the Mac for quite a while now and would like something >>similar for my 386sx as it has spoiled me :> >Geee!!! It sounds like what you want is .... wait for it ... > WORD FOR WINDOWS (by none other that Microsoft) >>Also, I would like to be able to have some way of using my MS Word for Mac >>files with it without having to retype them, but this is not really necessary. >Again, Word for Windows (known as WfW or W4W or winword on the net) does the >trick, it can import Word for the Mac files. If you can wait a couple months, an alternative will be Word Perfect for Windows. Apparently, Word Perfect for Windows (WP4W?) can do everything that Word for Windows can do and also comes with an almost limitless supply of printer drivers and has a text mode similar to Word Perfect 5.1. I believe the current release date is in June. -X-X-/*Eat any good books lately? / kps@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu /*-X- X-X-/* / Karthik Sheka (//Bobby) /*-X-X -X-/* God is real, unless declared int. / Columbia University, NY /*-X-X- X-/* /____________ /*-X-X-X -/* Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat./_________________/*-X-X-X-
drp@dosbears.UUCP (David R. Preston) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.004923.8553@int13.hf.intel.com> tim@int13.hf.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: >lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: >>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? I have been >>using MS Word for the Mac for quite a while now... > >Geee!!! It sounds like what you want is .... wait for it ... > > WORD FOR WINDOWS (by none other that Microsoft) I'll second that. AMI Pro may be fine for people who've never seen a computer before, but W4W is a lot like W4Mac, only much better. Now if only someone would do something like MacDraw or MacDraft for Windows.... (yes, I know AMI Pro has a built-in draw program, but it's nowhere near as precise as MacDraft) -- David R. Preston drp%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com The world hadn't ever had so many moving parts or so few labels. D. R. Preston 584 Castro St. #614 SF CA 94114 USA
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (04/27/91)
In article <3116@s5.Morgan.COM> joec@Morgan.COM (Joe Collins) writes: >In article <1991Apr26.004923.8553@int13.hf.intel.com> tim@int13.hf.intel.com >(Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: >>lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: >>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? >> >>Geee!!! It sounds like what you want is .... wait for it ... >> WORD FOR WINDOWS (by none other that Microsoft) > >I use AmiPro (from LOTUS) and like it a lot. It is FULLY windows compatible >and can import a wide variety of documents created by other word processors. >It is WYSIWYG and has so many features I couldn't begin to list them. Both of these products are quite good, but different. I have little experience with Ami, so I invite others (like Joe) to supplement my observations on this product. As far as I can tell, Ami Professional is largely oriented to graphics design and desktop publishing. (It includes drawing tools and other things one normally doesn't associate with a word processor.) From what I hear, its interface is highly intuitive. On the other hand, Word for Windows is an extremely programmable text production environment. You can do things in WfW like create documents that prompt you for input. (If this doesn't sound too useful to you, think about the routine task of writing letters. There is a lot to a letter that's always the same, and then there are minor variations that need be introduced like the salutation.) The tradeoff on all this power is that WfW has a moderately steep learning curve. Luckily, the manual is quite good. Unfortunately, it's incomplete. (It doesn't cover the macrolanguage, WordBASIC.) WfW is an excellent choice if you have heavy duty text processing needs but your graphical needs are restricted to importing graphics from other programs. I hope this was useful. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
pbrown@triton.unm.edu (Paul V Brown CS) (04/29/91)
lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: >Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? I have been >using MS Word for the Mac for quite a while now and would like something >similar for my 386sx as it has spoiled me :> To which someone responded(correctly): WORD FOR WINDOWS and then someone else said: If you can wait a couple months, an alternative will be Word Perfect for Windows. Apparently, Word Perfect for Windows (WP4W?) can do everything that Word for Windows can do and also comes with an almost limitless supply of printer drivers and has a text mode similar to Word Perfect 5.1. and someone else suggested AMI professional. MY RESPONSE: While AMI has clearly beaten out WFW in performance tests (assuming that their ad's are correct), I don't think (not sure!!!) that it has a similar interface to Word4Mac. The suggestion of waiting for Word Perfect is simply ludicrous. The man wants something similar to Word4Mac, ok?? Anyone who has used Word4Mac and WFW, will tell you, these two programs are almost identical. The clear choice here is WFW. Unless someone has actually used both WordPerfect for Windows *and* Word4Mac, or AMI *and* Word4Mac, and can say that the interfaces are similar, then my guess is that there is no contest when a Mac user is looking for a wordprocessor for his IBM. --Paul V. Brown pbrown@triton.unm.edu
harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr27.155636.5769@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >In article <3116@s5.Morgan.COM> joec@Morgan.COM (Joe Collins) writes: >>In article <1991Apr26.004923.8553@int13.hf.intel.com> tim@int13.hf.intel.com >>(Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: >>>lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: >>>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? >>> >>>Geee!!! It sounds like what you want is .... wait for it ... >>> WORD FOR WINDOWS (by none other that Microsoft) >> >>I use AmiPro (from LOTUS) and like it a lot. It is FULLY windows compatible >>and can import a wide variety of documents created by other word processors. >>It is WYSIWYG and has so many features I couldn't begin to list them. > > As far as I can tell, Ami Professional is largely oriented to graphics >design and desktop publishing. (It includes drawing tools and other >things one normally doesn't associate with a word processor.) From what >I hear, its interface is highly intuitive. I've been using Ami for several months now and quite like it. I haven't used W4W, but I have heard that Ami has more desktop publishing features. On the other hand, I have yet to need a word processing function that Ami doesn't have. I had little trouble learning it, but it helps to be familiar with the concept of paragraph styles, style sheets, etc. There are features in Ventura which Ami is lacking, but then last time I saw Ventura it didn't even pretend to be a word processor...pure d.p. > On the other hand, Word for Windows is an extremely programmable >text production environment. You can do things in WfW like create >documents that prompt you for input. (If this doesn't sound too useful >to you, think about the routine task of writing letters. There is a lot >to a letter that's always the same, and then there are minor variations >that need be introduced like the salutation.) The tradeoff on all this power >is that WfW has a moderately steep learning curve. Luckily, the manual >is quite good. Unfortunately, it's incomplete. (It doesn't cover the >macrolanguage, WordBASIC.) WfW is an excellent choice if you have heavy >duty text processing needs but your graphical needs are restricted to >importing graphics from other programs. Ami has a pretty advanced macro language, but I've never heard a comparison with W4W's. A separate manual for it is available for free when you register the program (plus everything is available on-line). You can link to pre-defined data entry windows and buttons, or presumably make your own with SDK (not sure about that). The most sophisticated thing I've done was alter the menus to add a "User" menu so my girlfriend and I don't fight about defaults :-). Some minor complaints: the document I'm currently working on is ~80 pages with imbedded graphics, and Ami/Windows freaks out periodically. This seems to correspond to when I run out of RAM (I have 4MB). The disk starts swapping, then things go wrong. There's no equation editor. **But** the Ami tech support people tell me that they are releasing a new version this summer which will have one. Plus other "impressive" changes. On a guess, the next version will contain some of W4W's features, and W4W's next version will include Ami's features..and so on.. James Harold harold@lpf.umd.edu
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr29.150159.12586@wam.umd.edu> harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold) writes: >There's no equation editor. **But** the Ami tech support people >tell me that they are releasing a new version this summer which >will have one. Plus other "impressive" changes. On a guess, the >next version will contain some of W4W's features, and W4W's next >version will include Ami's features..and so on.. You're probably right but gosh! I hope not! W4W is big enough. I can't imagine what features they could add that I could even remotely care about. If I wanted DTP functions I would have bought Ami. Microsoft, are you listening? Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
