Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ns-mx!ccad.uiowa.edu!cadsi
From: cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows 3.0?
Message-ID: <1991May1.164617.32118@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Date: 1 May 91 16:46:17 GMT
References: <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: CAD-Research, U. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Lines: 25

From article <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman):
> 
> 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.

unless you are using a 300 dot per inch dislay.  They do exist.
But, I appreciate you agreeing with my point.  WYSIWYG is not
the correct word then.  Additionally, I qualified the resolution problem
which you deleted from your post.  Last but not least, Display PostScript
is on more machines than the NeXT.  AND, I use Display PostScript on an
IBM RISC 6000.


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Tom Hite					|  The views expressed by me |
|Manager, Product development			|  are mine, not necessarily |
|CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc.	|  the views of CADSI.       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|