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: <1991May1.213819.5720@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Date: 1 May 91 21:38:19 GMT
References: <1991May1.155057.9324@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Organization: CAD-Research, U. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Lines: 45

From article <1991May1.155057.9324@cbnews.cb.att.com>, by nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby):
>>
>>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.
		Got it!
>     You don't have ATM.  Medium and large fonts have trouble.
		So, ATM is part of the word processor????? the original
		request was for WP's, not WP's + other stuff to make
		it WYSIWYG.  BTW, Got it too.
>     Your printer has limited capabilities.  I suggest a postscript laser.
		QMS 820 Turbo enough?
		Besides, the WP ain't showin' me what I get if it can't
		print it on a lesser printer.

OK, I am now done with this subject.  I understand a significant amount
about both the available WP's, ATM and its share-alikes, and coding
for Windows.  NONE of which can show me TRUE WYSIWYG.  Its not a big
deal.  Really, My brain can extrapolate from where Windows/WP's leave
off.  In addition, those of you who have given thoughtful rebuttals,
I appreciate your stances and am glad you rebutted.  I thank the
mail response from someone who told me JUST how to do this and it
wasn't software that did it (for the most part).  I plan to buy the
needed toys now.  But, common WP's are definitely NOT WYSISYG.  I still
think they're WYSIWYSOG.  I will hereby agree that I want the world,
but who the heck doesn't?  We pay a LOT for these WP's and they do well,
but they could do better, believe me!

I promise I'm done now!

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