Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!ufcsv!gatech!emory!phssra
From: phssra@emory.uucp (Scott R. Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional Demo
Message-ID: <2484@emory.uucp>
Date: 25 Jan 88 03:54:40 GMT
References: <39102@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: phssra@emory.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson)
Organization: Department of Physics, Emory University, Atlanta
Lines: 27

In article <39102@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>What doesn't it have? Good question. Probably a kitchen sink. It doesn't
>have equation processing (AAS said to use something like MacEQN, or do it
>in the draw function. It's an obscure enough function that I'm sure it
>doesn't make sense putting the effort into doing it for the number of people
>who care.

Well, *I* care, and I'm sure that there is a large group of people,
scientists, engineers, and technical writers, who use equations regularly
and who also care.  I would like a good WYSIWYG word processor that
integrates equation processing.  If someone does equations, they probably
do it a lot, and it is a real hassle bopping back and forth between a
program and a DA all of the time.  MacEqn is a good program, but it would
be nicer if its features were integrated.  There is also the problem with
in-line equations (which may not be a problem with FullWrite; could someone
enlighten me?): in MacWrite you can't put PICTs in-line, so the usefulness
of MacEqn is somewhat limited (in-line equations are *very* common).

Ann Arbor is obviously trying to give MicroSoft Word a run for the money,
but I'm surprised that they would just give in on the technical market,
especially if they are including every other feature they can think of.

*                                     Scott Robert Anderson
  *      **                           gatech!emoryu1!phssra
   *   *    *    **                   phssra@emoryu1.{bitnet,csnet}
    * *      * *    * **
     *        *      *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *