Re: Inwords 1.1 Shipping???

[philip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough)]

In article <1993May13.161847.5449@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> snelson@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Steven Nelson) writes:

[ ]
>
>This probably belongs in email, but I want to vent my frustration in public :)

Maybe best as enough people have sent me e-mail!
>
>I bit my tongue (typing fingers?) last time Philip made a remark about the
>IIe hurting the GS (and not knowing or caring what a IIe) (I almost typed
>in a description of the IIe built into his GS, but again I resisted the
>urge), but this time I gotta speak up.

I didn't say I didn't care, did I? If so then I'm sorry. I simply don't know
what a IIe really is, having never used one. By the way, I've received 
several descriptions of the IIe living inside my GS's. Apparently I can't get
rid of them either...
>
>The IIe does not the hurt the GS!  Just because InTrec (InSync) writes
>ProTerm for IIe, WestCode writes InWords for IIe, it does not hurt the
>GS!  You may be jealous that GS versions aren't available.  But don't
>begrudge the fact the IIe versions exist.  Be happy your GS can at least
>run IIe programs!  The IIe is still being sold NEW, the GS is not.
>There are more IIe machines than GS machines (logic: all GS machines are
>IIe machines, no IIe machines are GS machines, there are x IIe only machines)

The IIe itself does not hurt the GS directly. What I meant to say was that
people were simply writing IIe only (lowest common denominator so to 
speak) software, especially in view of the LC's IIe card. What's worse is 
that publishers are refusing to update their GS expensive sw in order for it
to run on the newer OS's. Even companies like Broderbrund basically support
only the IIe and not the GS in their programs (even if the programs exist).
I have nothing at all against people writing for the IIe. I simply feel GS
owners should press for GS specific software. As far as InWords goes, I would
never have purchased it and their scanner (bundle) had I known that 1.1
was going to not support the GS (which I was told it would). The same goes
with ProTERM. I'd rather use a GS specific terminal program, even though 
ProTERM is very nice.

>
>I do agree and wish some GS specific versions of those programs were avail-
>able, but not to the exclusion of IIe versions.  I do most of my work on
>IIe machines, because .... , well, because the IIe programs are more reliable.
>I rarely reboot a IIe, but I frequently have to reboot my GS's.  Why? I
>dunno (:  GS/OS supports some buggy applications? Is that good or bad?

The reason you have to reboot the  GS is because the programmers are spending
all their time making sure the programs run on platforms other than the
GS.
>
>Anyway, quit knocking the II,II+, IIe, IIc Philip!  They are very good 8-bit
>machines.  And do their jobs very well.  And run Proterm and Inwords just as
>well as the IIGS.  And hundreds of other applications too!

Inwords doesn't run on my GS as I refuse to use it. Fortunately it came with
a PC version. I am annoyed to put it mildly.         

>The IIe is not hurting the IIGS!  I could argue the reverse.  The IIGS is
>hurting the IIe (eg, Apple seems to spend more time tweaking GS/OS than P8)
>but I really don't feel that way.  The machines coexist.  I'd like to see
>more 8-bit and 16-bit programs.  Apple II users must stay united.  We can't
>let rifts develop between II/+/e/c users and IIgs users.  Support all Apple
>II's!

Apple and a few others are the only ones supporting the GS. There are a 
zillion educational companies supporting the IIe. 

-- 
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
[Where sheep may safely graze...]