Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Macintosh Text Editors (long)
Message-ID: <19102@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 18-May-87 13:14:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.19102
Posted: Mon May 18 13:14:40 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 19-May-87 05:07:22 EDT
References: <360@sdics.ucsd.EDU> <835@goanna.oz>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd
Lines: 47
Keywords: Text editors Word 3.0 Full Write Write Now

>> Some words of praise: Word's spelling corrector, especially its
>> ability to make appropriate suggestions,  is the very best I
>> have seen.  Whoever did it should be rewarded.
>
>I do not quite agree. I used Mac Lightning with a dictionary and a thesaurus,
>its interface was much more advanced than that of Word 3.0. The most important
>feature was its interactive mode (ie. spell checking in the background - as
>you type).

Interactive spell checkers drive me up the wall.  I guess it is a matter of
taste.  I, personally, used SpellSwell until I upgraded to Word 3.0.  The
Word 3.0 Spellchecker is not as functional as SpellSwell, but it is a lot
more convenient to use the checker inside the program. There are a few
glitches in the spell checker, but generally it does what it is supposed to
do quite well.

>It WAS because Microsoft changed the way Word handles events (sort of delays
>them) and now MacLightning similarly to many other DAs does not work with
>Word 3.0.

I could say something about programs like MacLightning that depend on
mucking with undocumented interfaces and people who depend on compatibility
where compatibility is not guaranteed, but I'd probably just start a
religious war.  So I'm glad I'm not saying it.

>I agree with Donald that Word 3.0 is a bundle of badly designed and unrelated
>features. I actually switched back to Word 1.05 (after spending $$$ on v 3.0).

I'll agree that some of the modules don't fit together well -- I'm not sure
why you would want to put an outline processor or a spellchecker inside a
word processor (except, of course, for the fact that you're trying to
simulate a multi-processing environment).  They may not be as functional as
the state of the art widgets you can buy separately, but they weren't
designed to be, either.  They are simply functional additions to a program,
not designed to be whiz bang programs.  If they aren't functional enough, 
then go out and buy the whiz banger (as I did with Acta, since I need an
outliner that's available in any application).  But I don't see why people
complain becuse they settled for "good enough" instead of designing "the
best" for a given function.

And I, personally, think that anyone who goes back to 1.05 after working
with 3.0 is insane.  I couldn't live without 3.0 these days.

chuq
Chuq Von Rospach	chuq@sun.COM		[I don't read flames]

There is no statute of limitations on stupidity