Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!athertn!paul
From: paul@athertn.Atherton.COM (Paul Sander)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Good Word Processors (was Re: Fool In the Rain, ALPE)
Summary: Want good WP
Message-ID: <312@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 2 Mar 89 20:43:23 GMT
References: <8903011500.aa14186@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>
Organization: Atherton Technology, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 37

In article <8903011500.aa14186@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes:
> >Date:         Mon, 27 Feb 89 18:25:02 GMT
> >From:         David I Seah <mailrus!ulowell!m2c!wpi!dseah@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV>
> >Subject:      RE: Fool in the Rain

[ discussion about AppleLink PE folders and AppleWorks sluggishness deleted ]

> >                      If programs such as MultiScribe GS are called
> >"unfit for documents longer than a couple of pages" by Apple
> >magazines (that usually gush all over the place), then AWGS might
> >share the same characteristics.
> 
> When he said "...the best you can do is AppleWorks 2.0" he was
> talking about classic AppleWorks.  (There is no AppleWorks GS 2.0
> yet.)  AppleWorks GS is the one he said requires the patience of 10
> dead men.  I expect that will change in a future release, but for
> now _I_ continue to use classic AppleWorks.  I can crank out quick
> letters with it in about a _minute_.  I'd _rather_ have a usable
> desktop-based word processor for the GS, but I haven't seen anything
> I'm impressed with yet.  This is not a permanent situation.

I am a faithful Apple II (Plus) user, and I must disagree with this last
sentence.  There has NEVER, EVER been a usable word processor of any sort
(in my own opinion) that runs on ANY of the Apple II operating systems
since the Apple II line came out.  In order to do any serious writing, I 
have to boot up CP/M.  Short 30-page manuals overflow everything I have
under DOS 3.3 (I'm in the process of converting to ProDOS, but from what
I've seen, I have nothing to look forward to in this respect), and they're 
all so difficult to use.  I have never even HEARD of any word processor 
that is not memory-based, permitting someone to write long documents.

It looks to me like the first person to port WordStar (with all its problems)
to ProDOS will clean up. (1/2 :-)  Any takers?
-- 
Paul Sander        (408) 734-9822       | Do YOU get nervous when a
paul@Atherton.COM                       | sys{op,adm,prg,engr} says
{decwrl,sun,hplabs!hpda}!athertn!paul   | "oops..." ?