jonathan@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) (04/30/91)
I've used Ami, Word/Mac, and WfW a fair deal. I like each. A few warnings about compatibility, however, are in order: Ami has very disappointing compatibility with Word, for both the PC and the Mac. Lotus claims the ability to import WfW, RTF, and many other useful formats, yet Ami does *not* import crucial information such as font settings, paragraph spacing, styles, tables, graphics, or just about anything else "complicated." I like Ami, but poor import/export capability was a defeating failure for me. It now sits unused on my shelf. If you don't have large libraries of stuff from Word etc that you must use, Ami could be real nice. And, I'd be more than happy to sell you my copy at a reasonable price. ;-) The PC and Mac versions of Word have very good textual compatibility. Tables, fonts, styles, etc move back and forth very nicely. If you use graphics in your documents at all, however, prepare for the worst. I've searched far and wide for a simple way to move graphics back and forth, with zero success. The two platforms use very different graphics formats (eg, PCX vs MacPaint for bitmap graphics, ?? vs PICT for object graphics) and the 3rd party software packages (Canvas, SuperPaint, CorelDraw, Micrographx, etc) multiply the number of formats without providing good cross-platform import/export. Microsoft regards this as a "known problem." Which means, for the meanwhile, an unsolved problem. It is much easier to either stick with the Mac or with the PC. It's frustrating when simple things don't work well except with heroic efforts! Jonathan Eunice (who thought it'd be really helpful to have a laptop but failed to realize that there'd be only 13.57% compatibility with his Mac) jonathan@cs.pitt.edu
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (04/30/91)
From article <1991Apr29.150159.12586@wam.umd.edu>, by harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold): > In article <1991Apr27.155636.5769@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >>In article <3116@s5.Morgan.COM> joec@Morgan.COM (Joe Collins) writes: >>>In article <1991Apr26.004923.8553@int13.hf.intel.com> tim@int13.hf.intel.com >>>(Timothy E. Forsyth) writes: >>>>lruppert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Prometheus) writes: [ stuff deleted] >>>>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? [ stuff deleted] > > I've been using Ami for several months now and quite like it. [ more deletions ] >> WfW is an excellent choice if you have heavy >>duty text processing needs but your graphical needs are restricted to >>importing graphics from other programs. I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: > >[Lots of deletions] > >>>>>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? > >[Lots of deletions] > >I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request >was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are >WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon >shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff >is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. > Not entirely true. I can't speak for W4W, but Ami is pretty WYSIWYG IF you are running ATM. If you are in the "Display as printed" mode, Ami will select the closest font it can find for the screen in order to get the spacing right. Without ATM (or equivalent), this can mean strangely spaced words, as Ami tries to fit the correct number of words on a line. With ATM it will get very close to the correct size font, and you get pretty good WYSIWYG. It does glitch some (sometimes the cursor falls behind the text) but it's not bad. I will agree that it could be better, but it's pretty close (WYSIPCTWYG?). I don't know if W4W does better. I hope that Ami's next version will clean up some of these glitches. Incidentally, I read in some rag that the first software version of TrueType (?) for the Mac (maybe a Beta) was inferior to ATM. Any other information out there? James Harold Harold@lpf.umd.edu
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request >was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are >WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon >shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff >is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. Unless you have ATM, Facelift, Superprint, the HP LJIII drivers, Pub. PowerPack, Bitstream... i.e. it's here, w/ or w/o TrueHype. Digression: The simplicity of WYSIWIG on the original Mac has yet to be surpassed. The screen was 72dpi. The printer (the only allowable printer!) was 72dpi. Printer fonts *were* screen fonts. It's been downhill ever since! :-) Aaron Wallace
cohen@brodmann.iaf.uiowa.edu (Gregg A. Cohen) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.155220.6037@wam.umd.edu> harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >> >>[Lots of deletions] >> I just received a copy of Ami Pro Working model for Windows from our University Bookstore (unsolicited). I thought, what the heck.. I'll load it up and check it out (I use W4W now). I was sorely disappointed to find that translation filters for W4W were not included in the model. I understand that working models are for evaluation only, however, I do also understand that if you want to show how much better you are than your competition, you read their files, eat their cookies, and then spit them back out like it was nothing to do. How can people who are using W4W compare the two packages without going to the trouble of getting the 30 day free evaluation copy, etc, etc, blah blah blah. I received this demo, with my asking for it. I just feel that if Lotus is going to do this type of thing, they should do it adequately. flames off (I guess) sorry, it just tripped my trigger. GC
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (05/01/91)
From article <1991Apr30.170454.6056@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace): > In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >>I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request >>was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are >>WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon >>shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff >>is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. > > Unless you have ATM, Facelift, Superprint, the HP LJIII drivers, Pub. > PowerPack, Bitstream... i.e. it's here, w/ or w/o TrueHype. > Nope, just a document processor. What we see here is that in fact, there are no WYSIWYG processors. Just codes that given additional (i.e. added cost items) tools can get somewhat close to the printer. BUT, for high res drawings, I can guarantee these things ain't WYSIWIG. ATM does not help with drawings in docs. (I know, the printer may or may not be the same resolution as the drawing, much less the screen). WYSIWYG seems to need qualification here. Thats all I have. I'll stop now. Just more requests for more software to do more WYSIWYG stuff so I can look at a cool screen. And BTW, I want somebody else to write this stuff real cheap so I can have it and not have to pay for it, heh, heh, heh.... P.S. I wondered if I could heat things up around here. Been too nice lately. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.155220.6037@wam.umd.edu> harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold) writes: >don't know if W4W does better. I hope that Ami's next version will >clean up some of these glitches. > > James Harold > Harold@lpf.umd.edu Yes, It does clean them up as well as improve Windows3.0's inherantly (sp?) poor WYSIWYG-ness. ciao jeff -- Jeff Watkins jwatkins@cadsun6.gatech.edu Lotus Development WP Devision (404) 315-0105 voice (404) 315-0231 data "It isn't whether the child lives or dies, It is who makes the decision."
gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) (05/01/91)
In article <5812@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> cohen@brodmann.iaf.uiowa.edu (Gregg A. Cohen) writes: >heck.. I'll load it up and check it out (I use W4W now). I was >sorely disappointed to find that translation filters for W4W were >not included in the model. I understand that working models are >for evaluation only, however, I do also understand that if you >want to show how much better you are than your competition, you >read their files, eat their cookies, and then spit them back out ... >I just feel that if Lotus is going to do this type of thing, they >should do it adequately. >flames off (I guess) >sorry, it just tripped my trigger. > >GC Well, I don't know which revision you received, but if it was older than release 1.2b then the W4W filter may not have existed yet. I don't exactly recall when it was that it was complete but I know that for a while management thought that exporting the file from W4W in RTF and then importing the RTF into Ami was ok. I know that 1.2b has a W4W filter, and I know that 2.0 has an excellent W4W filter. It may be that the filter existed; but was left off of the sample/working copy. I personally created the masters for european Ami version 1.2c and as I am new there I know I probably forgot something (probably not). could have left out a filter (actually left in a filter from AmiPro, but you probably get the idea). ciao jeff -- Jeff Watkins jwatkins@cadsun6.gatech.edu Lotus Development WP Devision (404) 315-0105 voice (404) 315-0231 data "It isn't whether the child lives or dies, It is who makes the decision."
elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request >was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are >WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon >shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff >is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. > >|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | >|Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | >|CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | >|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| WYSIWIG, by your definition, isn't available on a PC (and likely won't be even with TrueType if you're going to be picky about it). If you want your definition of WYSIWIG, go buy a NeXT -- Display PostScript is the only way you'll get what you really want. However, by most people's definition of WYSIWYG, the two word processors above are perfectly adequate, particularly WFW since the original poster had been using Word for Mac, which by your definition is not exactly WYSIWYG either. Adam Elman elmanad@leland.stanford.edu
yoshida@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Stuart Yoshida) (05/01/91)
joec@Morgan.COM (Joe Collins) writes: > > Does anyone else use AmiPro? Have you seen any problems with it? Yup, I use it, and I'm quite satisfied with it. I haven't found any major problems with it. Ami even comes with macros that allow you to print envelopes by shading an address within a letter and insert ANSI characters from a prompt list. > I find it slow printing if I use a font/style my printer doesn't > readily handle. AmiPro does handle it but is slow printing. If I stick with > text my printer knows, its fine. Yes, I find this also to be the case. I believe it's slow (especially using Type Managers like ATM) because it prints everything in graphics mode. If I had a true PostScript printer it would probably run much faster. However, to get around this problem I'm going to get a printspooler. > Any AmiPro users out there? > > joec@morgan.com > ---------- Yes, I'm one! What I'd like to know is if there are any Ami macro writers out there. I'd *love* to get some shareware/freeware macros! In particular, I'd like to find a macro similar to the W4W "dinger" program so that I can insert symbols/dingbats/carta characters. Is there an Ami guru out there that can help? -- Stuart "Every place around the world it seemed the same Can't hear the rhythm for the drums Everybody wants to look the other way When something wicked this way comes." --Jeremiah Blues UUCP: {hp-sdd, hp-pcd, csu-cs, edison, hplabs}!hpfcla!yoshida Internet: yoshida%hpfcla@hplabs.HP.COM VOICE: (303) 229-2324
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) (05/01/91)
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: > >>>>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? [ Ami vs. WfW stuff deleted ] > I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request > was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are > WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon > shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff > is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. Word for Windows with Adobe Type Manager makes a very good combination. It's closer to WYSIWYG than anything else I've seen apart from NeXTs and Atari ST Calamus. mathew -- mathew - mathew@mantis.co.uk or mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) (05/01/91)
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: > From article <1991Apr30.170454.6056@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by aaron@jessica.st > > In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CAD > >> Untill the TrueFont stuff > >>is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. > > Unless you have ATM, Facelift, Superprint, the HP LJIII drivers, Pub. > > PowerPack, Bitstream... i.e. it's here, w/ or w/o TrueHype. > > Nope, just a document processor. What we see here is that in fact, there > are no WYSIWYG processors. Just codes that given additional (i.e. added > cost items) tools can get somewhat close to the printer. BUT, for high > res drawings, I can guarantee these things ain't WYSIWIG. ATM does not > help with drawings in docs. The original poster asked for a word processor, not a desktop publishing system. For word processing, WfW with ATM is as close as anything else I've seen on the PC or Mac. If you want graphics as well as text (i.e. a DTP system), the only remotely usable and accurate WYSIWYG programs I've seen are Calamus for the Atari ST and Ready, Set, Go! for the Mac. mathew -- mathew - mathew@mantis.co.uk or mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: [ stuff deleted] >>>>>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows? [ stuff deleted] >> I've been using Ami for several months now and quite like it. [ more deletions ] >>> WfW is an excellent choice if you have heavy >>>duty text processing needs but your graphical needs are restricted to >>>importing graphics from other programs. > >I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request >was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are >WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon >shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff >is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. I humbly beg to differ. With ATM, What I see in WFW is what shows up on the postscript laser printer. When in PAGE mode, it even shows (albeit slowly) the graphics illustrations. WFW doesn't meet this claim when: Your video output device is not up to snuff. I suggest 1024x768. You don't have ATM. Medium and large fonts have trouble. Your printer has limited capabilities. I suggest a postscript laser. Neil Kirby nak@archie.att.com
