cctr120@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.) (01/14/91)
I have not got, nor do I ever intend to get a word processor for my Amiga. However I am an extensive user of the Mac's MS Word and I have to say it is a very good program. Someone wanted a list of specifics, so here are some on them. I do not know how many of these exist in amiga WPs, and I don't really care. Note most of these feature are only useful for larger documents. Lets face it, letters can be done on a line editor, or even written by hand (if anyone still remembers how :-) ). Some of them are also hard to explain without showing you. 1. Style Sheets. Very useful. A style sheet consists of a set of text formatting commands. Thus if you want to change the font or style of a particular type of text (for example headings would be seperate style, or the writting that goes under picture, or even quotes) you just need to change the style sheet and all occurances of that text style are changed. I cannot express the usefulness of Style sheets enough. They are just very very very VERY VERY useful. Ok so I can express it. :-) 2. Dictionary spelling support. Useful. Word also comes with an add on Thesaurus but it isn't built it. 3. Outlining. Allows you to define heading, sub headings, sub-sub-headings and text. Ties in with style sheets very well. Allows you to move large chuck of the document about. 4. Built in mathematical type setting. 5. Does lines and boxes. 6. Built in table support. Sort of works like a spread sheet. 7. Allows you to put in postscript commands. (If you know any Potscript) 8. Lots of text formatting option, subscript, super script, various types of underlining, lots of tabbing controls, etc, etc, etc. 9. Section support so you can break the document up into seperate sections with different page numbering styles, footers, headers, etc. 10. You can have columns. Also you can have paragraphs of text appeaing in odd places with the other text flowing around it. I could go on forever but I won't bore you. However if I did get an amiga WP are there any with Style Sheets? Be seeing you, Brendon Wyber Computer Services Centre, b.wyber@csc.canterbury.ac.nz University of Canterbury, New Zealand. "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan15.031444.5@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> cctr120@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.) writes: >I have not got, nor do I ever intend to get a word processor for my Amiga. >However I am an extensive user of the Mac's MS Word and I have to say it is a >very good program. > >Someone wanted a list of specifics, so here are some on them. I do not know how >many of these exist in amiga WPs, and I don't really care. > >2. Dictionary spelling support. Useful. Word also comes with an add on >Thesaurus but it isn't built it. > I use MS Word quite frequently too. I think that it is a much more solidly-done WP than any amiga WP out there right now. But, one thing that really bothers me about it is the spelling checker (which I use all TOO frequently :) ). The spell checker is absolutely slow! Also, you cannot 'mark' a word to ignore! (ie: an author's name that appears numerous times throughout the paper will be caught be the checker EVERY time - YUK!) X-------------------+--------------+-----------------------X | | |\ |>jon@brahms.udel.edu<| "For my 2 cents, | | \|on |/eutsch |>>-----------------<<| I'd pay a dollar" | X------+--------------------+--------------------+---------X
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan15.031444.5@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> cctr120@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.) writes: >I have not got, nor do I ever intend to get a word processor for my Amiga. >However I am an extensive user of the Mac's MS Word and I have to say it is a >very good program. > >Someone wanted a list of specifics, so here are some on them. I do not know how >many of these exist in amiga WPs, and I don't really care. This tells me right here that nothing I say will change anything. Fine, you have your preferences, I have mine. 'I don't really care.' means that your mind is closed to other WP's no matter how good they are. Nothing could ever surpass Word. >Note most of these feature are only useful for larger documents. Lets face it, >letters can be done on a line editor, or even written by hand (if anyone still >remembers how :-) ). Some of them are also hard to explain without showing you. > >1. Style Sheets. Very useful. A style sheet consists of a set of text >formatting commands. Thus if you want to change the font or style of a >particular type of text (for example headings would be seperate style, or the >writting that goes under picture, or even quotes) you just need to change the >style sheet and all occurances of that text style are changed. AmigaTeX, and TeX in general can do this, and has been doing so for years. All someone has to do is hack up a nice GUI for TeX for people who aren't smart enough to learn a language. (The Mac motto, hide the computer from the user with a blindfolding GUI. BlackBox.) Someone could easily make an Arexx script to process TeX files and make changes to fonts, sizes, styles, etc. I can live without it though, search/replace in an editor works fine. >I cannot express the usefulness of Style sheets enough. They are just very very >very VERY VERY useful. Ok so I can express it. :-) > >2. Dictionary spelling support. Useful. Word also comes with an add on >Thesaurus but it isn't built it. This is no biggie, I think Excellence has a dictionary & Thesaurus. >3. Outlining. Allows you to define heading, sub headings, sub-sub-headings >and text. Ties in with style sheets very well. Allows you to move large chuck >of the document about. I pretty sure this can be done with TeX, nroff/troff, etc. >4. Built in mathematical type setting. AmigaTeX. Especially in combination with Maple which can output formula's as TeX. >5. Does lines and boxes. TeX. >6. Built in table support. Sort of works like a spread sheet. TeX. Atleast i've seen mathematical tables done in box's etc. >7. Allows you to put in postscript commands. (If you know any Potscript) I know there are several Amiga WP's that support Post and Color post. But when you've got TeX, you don't need postscript as much. >8. Lots of text formatting option, subscript, super script, various types of >underlining, lots of tabbing controls, etc, etc, etc. TeX. Not to mention every WP i've seen supports this, even back to GeoWrite on the C64. >9. Section support so you can break the document up into seperate sections with >different page numbering styles, footers, headers, etc. TeX. >10. You can have columns. Also you can have paragraphs of text appeaing in odd >places with the other text flowing around it. TeX. >I could go on forever but I won't bore you. However if I did get an amiga WP >are there any with Style Sheets? Basically, everything you've stated is either already in an Amiga WP, or in TeX. Some people argue TeX is hard. I disagree, some people are just intimidated or frightened that they may actually have to <gasp> learn something about their computer and the workings of computer languages. Any other features Word has that no Amiga WP or Typesetter has? Does Word have an Arexx port? :-) >Be seeing you, > >Brendon Wyber Computer Services Centre, >b.wyber@csc.canterbury.ac.nz University of Canterbury, New Zealand. > >"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
gerry@dialogic.com (Gerry Lachac) (01/15/91)
In article <19639@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1619a@prism.gatech.EDU (Net Runner Mark V) writes: > >They are working on (beginning work on) porting MS Works to the Amiga. Their >product may be two to three years away, but they have a reputaion of doing >things righ the first time round. Obviously you never worked with OS/2 1.0..... or Windows 1.0... or.... Really big :-)
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) (01/16/91)
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>1. Style Sheets. Very useful. A style sheet consists of a set of text >>formatting commands. Thus if you want to change the font or style of a > AmigaTeX, and TeX in general can do this, and has been doing so for years. >All someone has to do is hack up a nice GUI for TeX for people who aren't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If it's so easy, why don't you do it Ray? >smart enough to learn a language. (The Mac motto, hide the computer from the >user with a blindfolding GUI. BlackBox.) > Someone could easily make an Arexx script to process TeX files and make >changes to fonts, sizes, styles, etc. > I can live without it though, search/replace in an editor works fine. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Although it would perhaps be possible to do this with some super-duper Search/Replace function [probably involving huge regular expressions, and extremely complicated semantics], style sheets make this automatic. Please, if you haven't seen style sheets [hell, they've been around for over 5 years], you really don't know what you're missing. >>[lots of other comparison to TeX deleted] > Basically, everything you've stated is either already in an Amiga >WP, or in TeX. Some people argue TeX is hard. I disagree, some people are >just intimidated or frightened that they may actually have to <gasp> learn >something about their computer and the workings of computer languages. Yes, TeX can do basically everything that Word can do. But it IS complicated to learn. The point is that people DON'T have to learn about the "workings of computer languages" to get a powerful word processor. Word already exists in a user-friendly form. Incidentally, I consider Nisus 3.0 to be a much more powerful word processor than Word, so Word should not be taken as the be-all and end-all of word processors. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.214938.13706@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) writes: >rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>>1. Style Sheets. Very useful. A style sheet consists of a set of text >>>formatting commands. Thus if you want to change the font or style of a > >> AmigaTeX, and TeX in general can do this, and has been doing so for years. >>All someone has to do is hack up a nice GUI for TeX for people who aren't > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > If it's so easy, why don't you do it Ray? If someone was willing to pay, say $15 shareware I might. Personally,I don't see the point of it. Its quicker for me to type \section then to have a menu item pop up a string requester asking for a section name. Lots of time, I feel the mouse only gets in the way. Having to take my hands off the keyboard to choose a menu item is a big pain. Keyboard shortcuts could be used, and a interface that hides the \ TeX language from the user and displays the result could be created, but thats not the philosophy behind TeX. TeX is far from WYSIWYG but it gets the job done. > Although it would perhaps be possible to do this with some >super-duper Search/Replace function [probably involving huge regular >expressions, and extremely complicated semantics], style sheets make >this automatic. Please, if you haven't seen style sheets [hell, >they've been around for over 5 years], you really don't know what >you're missing. I haven't seen them, but they seem trivial. > Yes, TeX can do basically everything that Word can do. But it >IS complicated to learn. The point is that people DON'T have to learn >about the "workings of computer languages" to get a powerful word >processor. Word already exists in a user-friendly form. > Incidentally, I consider Nisus 3.0 to be a much more powerful word >processor than Word, so Word should not be taken as the be-all and >end-all of word processors. TeX is hard to learn? Isn't \section,\title,\author, etc intuitive enough? What person of average intelligence can not look at \section{Introduction} and guess what it means? I'm glad atleast you don't believe Word is the god of WP's. I guess since I'm a programmer I have a twisted view of the world. In my mind, a something like TeX, CygnusEd/Turbotext, and Arexx combined together spells the ultimate in power. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, > Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan14.222837.20284@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: [stuff about MS Word deleted] > AmigaTeX, and TeX in general can do this, and has been doing so for years. >All someone has to do is hack up a nice GUI for TeX for people who aren't >smart enough to learn a language. (The Mac motto, hide the computer from the >user with a blindfolding GUI. BlackBox.) Um, I don't know if anyone else has bothered to point it out, but there are those of us "smart enough to learn a language" who don't have time to learn a new one for every application. ESPECIALLY when that application is word processing. > [more stuff deleted] > Basically, everything you've stated is either already in an Amiga >WP, or in TeX. Some people argue TeX is hard. I disagree, some people are >just intimidated or frightened that they may actually have to <gasp> learn >something about their computer and the workings of computer languages. > > Any other features Word has that no Amiga WP or Typesetter has? >Does Word have an Arexx port? :-) > Why is it that every time someone on the net posts >anything< that even LOOKS like they want a user interface that's made for the user, crys of "You're not smart enough/You're too lazy to learn to do it the hard way?" I may be commiting a sacrilege here, but why >should< someone have to "learn something about their computer and the workings of computer languages" in order to put their thoughts on paper in an attractive and effective format? -- * Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys * * "When there is a war, the whole war is an illegal * * operation, so when there is a war, you cannot ask me not to * * hit below the belt. We are not in a boxing match." * * * * Abdul Razak Arisheeni, Iraqi Ambasador to France, * * speaking to 60 Minutes about terrorism. *
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) (01/16/91)
In article <662@tronsbox.xei.com> bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) writes: >Why is it that every time someone on the net posts >anything< that even >LOOKS like they want a user interface that's made for the user, crys of >"You're not smart enough/You're too lazy to learn to do it the hard way?" > >I may be commiting a sacrilege here, but why >should< someone have to >"learn something about their computer and the workings of computer >languages" in order to put their thoughts on paper in an attractive and >effective format? > > >-- > * Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys * Because all the W.I.M.P. interfacing in the world doesn't help. I'm quite serious. One of my best friends is a Mac consultant, and he's told me some real horror stories, ranging from people whose Macs boot into an application (usually Omnus) and are scared when they see Finder pop up to people who call for help when presented with a dialog box with ONE option. He'd bought his first Mac back when they first came out (128K ram, 64K rom, 400K single-sided drive). The two of us played around with it a lot, and got involved in the first meetings of a local users group (NJMUG), which he eventually became president of. But in those first meetings, they had to give a class on 'point, click, and drag'. Most of an evening spent on how to use the MOUSE, never mind Finder. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, isn't this when the government comes and puts you to sleep? I've come to the conclusion that all this GUI stuff was a Bad Idea. All it has done is put computers in the hands of people who just can't handle them. (Then again, I suppose it's not all bad. It gave my friend a job. ;-) Followups directed to .advocacy, of course. dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Using C will definitely cut your life expectancy by 10 years or more." -- Carl Sassenrath, GURU'S GUIDE TO THE COMMODORE AMIGA
jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) (01/16/91)
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > TeX is hard to learn? Isn't \section,\title,\author, etc intuitive enough? > What person of average intelligence can not look at \section{Introduction} > and guess what it means? I'm glad atleast you don't believe Word is the god > of WP's. \section, \title, etc., are indeed easy to learn but they aren't TeX, they're LaTeX. LaTeX is a very large set of TeX macros which hide TeX's complicated machinery. I use LaTeX for most everything and, indeed, I find it just as easy to use as most word processors. However if you ever need to change a style, introduce a new font family, etc., then you have to know TeX, and it *ain't* easy. Jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- James A. Crotinger Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab // The above views jac@gandalf.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808; L-630 \\ // are mine and are not (415) 422-0259 Livermore CA 94550 \\/ necessarily those of LLNL.
