🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May1.164617.32118@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes:
>From article <1991May1.045558.29716@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by elmanad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman):
>> 
>> WYSIWIG, by your definition, isn't available on a PC (and likely won't
>> be even with TrueType if you're going to be picky about it).  If you
>> want your definition of WYSIWIG, go buy a NeXT -- Display PostScript
>> is the only way you'll get what you really want.
>> 
>> However, by most people's definition of WYSIWYG, the two word
>> processors above are perfectly adequate, particularly WFW since the
>> original poster had been using Word for Mac, which by your definition
>> is not exactly WYSIWYG either.
>
>unless you are using a 300 dot per inch dislay.  They do exist.
>But, I appreciate you agreeing with my point.  WYSIWYG is not
>the correct word then.  Additionally, I qualified the resolution problem
>which you deleted from your post.  Last but not least, Display PostScript
>is on more machines than the NeXT.  AND, I use Display PostScript on an
>IBM RISC 6000.
>
>
But are you running NeXTStep on that RS6000?


Chris 


-- 
Chris Kinsman  					KINSMAN@WSUVM1
Washington State University			22487863@WSUVM1
Computing Service Center			ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu
Computing Resources Laboratory			76701.154@compuserve.com