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (05/01/91)
From article <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman): > > WYSIWIG, by your definition, isn't available on a PC (and likely won't > be even with TrueType if you're going to be picky about it). If you > want your definition of WYSIWIG, go buy a NeXT -- Display PostScript > is the only way you'll get what you really want. > > However, by most people's definition of WYSIWYG, the two word > processors above are perfectly adequate, particularly WFW since the > original poster had been using Word for Mac, which by your definition > is not exactly WYSIWYG either. unless you are using a 300 dot per inch dislay. They do exist. But, I appreciate you agreeing with my point. WYSIWYG is not the correct word then. Additionally, I qualified the resolution problem which you deleted from your post. Last but not least, Display PostScript is on more machines than the NeXT. AND, I use Display PostScript on an IBM RISC 6000. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (05/02/91)
From article <1991May1.155057.9324@cbnews.cb.att.com>, by nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby): >> >>I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request >>was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are >>WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon >>shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff >>is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. > > > I humbly beg to differ. With ATM, What I see in WFW is what shows up on > the postscript laser printer. When in PAGE mode, it even shows (albeit > slowly) the graphics illustrations. > > WFW doesn't meet this claim when: > Your video output device is not up to snuff. I suggest 1024x768. Got it! > You don't have ATM. Medium and large fonts have trouble. So, ATM is part of the word processor????? the original request was for WP's, not WP's + other stuff to make it WYSIWYG. BTW, Got it too. > Your printer has limited capabilities. I suggest a postscript laser. QMS 820 Turbo enough? Besides, the WP ain't showin' me what I get if it can't print it on a lesser printer. OK, I am now done with this subject. I understand a significant amount about both the available WP's, ATM and its share-alikes, and coding for Windows. NONE of which can show me TRUE WYSIWYG. Its not a big deal. Really, My brain can extrapolate from where Windows/WP's leave off. In addition, those of you who have given thoughtful rebuttals, I appreciate your stances and am glad you rebutted. I thank the mail response from someone who told me JUST how to do this and it wasn't software that did it (for the most part). I plan to buy the needed toys now. But, common WP's are definitely NOT WYSISYG. I still think they're WYSIWYSOG. I will hereby agree that I want the world, but who the heck doesn't? We pay a LOT for these WP's and they do well, but they could do better, believe me! I promise I'm done now! |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
vanmick@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Van Der Beek Michael-Leo) (05/02/91)
Hi, I am using AmiPro 1.2 now, I find it quite different from other word processors. I like the way you can define styles to almost anything you like and have multiple styles on the same document. I haven't tried importing graphics yet, but it is a matter of time.The charting capability, I also haven't tried. I am now using (or at least I think I am using :-) ATM though I currently have only a few fonts. I have PageMaker 4.0 (it comes with ATM). I am also trying to port to and from PageMaker. I am using either a HP II or HP IIID laser printer. I do agree with you that it can take some time to print if you are using fonts other than what you need for a printer (especially if you use a 286 at work, I have a 386-33Mhz at home, but can only print on a laser at work.) I think it is a pretty good word processor. I have tried Word for Win, but I prefer AmiPro. Regards, Michael
drp@dosbears.UUCP (David R. Preston) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May1.213819.5720@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: > >I promise I'm done now! Hallelujah -- David R. Preston drp%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com The world hadn't ever had so many moving parts or so few labels. D. R. Preston 584 Castro St. #614 SF CA 94114 USA
