sticklen@pleiades.cps.msu.edu (Jon Sticklen) (09/06/90)
Would someone who has used both Nisus (sp?) and FullWrite in an academic setting (letters, memos, journal papers, ...) please compare the two. Thanks, ---jon---
FlashsMom@cup.portal.com (NancyAnn none Sheridan) (09/09/90)
> Would someone who has used both Nisus (sp?) and FullWrite > in an academic setting (letters, memos, journal papers, > ...) please compare the two. Well, I hear a rumor that Nisus actually works. FullWrite doesn't really.
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (09/10/90)
> Well, I hear a rumor that Nisus actually works. FullWrite doesn't really.
Hmmmm...then how do you explain the 500 page document I'm printing
right now from FullWrite?
Tim Smithts@cup.portal.com (Tim G Smith) (09/10/90)
> Well, I heab a rumor that Nisus actually wobks. FullWrite doesn't really.
Hmmmm...then how do you explain the 500 page document I'm printing
right now from FullWrite?
Tim Smithpazzani@ics.uci.edu (Michael Pazzani) (09/11/90)
In article <#3725@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim G Smith) writes: >> Well, I heab a rumor that Nisus actually wobks. FullWrite doesn't really. > >Hmmmm...then how do you explain the 500 page document I'm printing >right now from FullWrite? > > Tim Smith Just lucky I guess. I use Fullwrite almost daily. I bought it because at the time, it was the only MAC system that integrated bibliographies. Of course, I expected it would be able to use the APA style of bibliography but it doesn't. It crashes at least once a week on me, especially during spelling correction, find-and-replace, sidebars, and outlines. It is also very slow (on a MAC IIci with 5mb) with large or complex documents (e.g., including pictures, sidebars, footnotes). I used to run it on a Mac II with the same set of errors. I'm also envious that none of grammar checkers that I know of seem to work with Fullwrite. I do like all the features it has, and I'll probably upgrade from 1.1 to 2.0, but I wish it were more robust. But the more I hear about Nisus, the more I like it. If I do get up the energy to switch, it'll either be to that or Word (because eveyone else around here uses it.) Has anyone used 2.0 long enough to find out if it stable or quicker?
rotberg@dms.UUCP (Ed Rotberg) (09/11/90)
From article <26EC4D26.18071@ics.uci.edu>, by pazzani@ics.uci.edu (Michael Pazzani): > I do like all the features it has, and I'll probably upgrade from 1.1 > to 2.0, but I wish it were more robust. But the more I hear about > Nisus, the more I like it. If I do get up the energy to switch, it'll > either be to that or Word (because eveyone else around here uses it.) > > Has anyone used 2.0 long enough to find out if it stable or quicker? Fullwrite 2.0 does not yet exist. The recent "upgrade" was to version 1.5, and costs $49. WHile 1.5 has definitely seemed more stable to me (about 3 weeks use now), it is certainly no faster. The other stuff you get with v1.5, besides the stability, is Tycho Table Maker, Word 4 Word format conversion program (to convert FWP to & from Word, MacWrite, PageMaker...), and the ability to position sidebars (fixed only) by dragging them around the page. AT is very cagey about discussing ANYTHING about future versions, but after 2+ years without an update, at least we know they still have at least one guy working on it. The rumors are that 2.o will be significantly faster. In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to live with the speed (although the fx does help!!) - Ed Rotberg -
jon@weber.ucsd.edu (Jon Matousek) (09/12/90)
In article <1990Sep6.154149.28042@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> sticklen@pleiades.cps.msu.edu (Jon Sticklen) writes: > >Would someone who has used both Nisus (sp?) and FullWrite >in an academic setting (letters, memos, journal papers, ...) >please compare the two. > >Thanks, > ---jon--- I can't compare Nisus directly to FullWrite, but I can compare Nisus in respect to my past word processing experiences. Over the past 5 years, I have used a variety of word processors, page layout packages and word processing systems to do such things as create flyers, resumes, mail merge, business plans, technical reports, manuals, a lengthy quarterly journal, formatted code, and, of course, letters to me mum. I have also cursed, screamed and yelled, flattened my punching bag, pulled my hair out, burned a few manuals; in short, wasted multitudes of hours word processing. In an effort to get the printed page exactly the way I want it, I have trashed a few trees writing custom macros, tweaking postscript, and dinking with page preview and page layout systems that the reviewers should have given an X rating. I had accepted the fact that this is the way it was and I was correspondingly left in a state of tension whenever I had the chore of writing. I am happy to report to you all that now when I write, I rarely ever curse, my punching bag is on its way to recovery and I am more relaxed. The reason for this turn about is, of course, Nisus. Every word processing task that I have done in the past could have been done in Nisus, much more quickly and with much less headache. It is no longer a surprise for me to finish things in short order with Nisus. I have used Nisus to create flyers and pamphlets, resumes, manuals and reports, to format code and batch formatting of text and data files. In my opinion, the end result that Nisus produces is a lot better than some very expensive word processing packages. Not only because of the flexibility and ease of use Nisus allows in creating a document, but also the little time required to complete the task. Nisus' manual is a testament to its power. It is 475 pages in length (575000 characters, 100000 words, 3.3 megabytes total data). It is chock full of graphics, cross references, footnotes, and headers/footers. From the word go, Nisus (on a Mac IIci with 8 megs) completed, in less than one hour, a table of contents for all of the sections, sub sections and sub sub sections; a table of contents for all of the captions under tables, graphics, etc.; a substantial index as well as a separate index of every Nisus menu command mentioned in the manual. (Note: Indexes have an initial set up time that requires selecting appropriate words and phrases to be indexed. Once this was done Nisus took less then 15 minutes to build the indexes I described above.) A few people have come to realize the power that macros (using Lisp) have given the Emacs editor. Nisus macros offer the user even more power. In my opinion, Nisus' macros combined with version 3's programming dialect is an awesome tool unmatched by any other word processor on the Mac, or the PC. With Nisus' macros, I have created macros that do the following: outlining, scientific calculator, appointment book, calendar maker, diagram folder hierarchy, format C code, create C function dependency lists, format comp.sys.mac.digest with TOC, and much more. The list of useful features that can be created with Nisus' macros is unimaginable. Nisus 3 is a significant upgrade to an already outstanding word processor, Nisus 2. Version 3 incorporates over 75 improvements and additions, and a complete work over of the manual. I invite you to give Nisus 3.0 a try. Call Paragon (or send me e-mail) and ask for the demo disk; it's free. Take some time to evaluate it and run it through all the paces; the time spent proving to yourself that Nisus is truly great is nothing compared to the time Nisus will save you in the long run. If you have questions about features call Paragon's technical support; it's free. Whether you are a power user or casual user, into word processing or page layout, I think you will quickly understand why so many of us rave so much about Nisus. -jOn -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %% SoftwareEngineer: jOn mAtOUsEk; Internet: jon@weber.ucsd.edu %% AppleLink: D0405 Paragon Concepts, Inc. FAX: (619)481-6154 990 Highland Drive, #312 Solana Beach, Ca. 92075 (619)481-1477 ==========================================================================
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/13/90)
In article <26EC4D26.18071@ics.uci.edu> pazzani@ics.uci.edu (Michael Pazzani) writes: >I'm also envious that none of grammar checkers that I know of seem to >work with Fullwrite. No great loss here. I've heard that the none of the grammar checkers work well. That has certainly been my experience with Grammatik Mac. >Has anyone used 2.0 long enough to find out if it stable or quicker? Are you referring to version 1.5, perhaps? It is hard to tell what the advantages are to using 1.5 versus 1.1. The only new feature of any consequence is that certain types of sidebars can now be dragged into position. They didn't send a list of bug fixes with the upgrade. It's my guess that the list would be embarrassingly long and embarrassingly incomplete. -- ----- Stephen Kurtzman | "where desire writhed there stands a stone kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | the change was sudden and complete" | -- Maggie Roche