Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!elmanad
From: elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows 3.0?
Message-ID: <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 1 May 91 04:55:58 GMT
References: <1991Apr29.150159.12586@wam.umd.edu> <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Organization: AIR, Stanford University
Lines: 25

In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
>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.
>
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|Tom Hite					|  The views expressed by me |
>|Manager, Product development			|  are mine, not necessarily |
>|CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc.	|  the views of CADSI.       |
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

WYSIWIG, by your definition, isn't available on a PC (and likely won't
be even with TrueType if you're going to be picky about it).  If you
want your definition of WYSIWIG, go buy a NeXT -- Display PostScript
is the only way you'll get what you really want.

However, by most people's definition of WYSIWYG, the two word
processors above are perfectly adequate, particularly WFW since the
original poster had been using Word for Mac, which by your definition
is not exactly WYSIWYG either.

Adam Elman
elmanad@leland.stanford.edu