thaler@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU> elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >>I have both programs and neither fulfill the request. The initial request >>was for WYSIWIG. At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are >>WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get). The font informatinon >>shown on screen is not at all accurate. Untill the TrueFont stuff >>is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows. >> >>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| >>|Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | >>|Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | >>|CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | >>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >WYSIWIG, by your definition, isn't available on a PC (and likely won't >be even with TrueType if you're going to be picky about it). If you >want your definition of WYSIWIG, go buy a NeXT -- Display PostScript >is the only way you'll get what you really want. > >However, by most people's definition of WYSIWYG, the two word >processors above are perfectly adequate, particularly WFW since the >original poster had been using Word for Mac, which by your definition >is not exactly WYSIWYG either. > >Adam Elman >elmanad@leland.stanford.edu Sorry to be the one to get you up to date, but LaserMaster from Eden Prairie, MN has had a WYSIWIG setup out for about 2 1/2 years now. They sell their LX cards that print at 800,1000, and 1200 dpi (YES 1200 dpi) and they have what they call their GLASS PAGE setup using their font chanel architecture. This has a set of outlines called .LXO's (similar but not the same as type 1 outlines) which drive both the printer AND the monitor, and this exists for Ventura for GEM, and any Windows apps. It is truely WYSIWYG showing exact kerning, font rotation on the screen, and uses a "virtual" screen area, so you can bop back and forth accross the page very quickly. It is really a nice, although somewhat pricey setup. They recently released a new device, using TrueTech so they can deal with the PostScript world too, although their own system has infinately scaleable fonts and only lacked the ability to deal with EPS files and the like. Now, with TrueTech they can handle Postscript natively and it seems to work quite nicely will all Windows Postscript apps. An advantage of this over the Next machine is the abundance of apps available for the PC w/ Windows vs. the Next. OS/2 IS supported by Lasermaster. -- Maurice Thaler SYSOP Audio Projects BBS (608) 836-9473 SYSOP Power Board BBS (608) 222-8842
kcv0@bunny.gte.com (Kurt Van Schalkwijk) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU> elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes: > WYSIWIG, by your definition, isn't available on a PC (and likely won't > be even with TrueType if you're going to be picky about it). If you > want your definition of WYSIWIG, go buy a NeXT -- Display PostScript > is the only way you'll get what you really want. As far as I can tell from the output, GEOWORKS Ensemble is WYSIWYG Blue dogs in the sky... They're eating up my brain!!!
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (05/04/91)
From article <272@dosbears>, by drp@dosbears.UUCP (David R. Preston): > In article <1991May1.213819.5720@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >> >>I promise I'm done now! > > Hallelujah > hey, Hey, HEy, HEY, HHHEEEEEYYYYYYYY, I want the last word here... |no disclaimer this time, I already took the bandwidth, BUT, I pay my taxes...
ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Chris Kinsman) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May1.164617.32118@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >From article <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman): >> >> WYSIWIG, by your definition, isn't available on a PC (and likely won't >> be even with TrueType if you're going to be picky about it). If you >> want your definition of WYSIWIG, go buy a NeXT -- Display PostScript >> is the only way you'll get what you really want. >> >> However, by most people's definition of WYSIWYG, the two word >> processors above are perfectly adequate, particularly WFW since the >> original poster had been using Word for Mac, which by your definition >> is not exactly WYSIWYG either. > >unless you are using a 300 dot per inch dislay. They do exist. >But, I appreciate you agreeing with my point. WYSIWYG is not >the correct word then. Additionally, I qualified the resolution problem >which you deleted from your post. Last but not least, Display PostScript >is on more machines than the NeXT. AND, I use Display PostScript on an >IBM RISC 6000. > > But are you running NeXTStep on that RS6000? Chris -- Chris Kinsman KINSMAN@WSUVM1 Washington State University 22487863@WSUVM1 Computing Service Center ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu Computing Resources Laboratory 76701.154@compuserve.com
09381@tanus.oz.au (Shane Pascoe) (05/10/91)
I keep hearing how good Ami Professional is and how fast it is, I found as one
of the beta test sites of this product that its macro language had a few short
falls such as the need to have a dialog editor as found in the SDK or
Whitewaters ToolKit to create dialogs, as of beta testing and first release
these where both the Windows 2.0 editors.
Therefore, due to Word for Windows superior basic and Microsofts forcoming
embedded basic and the similarities and ease of exchange of documents with
Word for the Mac, not to mention Microsofts unlimited Technical Support, I
highly reco mend Word for Windows.
Shane Pascoe
Corporate WorkGroup Resources
Sydney, Australia
UUCP: {munnari}!jabaru!anthos!tanus!09381
INET: 09381@tanus.oz.au