Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I used ChiWriter starting in 1988. It was a great word processor for technical work.
I kept with it until 1998 (4 years after they stopped selling it).
I still have ancient documents archived in it, and it still runs them fairly well under XP - although to use them I have to convert them to WP 5.1, and then import them into Word.
I kept with it until 1998 (4 years after they stopped selling it).
I still have ancient documents archived in it, and it still runs them fairly well under XP - although to use them I have to convert them to WP 5.1, and then import them into Word.
You forgot to include Peachtext... with NO formatting on the entry screen... all the formatting commands embedded in a solid block of text...
Ah, THOSE were the days!!!
Ah, THOSE were the days!!!
TypeWrite (AM Jacquard)
Look at the "free software" movement. There people just make software they want and others who want it get it. There is not cost to free in a very real sense if you are doing it because you love it.
Almost all the products you mentioned were built to make money. To make money you have to sell enough copies to make a profit so "niche" software is left behind.
The other hurdle is that the dirty little secret of software is making it is not easy.
When making software is at the level of the old roll your own HTML then there will be more diversity.
Almost all the products you mentioned were built to make money. To make money you have to sell enough copies to make a profit so "niche" software is left behind.
The other hurdle is that the dirty little secret of software is making it is not easy.
When making software is at the level of the old roll your own HTML then there will be more diversity.
When discussing legacy word processors, don't forget PC-Write. PC-Write was the original shareware, and developer Bob Wallace became quite wealthy from his 'free' PC-Write). PC-Write was feature-rich, yet fast and nearly bug-free. It had a loyal following of 100s of thousands of paying customers (plus 50 times as many freeloaders).
PC-Write's downfall was Wallace's inability to produce (or disinterest in producing) a solid Windows version of PC-Write. There were at least 3 problems, 2 of which were not technical in nature:
(1) Mr. Wallace disliked using a mouse
(2) he sold his company - but stayed on as an employed programmer.
Neither was conducive to moving forward and making a good Windows version.
(3) the technical problem with PC-Write, Wallace, and Windows: Bob Wallace was the finest PASCAL programmer anywhere and one of the best assembly language programmers. Coding for Windows demanded proficiency with C and C++. Assembler and PASCAL of the early 90s (and his baby, PC-WRITE) were not a good fit for the brave new world. Think about it: multi-millionaire, no longer running his own company, needing to shift gears to become a novice in a new programming paradigm, and increasingly interested in psychedelic drugs.... why bother?
A good programmer with a future vision could have kept PC-Write viable - it would probably still be around today. It was that good.
As people found Windows-based word processors, PC-Write fell behind and became a money pit for the guy who bought Wallace's company, Quicksoft. Come to think of it, the same happened to WordStar and WordPerfect, and all of the other DOS-era also-rans.
Beyond PC-Write.... I started with Speed Script on Commodore 64. On PCs, I first used WordStar, but WordPerfect quickly became my mainstay for serious, end-product writing. WP offered free, high-quality support from skilled technicians who spoke English as a first language. More importantly, WordPerfect had awesome power. Wordstar imploded and WP got better and better.
Among the elegant features of WordPerfect still not implemented well in Word was "Reveal Codes." Reveal Codes showed you the behind-the-scenes formatting codes. When something didn't display correctly you could use that feature to find the codes and fix the display/print - it was awesome.
What Word calls "Reveal Formating" is the usual Microsoft 'me-too, me-too-late' method of designing products. WP's reveal was simple & effective. Tasks that were so simple in WP are so complicated in today's Word.
The DOS versions of Word were very buggy and had a bizarre interface.
Today's Word is the standard, and I use it, although I'm using OpenOffice a lot more these days.
As for spreadsheets of old(e), Quattro Pro and SuperCalc had features that Excel STILL can't manage. Example: moving a column. In those old guys, you highlighted the column, placed your cursor where you wanted to move the column, and hit ENTER - rather like today's drag-and-drop. Excel STILL requires several steps to accomplish the same common task.
PC-Write's downfall was Wallace's inability to produce (or disinterest in producing) a solid Windows version of PC-Write. There were at least 3 problems, 2 of which were not technical in nature:
(1) Mr. Wallace disliked using a mouse
(2) he sold his company - but stayed on as an employed programmer.
