Xref: utzoo comp.text:7390 comp.editors:1942 comp.os.msdos.apps:435 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2462 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!aftermath!water!nmouawad From: nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.editors,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Word Perfect 5.1 question -- running headers/footers Message-ID: <1990Oct9.154215.21515@water.waterloo.edu> Date: 9 Oct 90 15:42:15 GMT References: <39830@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1076@duteca.UUCP> Organization: University of Waterloo Lines: 34 In article <1076@duteca.UUCP> kooijman@duteca (Richard Kooijman) writes: >peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Or Lotus Manuscript. >This is a great wordprocessor which has several capabilities, that WP and WfW >have included only recently. >Why is it so impopular? IMHO, for a simple reason: Tech support and learning curve. WP has an edge over all the other editors: 800 free line. No matter what kind of a problem you run into, there is a human person to help you. Best feature, ever. Sprint seems to be a great editor. vi probably is, even though it has a rather unique or peculiar set-up, so is Emacs. The biggest problems with these editors is their biggest asset: hard learning curve, no context-sensitive help, and above all, no menu. Fast and dirty. Not for every one. >It has a formula editor, table editor etc. You can >include pictures, size them in Manuscript etc. > >Richard. Eventually, all the editors will have more or less the same features. Tech support will be the cutting edge. --Naji. -- ---------------+------------------------------------------- | Naji Mouawad | nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu | | University |-------------------------------------------| | Of Waterloo | "Thanks God, we cannot prove He Exists." |