🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <690@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP writes:

> I don't think that the power of the MAC II would be wasted even
    ^
	`-- surely, you DO think (judging by what follows)?
	
>on something as mundane(sp) as wordprocessing.

> Consider a problem I ran into trying to change the font of a
>32 page document using MAC Write and a MAC Plus.  It took the machine
>over 30 minutes to change the font from Geneva to Monaco.

Nobody in their right mind uses MacWrite for serious word processing, by which
I mean several hours a day, every day, of variegated work.  As you have already
discovered, while MacWrite can be used to successfully create large and even
quite complex documents, it is of little use for all sorts of document
processing tasks, such as global font change.  Hence the creation of numerous
MacWrite helpers, e.g. (in this case) FaceLift which was recently posted to the
net.

> For more than 30 minutes I had to wait and watch the watch! Even if
>the new MAC II is 6 times the speed of the MAC Plus, I would still
>have 5 minutes... Enough time to get a mug of coffee and read the 
>paper.

As it happens, MacWrite in it's current form won't run on the Mac II.  But yes,
you would be crazy to buy a Mac II to do word processing alone unless you
derived sufficient benefit to justify the cost.  However, the Mac II stands a
good chance of becoming the desk-top publishing workstation of choice, and word
processing is a major component of DTP.  In this case the Mac II, but not
MacWrite, would be an excellent choice for word processing.

Now, if only Microsoft could get the font stuff right ....

<<word processing would be so much more fun if there were fewer letters>>

-- 
Robert Stanley             decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts
                    Voice: (613) 738-1440 (on EST) Tuesdays only
                                        don't ask-----'
Cognos Inc., 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 3N3  CANADA