Neither was conducive to moving forward and making a good Windows version.
(3) the technical problem with PC-Write, Wallace, and Windows: Bob Wallace was the finest PASCAL programmer anywhere and one of the best assembly language programmers. Coding for Windows demanded proficiency with C and C++. Assembler and PASCAL of the early 90s (and his baby, PC-WRITE) were not a good fit for the brave new world. Think about it: multi-millionaire, no longer running his own company, needing to shift gears to become a novice in a new programming paradigm, and increasingly interested in psychedelic drugs.... why bother?
A good programmer with a future vision could have kept PC-Write viable - it would probably still be around today. It was that good.
As people found Windows-based word processors, PC-Write fell behind and became a money pit for the guy who bought Wallace's company, Quicksoft. Come to think of it, the same happened to WordStar and WordPerfect, and all of the other DOS-era also-rans.
Beyond PC-Write.... I started with Speed Script on Commodore 64. On PCs, I first used WordStar, but WordPerfect quickly became my mainstay for serious, end-product writing. WP offered free, high-quality support from skilled technicians who spoke English as a first language. More importantly, WordPerfect had awesome power. Wordstar imploded and WP got better and better.
Among the elegant features of WordPerfect still not implemented well in Word was "Reveal Codes." Reveal Codes showed you the behind-the-scenes formatting codes. When something didn't display correctly you could use that feature to find the codes and fix the display/print - it was awesome.
What Word calls "Reveal Formating" is the usual Microsoft 'me-too, me-too-late' method of designing products. WP's reveal was simple & effective. Tasks that were so simple in WP are so complicated in today's Word.
The DOS versions of Word were very buggy and had a bizarre interface.
Today's Word is the standard, and I use it, although I'm using OpenOffice a lot more these days.
As for spreadsheets of old(e), Quattro Pro and SuperCalc had features that Excel STILL can't manage. Example: moving a column. In those old guys, you highlighted the column, placed your cursor where you wanted to move the column, and hit ENTER - rather like today's drag-and-drop. Excel STILL requires several steps to accomplish the same common task.
Thanks for this reply.
A topic for another time: "Coding for Windows demanded proficiency with C and C++." I don't think C, and certainly NOT C++ as being proficient (not the same meaning), I suppose the universality of character based languages allows them to be used for anything, without having to evaluate good or bad software design and future transitions needing maintainability.
Show a resume with C++ proficiency and you get a job, producing code rapidly, but not contributing to future maintainability, if fact basing survival on the dependable obsolescence of your life's work.
A topic for another time: "Coding for Windows demanded proficiency with C and C++." I don't think C, and certainly NOT C++ as being proficient (not the same meaning), I suppose the universality of character based languages allows them to be used for anything, without having to evaluate good or bad software design and future transitions needing maintainability.
Show a resume with C++ proficiency and you get a job, producing code rapidly, but not contributing to future maintainability, if fact basing survival on the dependable obsolescence of your life's work.
I've user Wordstar, WordPerfect (DOS and Windows versions) and several other word processors. I don't miss having to know how to do the same thing 10 different ways!
Had it not been for Microsoft's hard ball and its competitors' ineptitude, the most of competing programs would not have survivied anyway. The continually emerging requirements for file compatibilty would have doomed them. With no common file formats, the companies which buy the software would have reduced the number of viable programs to just a few anyway because of the need to share files with customers, clients and other external entities. Think Beta/VHS and HD DVD/Blue Ray.
The pro-Windows arguement about software diversity is not about how many different programs will do the same thing, e.g, process words, but how many different things are there than there's some program (maybe more than one program) can do.
Had it not been for Microsoft's hard ball and its competitors' ineptitude, the most of competing programs would not have survivied anyway. The continually emerging requirements for file compatibilty would have doomed them. With no common file formats, the companies which buy the software would have reduced the number of viable programs to just a few anyway because of the need to share files with customers, clients and other external entities. Think Beta/VHS and HD DVD/Blue Ray.
The pro-Windows arguement about software diversity is not about how many different programs will do the same thing, e.g, process words, but how many different things are there than there's some program (maybe more than one program) can do.
