[comp.windows.ms] WFW word-wrap results

reyn@trsvax.UUCP (06/06/90)

Thanks to all who replied to my question on Word For WIndows word wrapping
causing the screen to scroll horizontally.

I neglected to state that I am using a VGA adapter, so many of the
responses were not applicable, but for the rest of the net, the gist is
that you shouldn't think of using anything less than VGA, and that Hercules
and Super-VGA ( 800 by 600 ) are much easier to deal with.  I called
CompuAdd ( the manufacturer of my machine ) and they will have a Windows
3.00 SuperVGA driver for my video card in about a month, and I'll
certainly give it the good old college try.

Now for the disturbing news,

   Most respondents informed me that I was correct.  WFW and Write are not
   shipped with screen fonts for all printers which match the Ruler on all
   video resolutions.
   In my opinion, this stretches the term WYSIWYG to the limits of
   credability.  If the columns on the screen don't line up like they do on
   the printer, then my assumption that WYSIWYG stood for "What You See Is
   What You Get" must be in error.

   The suggestion from those of you who liked WFW was to use one document
   setup for editing and proofing, and another for printing.

   Others suggested that I lie to Windows and select a different printer to
   fool it into using a good screen font.
   This seems odd to me, since we're talking about a $300.00 flagship
   product from a world-class software company, not ShareWare I downloaded
   from a BBS.  
   
   Further investigation of the Draft Mode on my part has led
   me to believe that it is a better approach.  The Draft Mode font is
   very readable, and the characters match the ruler.  The major drawback
   of the Draft Mode is that all attributes (bold and underline) display on
   the screen as underline, but that's not too bad.

   The next most common suggestion was to get a SuperVGA display, since I
   only need a new driver to do this I'll give it a shot.  Apparently, any
   screen with 640 horizontal pixels will correspond to 6 inches on the
   printer, the 800 pixel SuperVGA will correspond to 8 inches
   (approximately).  The higher number of horizontal pixels will also give
   Windows a better shot at matching the font to the screen.

   Those who don't care for WFW responded with buy Ami Professional, it
   doesn't have these problems, or buy a Macintosh.  I think I'll check up
   on Ami some more before I shell out any money, but I respectfully
   decline the suggestion to by a Mac.

  My overall feeling is that this product was designed for people who don't
  generate large amounts of text which they have to proof on the screen.
  The page preview seems to be for
  determining the "visual appeal" of the page layout, which is fine, but in
  my wife's occupation (writing fiction) the content is paramount.  The
  typesetter at the publisher will lay out the pages, she only needs to
  generate a story in a format which is easy for her editor to proof.  WFW
  has some tremendous pseudo-desktop-publishing features, but unless you
  have a SuperVGA or better monitor you are going to have to accept some
  visual (on the screen) degredation to get them.

  I still don't know whether we'll get WFW or not, but I certainly have a
  better understanding of the product now, so once again thanks for all of
  the responses.