defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (01/08/91)
Is Write, distributed on the Windows 3.0 disk for real? I mean I started using the thing and I like the multiple fonts, etc but whenever I type I see it refresh the screen in an obviously dumb algorithm of repainting lots of things that are unnecessary and it's so damn slow when this stuff starts happening. Also, using the mouse to select the whole file is painfully slow, even on a 1-2 page document. Do I just have the thing configured badly? Is seems more and more apparent to me that as I utilized the MicroSoft provided Windows 3.0 tools, that they were probably never meant to be real live production type tools to actually get work done, but just toys to demonstrate what window application can do. Is this the case?
swh@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Steve Harrold) (01/09/91)
Re: Is Windows Write for real? You should try using the HP NewWave environment. It supplies you with NewWave Write, which on first examination, seems to be a clone of the already provided Windows Write. But if you examine it more closely, it is much better to use. The constant refreshing problem seems to be absent. The ruler line is easier to understand (IMHO). A really superb feature is the NewWave Help facility. It picks up where Windows Help leaves off. The neatest thing about it is the ability to point to any object, area, icon, etc. that is in the window and get help for it. There is no need to scroll an index trying to find a description of the thing you can so clearly see and want help for. Another convenience is the "done" button which you can use after you've been helped, instead of double-clicking on the upper-left window control button, to close the window. The "done" button is much larger and needs less accuracy on your part to hit it. And its purpose is more obvious to the end- user.
acook@athena.mit.edu (Andrew R Cook) (01/09/91)
In article <27220004@hpclapd.HP.COM>, defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: |> Is Write, distributed on the Windows 3.0 disk for real? I mean I started |> using the thing and I like the multiple fonts, etc but whenever I type I |> see it refresh the screen in an obviously dumb algorithm of repainting lots |> of things that are unnecessary and it's so damn slow when this stuff starts |> happening. Also, using the mouse to select the whole file is painfully |> slow, even on a 1-2 page document. Do I just have the thing configured |> badly? |> |> Is seems more and more apparent to me that as I utilized the MicroSoft |> provided Windows 3.0 tools, that they were probably never meant to be real |> live production type tools to actually get work done, but just toys to |> demonstrate what window application can do. Is this the case? In my opinion, Windows Write is a perfect example of MicroSoft's sloppy programming. Big code, slow performance. It seems that Microsoft's method of programming does not consider code size or execution speed, using the (stupid) argument that you can just buy faster hardware, and eventually everything will run OK. Being a big company, and a major force in the industry, MicroSoft can get away with this attitude - they will always be able to sell their products. I admit, I like many of their products, but am frustrated at times waiting for windows. Though I have not used it, Geoworks, an alternative to windows (if anybody ever supports it) is supposed to be much faster. All emotional outbursts aside, I think Windows Write and Paint started out as a Microsoft attempt to duplicate MACwrite and MACpaint that came free with the original Macintosh. Microsoft either gave up, got disgusted, bored, or had to meet a release deadline, thus never got around to giving the windows versions of these programs half the quality or functionality of the original MAC applications. Win write and Paint have become "toys" as you put it to demonstrate some windows features. They are also included so that you have something to fiddle with when you first buy windows (along with solitare - yes!) to convince you that it is worth switching to, and buying other applications for. Personally, I deleted these programs to free up some of the hundreds (sarcasm) of MB of disk space windows requires. It's too bad that MicroSoft can't send any better quality programs along. Windows does have a big potential, but you wouldn't ever guess that looking at Write and Paint. Andy Cook acook@athena.mit.edu
burgoyne@eng.umd.edu (John R. Burgoyne) (01/10/91)
Windows free applications do not meet the needs of power users, but many novices have told me that write is OK for them. Cardfile is not too bad although some people say that your data files occasionally get corrupted (hasn't happened to me). Robert
alu@cbnewsk.att.com (Alan Lustiger) (01/10/91)
Actually, I think that Write has its purposes:
1) It can be used as an ASCII text editor when the file is
too large for Notepad or you need to do search/replace
(all assuming that you don't have another editor...)
2) It is a good editor front end for PageMaker, until
Aldus comes out with 4.0. PageMaker can be very slow
when editing text, but it can import .WRI files nicely.
3) It is not *that* slow: it seems faster to me than WfW
and Ami Pro for straight text editing.
4) It certainly comes up faster than Ami Pro or WfW,
so if I have to test out a new font or printer, I use
Write.
5) It may take up 200K, but have you installed any major
applications lately? Corel (without clipart) takes 6 Meg!
Designer and Ami Pro and WfW and Current all take up
*A LOT OF DISK SPACE*! (I'm worried about the next Excel
release...) I love Windows and these applications, but
soon Windows will need a 200 Meg hard drive just to load
all the major categories of applications!
Just my $.02.
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Bell Laboratories ERC, Princeton, NJ
/ |( attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu or lustiger@att.comA.G.Bishop@massey.ac.nz (A.G. Bishop) (01/10/91)
One of the nifty things about Write is all the share&PDware that has .WRI documentation. I find these great, especially when they include diagrams and stuff. Similarly one can use pbrush to look at .BMPs and even do small mods, not a fantastic drawing program but when I remember the apps that come with Dos (eg EDLIN), I think that we have seen some improvement. -- Tony Bishop Massey University @Palmerston North.New Zealand
amf@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Andrew Fountain) (01/10/91)
In <27220004@hpclapd.HP.COM> defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: >Is Write, distributed on the Windows 3.0 disk for real? I mean I started >using the thing and I like the multiple fonts, etc but whenever I type I >see it refresh the screen in an obviously dumb algorithm of repainting lots Maybe you have a problem with your setup. I certainly don't have a problem. I've been using Write extensively for over a year now. A friend has been using it successfully for his Ph.D. thesis. The only time I have had problems is when importing metafiles which don't seem to be handled very well. -- amf@ecs.soton.ac.uk Dr. Andrew Fountain Tel: +44 703 592831 Dept of Electronics and Computer Science Fax: +44 703 593045 University of Southampton Telex: 47661 SOTONU G Southampton SO9 5NH England
otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.025508.10346@massey.ac.nz> A.G.Bishop@massey.ac.nz (A.G. Bishop) writes:
One of the nifty things about Write is all the share&PDware that has
.WRI documentation. I find these great, especially when they include
diagrams and stuff. Similarly one can use pbrush to look at .BMPs
and even do small mods, not a fantastic drawing program but when I
remember the apps that come with Dos (eg EDLIN), I think that we have
seen some improvement.
Yes, that's a good summary. Write, the edlin of Windows.
;->
I must admit, that the first time I tried Windows I thought that MicroS*t
had once done something more or less right. Now that I've taken a closer
look, I still think that they did a fairly good job, but they are late in
bringing out Windows 3.1, knowing the types of bugs 3.0 has...
Anyway, it gives a good reason for Apple to lower their obnoxious prices.
Quote-of-the-day:
"I really don't know anything about computers, I use a Apple Macintosh..."
(from an Apple advertising campaign)
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (CCITT, Bell 24/12/300) */
/* Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (01/11/91)
>Windows free applications do not meet the needs of power users, >but many novices have told me that write is OK for them. Cardfile is >not too bad although some people say that your data files occasionally >get corrupted (hasn't happened to me). Well, considering that MicroSoft has ported it over to the Mac..... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joel@peora.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan9.175740.26117@eng.umd.edu>, burgoyne@eng.umd.edu (John R. Burgoyne) writes: > Windows free applications do not meet the needs of power users, > but many novices have told me that write is OK for them. I agree that Write is suitable for a lot of simple word processing chores. I do almost all my simple letters and memos on it. I usually save Ami Professional for longer more complicated documents that need more complex formatting, like multi-column output. The ability to save in Microsoft Word format is handy also, since I some- times write articles for a newletter that is edited on a Mac using Word. I write the article with Write, then save it in Word format, then copy it onto a floppy and take it over to a friend who has a Mac. We hook my laptop to his Mac and then transfer the article over and save it onto a Mac floppy. I can then send the floppy to the newsletter. I use Write with an external spelling checker program. -- Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
clm@unislc.uucp (Clair Mills) (01/12/91)
From article <1991Jan9.142200.16771@athena.mit.edu>, by acook@athena.mit.edu (Andrew R Cook): > All emotional outbursts aside, I think Windows Write and Paint started out > as a Microsoft attempt to duplicate MACwrite and MACpaint that came free with > the original Macintosh. Microsoft either gave up, got disgusted, bored, or > had to meet a release deadline, thus never got around to giving the windows > versions of these programs half the quality or functionality of the original > MAC applications. Thank goodness Microsoft DIDN'T give us the quality/functionality of the original MAC apps. Have you forgotten that the original MACwrite could only handle docs that were two pages long before running out of memory and bombing?? Or that if you tried to save a MACpaint file to a floppy without enough room on it, you'd lose it?? Now THAT'S quality! :-b -- /************************************************************/ /* The only true standard is Death */ /************************************************************/