Your quote, see below, is a good summary of history, but this was avoidable.
"The continually emerging requirements for file compatibility would have doomed them. With no common file formats, the companies which buy the software would have reduced the number of viable programs to just a few anyway because of the need to share files with customers, clients and other external entities."
This was a "continually emerging... common file formats..." For 35 years I have pointed out to anyone who would listen. "The output of any program should be readable by any another program." Subtract the word "any" or add in the program's context and it is possible to see that a word processing program's output include a form (export) made compatible with the (import) capability of another word processing software. I had advantage over this persistent state of affairs in that all the first programs I wrote specified two formats call them A, B, in 4 combinations. To run normally both formats were specified as A (in/out) the same. To upgrade A (in) and B (out) enabling a new format with old data. To revert or downgrade B (in) and A (out). And in the post conversion the B (in/out).
This does not preclude a separate upgrade module to handle conversions across generations of upgrades; it only requires that the original be converted to the upgraded, but also that the upgraded version be reverted to the original format. This is intended to save time, but it not intended some economical sort of universal translator, although you could wish the format was expressed in standard generalized markup language (SGML) with BNF format specifications. You may wish but it's too late. Note I did not invent this notion, it would come to any programmer doing an upgrade, and it did come from the "Software Tool" book, circa 1974, by a noted author, Brian Kernighan.
When the market place grows tired of reinventing the wheel and becomes dissatisfied with monoculture sofrware, let me know.
"The continually emerging requirements for file compatibility would have doomed them. With no common file formats, the companies which buy the software would have reduced the number of viable programs to just a few anyway because of the need to share files with customers, clients and other external entities."
This was a "continually emerging... common file formats..." For 35 years I have pointed out to anyone who would listen. "The output of any program should be readable by any another program." Subtract the word "any" or add in the program's context and it is possible to see that a word processing program's output include a form (export) made compatible with the (import) capability of another word processing software. I had advantage over this persistent state of affairs in that all the first programs I wrote specified two formats call them A, B, in 4 combinations. To run normally both formats were specified as A (in/out) the same. To upgrade A (in) and B (out) enabling a new format with old data. To revert or downgrade B (in) and A (out). And in the post conversion the B (in/out).
This does not preclude a separate upgrade module to handle conversions across generations of upgrades; it only requires that the original be converted to the upgraded, but also that the upgraded version be reverted to the original format. This is intended to save time, but it not intended some economical sort of universal translator, although you could wish the format was expressed in standard generalized markup language (SGML) with BNF format specifications. You may wish but it's too late. Note I did not invent this notion, it would come to any programmer doing an upgrade, and it did come from the "Software Tool" book, circa 1974, by a noted author, Brian Kernighan.
When the market place grows tired of reinventing the wheel and becomes dissatisfied with monoculture sofrware, let me know.
I used Magic Wand and later WordStar running under CP/M, then WordPerfect running under MS-DOS. I still run WordPerfect 5.1 for MS-DOS for some merge applications that do not run as well in more modern word processors, and keep an old MS-DOS machine around for that purpose. Now I use mostly recent versions of WordPerfect for Windows, but sometimes use OpenOffice Writer for Windows and for Linux.
I also remember my 1st PC came with GEM Desktop and using GEM Write to produce a few documents.
The first word processor I used on a PC was Samna. As I recall, Samna was used a lot in government. When Windows came out, the DOS-based Samna became Windows-based Ami Pro.
Another word processor I enjoyed for the short time it was around was Lotus Manuscript.
Another word processor I enjoyed for the short time it was around was Lotus Manuscript.
My first word processor was briefly Smart System(an office productivity suite) then along came Ashton-Tate's Framework and I jumped ship. Anything that I do not need to give to the "outside world" I still do in Framework(Version 8 of course); primarily because of it's outlining functions and the fact that the files can easily contain text, spreadsheets, graph and graphics as well as database fields; all with minimal overhead. It is still being produced by the original developers who now run a company called "Selections & Functions" and they are on the web at Framework.com
Started with PC Write -- it was shareware and reasonably priced to purchase. I still have the printed manual. Strictly ASCII text and an excellent editor as well as word processor.
Eventually gravitated to Word Perfect 5.1.