hugo@chocorua.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.214938.13706@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) writes: > Yes, TeX can do basically everything that Word can do. But it >IS complicated to learn. The point is that people DON'T have to learn >about the "workings of computer languages" to get a powerful word >processor. Word already exists in a user-friendly form. > Incidentally, I consider Nisus 3.0 to be a much more powerful word >processor than Word, so Word should not be taken as the be-all and >end-all of word processors. What is this myth that TeX is hard to learn? Grad students here learn enough LaTeX to do just about everything in about 2 days. Problems crop up when they need fancier formatting, or when they decide that they want to change the default styles...but doing that kind of thing should be left to real TeX hackers. Just for fun, let's do a comparison. I want to make a "section" style that skips down on the page, and puts out a section header in bold roman, then skips a bit more and formats the first paragraph of the section with no paragraph indent. In TeX, the macro is roughly like this: \def\section#1{\medskip\noindent{\bf #1}\smallskip\noindent} Then to use it, *bang* you just type this: \section{foo} You can fine tune the macro to avoid bad page breaking...but that's for hackers. Compare this to Word, where you have to create 2 styles, using 4 dialogs, and you have to remember to link the styles together using the 'next style' hook, and then you have to be real careful about applying styles because for some ungodly reason, applying style A to something already formatted in style B gives you text in style A+B, rather than just A. *And*, if you want the style to number the section, or later, you decide that the section title should be inlined rather then a separate paragraph, you lose. You can't do it (I think). So, which system is easier to use? Hmm? BTW, Nicus is better, but has many of the same problems as Word. But, I can get it to number sections using macros. Nice. Pete P.S. Similar troff macros are just as trivial. hugo@sunapee.dartmouth.edu
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (01/16/91)
In article <662@tronsbox.xei.com> bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) writes: >In article <1991Jan14.222837.20284@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >[stuff about MS Word deleted] > >Um, I don't know if anyone else has bothered to point it out, but there >are those of us "smart enough to learn a language" who don't have time >to learn a new one for every application. ESPECIALLY when that >application is word processing. > >> Basically, everything you've stated is either already in an Amiga >>WP, or in TeX. Some people argue TeX is hard. I disagree, some people are >>just intimidated or frightened that they may actually have to <gasp> learn >>something about their computer and the workings of computer languages. > >Why is it that every time someone on the net posts >anything< that even >LOOKS like they want a user interface that's made for the user, crys of >"You're not smart enough/You're too lazy to learn to do it the hard way?" > >I may be commiting a sacrilege here, but why >should< someone have to >"learn something about their computer and the workings of computer >languages" in order to put their thoughts on paper in an attractive and >effective format? I agree fullheartedly. Obviously this is a point where people and their character differ strongly. I myself am doing always very hard to learn the cryptic keystrokes necessary in some odd programs. (I'm typing this in vi, which sadist ever thought out those brain-dead command keys???) So, for my daily letter writing, I'm stuck with a rather aged word processor, that also has a user interface that's a bit crude, but I have gotten accustomed to it (ok, it's at least a *little* logical). You won't know it, I think it's not internationally available, called SuperDesk. I can type with it rather fast and it does the things I need in letters (no fonts, only bold and underscore). And when I need something special, then I grab out my old self-programmed (in Basic) word processor, change some lines for that special task, and then I'm done. (Watch: modifying an own program is NO difficulty for me.) Point is, programs like Wordstar and most of other current word processors are real hell for me. I simply can't remember all those double-key control sequences! So when I read somewhere that the editor of some integrated package is Wordstar compatible (they think this is a positive argument, haha), I immediately stop considering that software. And MS Word also has a rather ugly interface for my taste. Its menu structure is in my eyes very intransparent, and the way some functions work from the keyboard is very awesome. If you haven't got a mouse on your PC or AT, you MUST have that strip above your function keys, else you (read: I) are lost. And I hate situations where I'm lost. (Remember when I first fell into vi on accident and didn't find the way out: PANIC! No Esc or function key, no Ctrl-C or other normal key sequence worked, then somebody told me to use colon quit! I really thought he was going to fool me. Still today I shiver when I remember that.) So until now I was speaking totally about my own view of these items. But I know there are many people outside built just the other way, as cited above: they LOVE to learn new interfaces every day and get their satisfaction from the conscience that they mastered some new software again. I feel extremely jealous in neighbourhood of such guys. But I have not the slightest idea whether I or these people represent "Joe Average User". Does anybody have? And for such partly limited people like me (:-), a well-designed GUI is a big help. E.g. that PD text editor AZ makes up a real nice text editor, but I don't think you can call it a word processor. But surely MS Word isn't satisfying here, too, at least for me. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
espie@egret.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) (01/17/91)
So... TeX has no GUI, Word has one. What does this mean ? In particular, it means that you can do what you want with Word, format a document in atrocious ways while believing you're doing a great job. Nobody would be that stupid ? Well... I've seen friends use Word to produce wonderful pile of craps. It's so easy to change fonts, use a cute little format, underline things, that you VERY RAPIDLY end with a page where everything IS a special effect. You get a nice computer product, not a readable document... I don't believe I would be able to do better by myself, but I use TeX (or LaTeX, or AMSTeX, depends), and most of my stuff comes out right. There are some ``special effects'' in LaTeX, but styles have been written by people who spent a lot of time trying to ensure that everything would come out right (example: titles, subtitles, captions). IF I want to add another special effect, I've got to think about it. Mind you, I don't spend much time trying to figure out how to program it, I spend my time laying it out, finding exactly how it should look. Other case in point: TeX is a logical system. If you want to lay out a math formula, you have to say so. Because nobody told most of the guys who use Word, they fill their texts with ``n'' and other small formulas which look EXACTLY like normal text (same roman-type font) and which look awful. Also, find me a good word-processor which will lay out formulas at least as good as TeX, where I don't have to fiddle with blank spaces to get it exactly right (which means, of course, that two pages latter, I'll have to do it again, for another formula following the same logic, but NOT the same formula---you can't always use cut/paste). It is very difficult to come up with a consistent style with Word-like programs. Other case: if you want to write a big document, like a book, you're better off with TeX. If your publisher suddenly decides it would look better the other way, you spend two hours with TeX and voila ! With Word, you will have to take another week. Why do you think most scientific books published nowadays are designed with TeX or troff and not Word ? Of course, if you already know much about document-design, you will be able to do it with Word, and appreciate the interactivity. The way TeX is designed, you can't do that, but you can change your document with a few commands, and have barely any automatic mistakes to correct. So you have a choice: - you can learn TeX. - you can learn document-formatting and use Word. - you can learn neither and rely on your personal taste to produce things with Word :-):-). Marc
yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) (01/17/91)
espie@egret.Stanford.EDU (Marc Espie) writes: >So... TeX has no GUI, Word has one. What does this mean ? >In particular, it means that you can do what you want with Word, >format a document in atrocious ways while believing you're doing >a great job. Nobody would be that stupid ? Well... One "argument" is that a WYSIYUG puts "emphasis" on the "apparence" so people "ignore" the contents. With TeX ya normally don't worry about the "Look" bacause it'll normally look good no matter what. Snd using a "simple" editor puts the "emphasis" back on content. >Why do you think most scientific books published >nowadays are designed with TeX or troff and not Word ? TeX (and Latex) [I haven't used AMStex] Really Cooks on equations, Automatic numbering, (YA add a new equation and the others get renumbered) Ease of use, and just plain Looking Good! >So you have a choice: >- you can learn TeX. Learning LaTeX is a LOT easier... -- yorkw@ecn.purdue.edu Willis F York ---------------------------------------------- Macintosh... Proof that a Person can use a Computer all day and still not know ANYTHING about computers.
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/17/91)
> Because all the W.I.M.P. interfacing in the world doesn't help. > > I'm quite serious. One of my best friends is a Mac consultant, and he's >told me some real horror stories, ranging from people whose Macs boot into >an application (usually Omnus) and are scared when they see Finder pop up to >people who call for help when presented with a dialog box with ONE option. Yes I've met these people too, who wouldn't know what to do if they were put next to a CLI. > > He'd bought his first Mac back when they first came out (128K ram, >64K rom, 400K single-sided drive). The two of us played around with it a lot, >and got involved in the first meetings of a local users group (NJMUG), which >he eventually became president of. But in those first meetings, they had to >give a class on 'point, click, and drag'. Most of an evening spent on how to >use the MOUSE, never mind Finder. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, isn't this >when the government comes and puts you to sleep? > > I've come to the conclusion that all this GUI stuff was a Bad Idea. >All it has done is put computers in the hands of people who just can't handle >them. (Then again, I suppose it's not all bad. It gave my friend a job. ;-) Eventhough I met people like you mentioned, I still beleive that GUI is the greatest thing ever done to computers. Why, it is forcing developers to make standard user interfaces. A user should not need to learn everything about a computer to use that computer. Yes the filp side to this is that it stagnates creativity. However more users are able to be more productive, and they tend to leave the IS department alone, to work on more important things. > > Followups directed to .advocacy, of course. > > >dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >"Using C will definitely cut your life expectancy by 10 years or more." > -- Carl Sassenrath, GURU'S GUIDE TO THE COMMODORE AMIGA
epeterso@houligan.encore.com (Eric Peterson) (01/17/91)
hugo@chocorua.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su) writes: | In article <1991Jan15.214938.13706@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) writes: | > Yes, TeX can do basically everything that Word can do. But it | >IS complicated to learn. | | What is this myth that TeX is hard to learn? Grad students here learn | enough LaTeX to do just about everything in about 2 days. Problems | crop up when they need fancier formatting, or when they decide that | they want to change the default styles...but doing that kind of thing | should be left to real TeX hackers. Changing a default style is something that you shouldn't have to hack at to do. | Just for fun, let's do a comparison. I want to make a "section" | style that skips down on the page, and puts out a section header in | bold roman, then skips a bit more and formats the first paragraph of | the section with no paragraph indent. | | In TeX, the macro is roughly like this: | | \def\section#1{\medskip\noindent{\bf #1}\smallskip\noindent} | | Then to use it, *bang* you just type this: | | \section{foo} | | You can fine tune the macro to avoid bad page breaking...but that's | for hackers. You've convinced me. I hereby take back everything I've ever said about TeX not being intuitive (especially the part with the "*bang*" in it ... is that in the manual? Actually, knowing Knuth's stuff, it probably is :-) | [[ Comparable Word example, showing Word defficiencies ]] I bet that I could figure out how to do it in Word without using the manual faster than I could in TeX. | So, which system is easier to use? Hmm? There is no absolute answer. TeX is easier for you. FrameMaker is easier for me. Word and WordPerfect are easier for the masses. | P.S. Similar troff macros are just as trivial. Trivial for those who speak the language. But a picture book is always going to be easier and more universal reading than a novel in a foreign language. Eric -- Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208 Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.
rodent@netcom.COM (Ben Discoe) (05/18/91)
cctr120@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Brendon Wyber, C.S.C.) writes: >I have not got, nor do I ever intend to get a word processor for my Amiga. >However I am an extensive user of the Mac's MS Word and I have to say it is a >very good program. > [extensive list of definately desireable features] Agreed, style sheets are heavenly. Who needs an Amiga version of Word when Mac emulation is so cheap and easy? Go ahead, buy AMaxII (around $150), pirate the ROM file and pirate MS Word for the mac. Don't whine about the legality of taking profits away from corporations whose CEOs make >$10 million a year. It's morally correct to pirate Mac ROMs! Yes it is! In fact, you should help make macintoshing free even if you have no need yourself - it's not just correct, it's a MORAL IMPERATIVE. I suggest buying AMaxII ONLY because ReadySoft is a small, Amiga-oriented company (not because it's necessary - it isn't). It works for me, and it works very well. MS Word *screams* on a 3000. If you disagree on morality, spare the net your flames. Email. If you agree on morality, email also. ---------------------- Ben, radical ecologist, computer scientist, moral relativist at large.