Thread View: comp.sys.mac.apps
4 messages
4 total messages
Started by jsimon
Wed, 30 May 1990 23:56
Re: Technical Word Processing
Author: jsimon
Date: Wed, 30 May 1990 23:56
Date: Wed, 30 May 1990 23:56
44 lines
2012 bytes
2012 bytes
-Message-Text-Follows- In article <81032@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, tj@peirce.cis.ohio-state.edu (Todd R Johnson) writes... > > I do a lot of technical writing for scientific journals and... I do too. I use FullWrite for everything. It's far from perfect, but not as far as everything else out there. > > Below are features that I would like in a WP program. > > - Automatic numbering of sections, lists, and figures. > - References to other parts of the document. FullWrite does these very well. > - Bibliographies in various formats. FullWrite handles different formats of bibliographies, but it may not be flexible enough for you. > - Support for environments. FullWrite has user-defined styles. They're not the same as Word's stylesheets, but I'd say they're more similar than dissimilar. I'm not quite sure what it is you're looking for here. > Frankly, I am amazed that it is so hard to find WP programs >with these features. Such features are quite common in many >documents. The Mac rags always complain about LaTeX being hard to >use, but it looks to me like it might be easier to use to produce >sophisticated documents. I agree. Word processors for the Mac still have a ways to go. On the other hand, while one can do just about anything with LaTex, it's never clear how much time and effort it will take to do it. It's always been a balance of Ease Of Use versus Power. It's not clear to me that it must always be that way. I think FullWrite does bring the two a little closer. Jonathan Simon Dept. of Physics University of California Santa Barbara
Re: Technical Word Processing
Author: Lee Spector
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 1990 12:35
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 1990 12:35
24 lines
1798 bytes
1798 bytes
In article <5559@hub.ucsb.edu> jsimon@voodoo.ucsb.edu writes: > >I use FullWrite for everything. It's far from perfect, but not >as far as everything else out there. I don't get it. I've played with the FullWrite Demo a bit, and I can't figure out how it is finding such devotees. The problem: it's incomprehensibly, fantastically SLOW (on my IIcx with 8 Meg.). The other day I tried a search/replace on a document with less than 10 pages and it took something like 15 minutes!!! Granted there were alot of replace instances (I think I was replacing double spaces with single spaces) but no other word processor that I've tried is even in this ballpark for unuseability. I once created a longer document (maybe 60 pages, with some graphics included) and as I recall it was so slow that you had time to go get a cup of coffee every time you flipped a page! FullWrite's features are indeed quite nice, but I just can't figure out how anybody can put up with such sluggishness. Perhaps FullWrite devotees just produce very small documents? Perhaps they all have accelerators? Perhaps the current version (2.?) is significantly faster than my demo (1.1)? (I asked an Ashton-Tate person if speed was one of the upgrade improvements and they said no, but I think it was just a salesperson...) -Lee (spector@cs.umd.edu)
Re: Technical Word Processing
Author: Charles C. Allen
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 1990 00:59
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 1990 00:59
14 lines
1210 bytes
1210 bytes
> I don't get it. I've played with the FullWrite Demo a bit, and I > can't figure out how it is finding such devotees. The problem: it's > incomprehensibly, fantastically SLOW (on my IIcx with 8 Meg.). The other > day I tried a search/replace on a document with less than 10 pages and it > took something like 15 minutes!!! I use FW 1.1 on a II (1500K MF partition) and on a IIci (1124K MF partition). On the IIci, I just took a 15 page document and replaced all double spaces with single spaces. It took 13 seconds. Charles Allen Internet: cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu Department of Physics HEPnet: purdnu::allen, fnal::cca Purdue University talknet: 317/494-9776 West Lafayette, IN 47907
Re: Technical Word Processing
Author: John Spraggs - VE7ADE
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 1990 06:45
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 1990 06:45
17 lines
1241 bytes
1241 bytes
>Summary: FullWrite Demo takes 15 min vs. FullWrite takes 13 sec to make a > bunch of global changes. A possible cause is automatic repaginate. If FullWrite is anything like Word 4.0, you will notice an enormous difference. I had a 200k text file that took more than 8 hours to change about 700 CR characters to LFs. The disk was being accessed continuously and the % complete digit was taking tens of minutes to increment. The whole thing completed in less than 5 minutes with automatic repaginate off. This was with a 1 Meg Mac+ and a CMS-80 external HD. I've never used FullWrite, so I'm just guessing, but the discrepancy has to be in a mode setting or something similar. Good Luck, John
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads