Re: Word Perfect for GS -- Who Sells it...?

[nathan@cco.caltech.edu (Nathan Mates)]

In article <4pd2f4$8a6@news.smart.net>, E.G. Land <land@> wrote:
>	Bought a copy of AW 5.0 from Scantron, very disappointed.

>	Primitive word processor, steep learning curve, you view only
>	1/3 of your document at time; that's no good for professional
>	word processing.

   If you think Appleworks has a 'steep' learning curve, you didn't
open the manual and read how to do stuff. Let's just say that without
any manuals, I figured out most of the commands of Appleworks 1.0 back
in sixth grade after the (idiot) teacher locked up all the manuals and
refused to read them herself.

   Further, viewing only 1/3 of a "document" at a time on the screen
is an interesting claim for "unprofessionalism." Given that Appleworks
gives you about 20 lines onscreen, your documents must be a page long,
tops.

   If you're going to criticize something for "a small view," you're
one spoiled kid. Word processing has been done on the Apple II since
the late 1970s on 40x24 or 80x24 screens. Famous writers like Jerry
Pournelle used Apple IIs just fine. [Go read the author's notes on
_Earth_ where he states that he used an Apple II for the first part of
the book, and a Mac II for the second. You can really see the
stylistic differences between the halves, and I liked the Apple II one
better.] On the IBM PC side, word processors were in 80x25 text mode 
[one whole more line of text on the screen. It's not 1/3 of your
document, it's 34%. Whoope f****n doo!] for a darn long time also, and
people used them professionally as well.

   After reading many quotes from a real professional writer,
J. Michael Straczynski, creator and author of about 90% of the SF TV
show Babylon 5, as well as "The Complete Guide to Scriptwriting" and
several hundred TV shows to his credit, he's got an different approach
than yours. According to him, writing is an art that doesn't depend on
the tools at hand, but on what you've got in your head. If you've got
a story in your head, you don't need to see the surrounding 50 lines
of context on a screen-- you could see things a line at a time and
everything would come out well. 

   Writers survived for a few millenia using pen and ink. Not that we
can't do better, but complaining about not being able to connect up a
21" monitor to your computer just so that you can see 2 pages at once
and have the software support that is pushing it. If you've got a
story that you _must_ tell, you'll use any means possible. The way
you write it is unimportant as long as others can read it.

>	What about Word Perfect? Who does it stack up, and where can I
>	buy it?

   I suppose you meant to say "How does it stack up?" so I'll answer
that. First off, the //e version would use _exactly_ the same text
mode, giving you the same problem of not being able to see too
much. [Face it: graphics circa 1983 are not the Apple //e's strong
point. You are NOT going to get something that zooms out to 75% or 50%
views.] 

   Word Perfect's learning curve is far worse from what I remember--
it's a pure text interface also. Word Perfect for the Apple //e is
further not being sold any more. The only place to buy it is used on
the comp.sys.apple2.marketplace newsgroup.

Nathan Mates
-- 
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~nathan/      <*>
# And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the
# Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in 
# parables" Mark 4:11, NRSV