Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!rutgers!att!occrsh!uokmax!cbdougla
From: cbdougla@uokmax.UUCP (Collin Broadrick Douglas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Good Word Processors
Message-ID: <2662@uokmax.UUCP>
Date: 3 Mar 89 23:35:24 GMT
References: <8903011500.aa14186@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> <312@athertn.Atherton.COM> <4580@charon.unm.edu>
Reply-To: cbdougla@uokmax.UUCP (Collin Broadrick Douglas)
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Lines: 25

>
>Seconded!  The best I've been able to say about any II-based WP is that
>it was "adequate".  I work with textfiles and "printing to a textfile"
>with AppleWorks is a royal pain; WYSIWYG editors are too clumsy and
>slow.  ProTERM's built-in editor is nice but only gives me 24k;
>AppleWriter gives more space but isn't very powerful . . . the command
>structure is sort of clumsy and 44k still isn't enough.
>
>I'd give my right leg for a decent TEXT-processing program that runs
>under ProDOS on a 128K enhanced //e and allows files of arbitrary
>size.  Does ANYTHING fit the bill?
>

AI can see yor problem here.  Fortunately, I don't have the same
problems you do.  I use Appleworks all the time and I hardly every
have to save things as text files (I do agree, using Appleworks
and saving things is horrible).  I use the timeout series Thesaurus,
Spelling checker and a few others and I have about a 1024K desktop
.  In my circumstances, Appleworks is wonderful!  It is fast, I have
a lot of memory (enough for very large files ) and lots of "extended"
features thanks to Timeout.  I don't know of any word processors that you
describe, but If I see any around, I will let everyone know.

				Collin
				q