Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!harold
From: harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows 3.0?
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.155220.6037@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 30 Apr 91 15:52:20 GMT
References: <1991Apr29.150159.12586@wam.umd.edu> <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET Posting)
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Lines: 32
Nntp-Posting-Host: epsl

In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
>
>[Lots of deletions]
>
>>>>>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows?
>
>[Lots of deletions]
>
>I have both programs and neither fulfill the request.  The initial request
>was for WYSIWIG.  At best, both programs (like ALL Windows codes) are
>WYSIWYSOg (what you see is what youll Sort Of get).  The font informatinon
>shown on screen is not at all accurate.  Untill the TrueFont stuff
>is part of a Windows release, WYSIWIG ain't available in Windows.
>
  Not entirely true.  I can't speak for W4W, but Ami is pretty WYSIWYG 
IF you are running ATM.  If you are in the "Display as printed" mode,
Ami will select the closest font it can find for the screen in order
to get the spacing right.  Without ATM (or equivalent), this can mean
strangely spaced words, as Ami tries to fit the correct number of
words on a line. With ATM it will get very close to the correct size
font, and you get pretty good WYSIWYG.  It does glitch some (sometimes
the cursor falls behind the text) but it's not bad.  I will agree
that it could be better, but it's pretty close (WYSIPCTWYG?).  I
don't know if W4W does better.  I hope that Ami's next version will
clean up some of these glitches. 

Incidentally, I read in some rag that the first software version of
TrueType (?) for the Mac (maybe a Beta) was inferior to ATM.  Any
other information out there?

   James Harold
   Harold@lpf.umd.edu