Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cbatt!cbosgd!soma!usenet
From: usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: WordMarc
Message-ID: <2784@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19-Jan-87 12:53:17 EST
Article-I.D.: soma.2784
Posted: Mon Jan 19 12:53:17 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Jan-87 05:24:57 EST
References: <325@lownlab.UUCP>
Reply-To: sob@cortex.UUCP (Stan Barber)
Organization: Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Lines: 26
Keywords: WYSIWYG

We have been running WordMARC on our Masscomp system for over two years.
We find it useful and easy to use, but it does lack some features that
limits us. As roy@phri has already noted, WordMARC has no concept of
proportional printing. It also cannot handle a wide variety of font
sizes. It has no concept of a "page" and that limits its usefulness
with conventional laser printers. It can be an administrative nightmare. 
It has its own database of terminal and printer types and each available
terminal line must be defined for WordMARC to know what to do with it.

However, the menu system does make it easy to use. It does have the
capabilites of dealing with special characters. It does produce
a document file that can be shipped from UNIX to VMS to MS-DOS or
wherever a version of WordMARC is available and be used without alteration.
It does handle large document assembly in a reasonable fashion.

Also, I get the impression that the people at MARC are really trying to
meet the demands of their sophisticated customers. It just takes them time
to develop a plan of attack.

In short, if your user base is too busy to become fluent in page
description languages or troff commands, WordMARC is a good choice. But,
you do lose something.

Stan	     uucp:{shell,rice,cuae2}!soma!sob       Opinions expressed here
Olan         domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu   are ONLY mine &
Barber       CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)790-9004               noone else's.