Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!hite386!tlvx!sysop
From: sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: More on WordPerfects Reasons
Summary: More on Wordprocessors
Message-ID: <202@tlvx.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 89 17:26:42 GMT
References: <45600063@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <6550@homxc.ATT.COM> <4389@alvin.mcnc.org>
Organization: Temporal Vortex of Jacksonville, Florida
Lines: 122

In article <4389@alvin.mcnc.org>, raw@mcnc.org (Russell Williams) writes:
> In article <6550@homxc.ATT.COM>, doug@homxc.ATT.COM (D.SULPY) writes:
> > 
> > I wonder if it has ever entered WordPerfect's collective head that their
> > lack of sales isn't due to a problem with Amiga owners, but due to Amiga
> > owners' problems with WordPerfect. I'm not a WordPerfect owner (and never
> > will be), but the reviews I've seen of it here on the NET are generally
> > far from favorable (no WYSIWYG being the most common complaint). WP's
....
> 	I have been reading reviews of wordperfect for the last couple of 
> weeks.  Unfavorable reviews.  And I can see the reason behind them.  WP is not
> the simplest program to use, it's not WYSIWYG.  But it IS the most powerful
> wordprocessor I know of for the amiga.  When I say this, I'm excluding TeX for
....

Word Perfect for Amiga looked very much like that for the IBM, and seemed
rather nice to me, for the program that WP is meant to be.  If you don't
need fonts and need all the features, I can see where people would like it
(even with those strange function-key choices...I know, use the template).
I have no use for all those extra features, though.  There are less-capable
word processors that have spell-checking and other "basics" that would be enough
for me to write resumes or reports.  Usually, I have no use for fonts either,
and therefore, no use for WYSIWYG.  I can virtually get by with a text editor.

Speaking of which, can the more advanced text editors such as CygnusED be
configured with some word processing features (footers with page numbers,
spellchecking, etc.)?  I've been thinking about getting a commercial text
editor, and CED sounds neat.  (What's all this about a new version?)

....
> look like it came out of a high quality typewriter.  Maximum readability is
> what I want out of the output.  I have a lot of friends with font based
> wordprocessors, and frankly, they can't write a grocery list without it looking
> like a ransom note.  More fonts than brains seems to be pretty prevalent with

I would agree that it would be preferable to use the printer's internal fonts
rather than do some clever scaled font.  An ad for Pen Pal said that it'd
use the printer's internal NLQ font along with graphics on the same line.
This sounds like a great solution, and it's hard to imagine that there's only
one word processor that does this.  But, I haven't seen Pen Pal, so I can't
review it.... On the new WP 5.0 for the IBM machines, how does WP print
fonts without going to graphic mode (and having the same problems with output
as all the Amiga programs that use fonts)?

There was a program on the C-64 which put the Epson printer into graphic
mode and made multiple passes, just like the printer does in NLQ mode.  The
difference was that they could support various fonts.  The downside of this
is that the fonts were pretty much optimized for 8-pin Epson printers.  I
would think this is the best solution, except there would need to be fonts
for different printers, as well as different pitches and styles.

PageStream uses a generic font that is "scaled".  The result on my dot-matrix
is not as good as the printer's font, apparently because the fonts are very
generic.  I would like to try to make a font for it that is "optimized" for
output on my printer.  (When I posted this on SoftLogik's BBS, the reply was
that it wasn't the font's fault, but the fact that it gets scaled and such.
I realize this, but in knowing that, I figure the font can be kluged.  Now if
I had a font editor for PS I would see if I'm right or wrong....)

> 	This isn't to say that I think WYSIWYG is a bad idea.  I like it a
> great deal of the time.  But I pay a price in speed for it.  Now, I could cut

I agree, a "word processor" should be very fast.

[gripes about ProWrite deleted]

>  biased attitude that the Amiga is basically a game machine suggests that
> > they never took the Amiga seriously enough to consider the features that
> > Amiga users demand. WP portrays it's I.B.M.-Mindset by it's insinuation
> > that CBM will only have "it's act together" when it offers itself as
> > a serious competitor to I.B.M. in the business market -- God, I hope
....

Noone REALLY expects anything but MS-DOS machines in most businesses, do they?
And, is it a bad thing?  For people who do just word processing, why not?

> 	It might suggest this, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
> WP Corp. took the Amiga seriously.  WP for the Amiga is a full blown version
....
> Apple!  What really upsets me is that I'm starting to think that the Amiga is
> not purchased by most people with writing in mind.  I realize that for a large

Idea!  Where does WP sell most of its copies of WP?  To business, I would
think.  I think the 9% figure that was mentioned in a previous article was
a huge number for what is really a top-of-the-line word processor!  It amazes
me that 9% of Amiga owners are willing to pay for a word processor with all
those features.  Considering that most Amigas tend to be home machines (I've
yet to see one in a business setting, while I've seen WP all over the place
in business use), there must be some serious writing going on for a
non-business use of such a program.

> percent of the population, a program that can comfortably handle twenty pages
> and a number of features is sufficient.  And that's fine for them.  The kicker
> is somewhat self-centered:  I do write, and I write a lot.  English papers on
> WP are a dream, and large chapters are easy as well.  If WP advances
> significantly beyond 5.0, my computer will be inferior to an IBM for the whole
....

Uh, does this mean you still aren't satisfied with 4.0 (since if you were,
you wouldn't be waiting for advances)?  Is there any word processor that does
everything you need?  What will WP 6.0 or 7.0 do that will help you write
your papers (beyond your version 4.0)?  I'm wondering, since earlier, you
speak as if WP does everything you need (and fast, etc.).

> 	For that matter, it wouldn't exactly hurt to see the Amiga in business.
> Think of those bar charts!  It can do incredible things when unleashed, and
> any computer being used to accomplish a given task is NOT being wasted!

I think it's wishful thinking, but it seems reasonable that the Amiga could
complement other computers in a business setting.  Certainly, it's a great
solution for many tasks, with great graphics and still NTSC compatible.

[misc whining deleted ;-]

It's hard for me to feel bad about the situation.  Amiga owners have the
choice of Word Perfect as well as any solutions before or soon-to-come.
I have the feeling that this conversation might turn into "Wordprocessor
Wars", but there have been a number of disappointing word processors for
Amiga, for some reason, and it's worthwhile to examine solutions.  Anyway,
these are just my opinions (I hope they're not way off-base :-).

Gary Wolfe  ..!uunet!hite386!tlvx!sysop