Eventually gravitated to Word Perfect 5.1.
For the record, my first word processor was a little (RAN on one 5.25" disk!) shareware thing called MindReader. Couldn't do fancy fonts or sizes, but you could spell "supercalifragilisticexpailladocious" as "sup;" long before the "big guys" learned to check the dictionary as you typed.
In college, we used WordPerfect because its equation writer was the smallest headache for genereating equations, and I still use WordPerfect for most of my processor work.
But the reason I haven't gone Linux isn't Mocrisoft or Corel, it's Adobe. Anything that involves illustration, I'd rather do in PageMaker; definitely anything with multiple text streams; and if I happen to have PageMaker open when I remember I need to write a letter, I'll do it in Pagemaker rather than bother opening a word processor. And when I;m thinking of writing a book, it's actually a bit of a decision if I'm going to open WordPerfect or PageMaker, because with WordPerfect, I either have to save the chapters separately (and constantly shuffle between files) or paw through a really big file looking for the point I want. With PageMaker, I can think in "final format" and not worry about whether I remembered to assign a page break at the end of the chapter, or if it somehow got separated from the test it was supposed to be attatched to.
In college, we used WordPerfect because its equation writer was the smallest headache for genereating equations, and I still use WordPerfect for most of my processor work.
But the reason I haven't gone Linux isn't Mocrisoft or Corel, it's Adobe. Anything that involves illustration, I'd rather do in PageMaker; definitely anything with multiple text streams; and if I happen to have PageMaker open when I remember I need to write a letter, I'll do it in Pagemaker rather than bother opening a word processor. And when I;m thinking of writing a book, it's actually a bit of a decision if I'm going to open WordPerfect or PageMaker, because with WordPerfect, I either have to save the chapters separately (and constantly shuffle between files) or paw through a really big file looking for the point I want. With PageMaker, I can think in "final format" and not worry about whether I remembered to assign a page break at the end of the chapter, or if it somehow got separated from the test it was supposed to be attatched to.
My first foray into word processing was actually on a dedicated word processor and let me tell you, at that point, anything was better than having to retype the entire document for one error or change!
Other than that, I recall WordStar for DOS and I think I used MacWrite when I switched over to Macs.
Other than that, I recall WordStar for DOS and I think I used MacWrite when I switched over to Macs.
Multimate was the first word processor that I used.
We used the Apple IIe (and IIc) as well as the original Powermacs. The Powermacs ran Clarisworks...and flight simulator. 
Having chosen "Other"...
I did my first word processing on a Commodore 128 with a product called (if I recall) Personal Writer. It was part of a suite (included database and spreadsheet), that would also run on the 64, but was capable of taking advantage of some of the 128's features (80 column mode, extra memory, etc)
I just did a quick Google for it, but didn't find anything relevant. Too bad. It was a nice little program that got used for many years...
I did my first word processing on a Commodore 128 with a product called (if I recall) Personal Writer. It was part of a suite (included database and spreadsheet), that would also run on the 64, but was capable of taking advantage of some of the 128's features (80 column mode, extra memory, etc)
I just did a quick Google for it, but didn't find anything relevant. Too bad. It was a nice little program that got used for many years...
remember it's name, Wordstar is the first I can remember the name of. The first two were mainframe Word Processing applications run on dumb terminals. The next ran on an old Prime Master / Slave system, then I was using a Wordstar system.
Boy, are we talking ancient. Oh, I didn't count the electronic Brother typewriter than remembered a couple of pages either.
Boy, are we talking ancient. Oh, I didn't count the electronic Brother typewriter than remembered a couple of pages either.
Tucked away in a box with its 2KB capacity, upgraded from the previous 1.5KB.
Talk about choosing words and punctuation carefully, and with a once-through ribbon.
Talk about choosing words and punctuation carefully, and with a once-through ribbon.
Leading Edge Word Processor. A superior product. I still have my 5 1/4" program diskettes. Alas, no 5 1/4" drive to use them on.....
You might be able to use them. The current BIOSes (& Win 7) still support 5.25 drives. If you've got a bay open pop one in(same as mounting a optical drive); the drives & cables are still around. Of course there's NO telling how, or if, the program will run a modern processor speeds.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
