Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!nak
From: nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows 3.0?
Message-ID: <1991May1.155057.9324@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 1 May 91 15:50:57 GMT
References: <1991Apr29.150159.12586@wam.umd.edu> <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 30

In article <1991Apr30.150818.6304@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
[ stuff deleted]
>>>>>>Does anyone know of a good WYSIWYG Word Processor for Windows?
[ stuff deleted]
>>    I've been using Ami for several months now and quite like it.     
[ more deletions ]
>>>                            WfW is an excellent choice if you have heavy
>>>duty text processing needs but your graphical needs are restricted to
>>>importing graphics from other programs.
>
>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.


I humbly beg to differ.  With ATM, What I see in WFW is what shows up on
the postscript laser printer.  When in PAGE mode, it even shows (albeit
slowly) the graphics illustrations.  

WFW doesn't meet this claim when:
    Your video output device is not up to snuff.  I suggest 1024x768.
    You don't have ATM.  Medium and large fonts have trouble.
    Your printer has limited capabilities.  I suggest a postscript laser.



Neil Kirby
nak@archie.att.com