05/03/86: RE: word wackers OS9 Re: Msg 7465 by Delphi, | Category: Delphi - Archives | 34 comments - (Comments are closed)

RE: word wackers OS9 Re: Msg 7465

7494 3MAY86-0403 Archives
RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7465)
From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

Well Marty, I just got a new modem a few days ago. It’s that new Zipper 2400
from Priority 1 Electronics which I snatched up for $399 if you beleive it.
I am quite nicely surprised in that it has more options than a Cadillac
showroom. It even features CCITT/BELL 212A compatibility with the flip of an
AT command. I have been thoroughly testing it with Xmodem downloads, text files,
logging on/off, etc. and have had no problem connecting except to one system.
Seems it has a problem with US Robotics modems. I called one at 2400 and the
USR answered and gave a 300 baud carrier but never switched to 1200 or 2400
baud carier and this modem refuses to connect at 1200 or 2400 until it receives
at
least a 1200 baud carrier. I wonder how many other modems are like the USR. On
the bright side if you call a system at 2400 and it doesn’t support 2400 then it
will time out from the time it switched to 1200 and should switch to 2400 and
connect at a fall-back rate of 1200. Does produce some garbage that way but at
least it connects and allows you to change the baud rate of the terminal. Best
part of all is that it has a 2 year warrantee…

34 comments to RE: word wackers OS9 Re: Msg 7465

  • pucc_unknown

    7510 3MAY86-1706 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7494)
    From: ERIKGAV To: GREGL

    What you’re saying there sounds really weird… in other words, your modem
    won’t connect at 1200 until it gets a 1200 *answer* tone? That’s really a
    problem! The way most modems handle connecting at 1200 is to answer with a
    300 baud answer, wait for the remote to send a 1200 originate, then to send
    a 1200 answer. The same goes for 2400 instead the modem answers with a 300,
    the remote sends a 2400 originate, and the host responds with a 2400 answer.

    If I understand what you’re saying, then your modem goes the *other* way…
    waiting for the host to send a 1200 answer tone before it’ll respond with
    a 1200 originate. Sounds like an engineer somewhere got a bit too creative.
    There should be some way to disable that, as it’s far from being standard in
    any sense of the word.

    And since most of the boards running 2400 baud are using USR modems (thru that
    deal way back when where sysops could buy ‘em cheap) .. you’re gonna find
    yourself lying sleepless at night, surrounded by ghosts of Hayes 2400 baud
    modems!

    – Erik

  • pucc_unknown

    7521 4MAY86-0631 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7494)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    I will be interested in hearing follow up reports!!

    Am delighted you are pleased with that item…
    I saw it myself in Priority One catalog.

    For my part, considering that on Delphi 2400 baud is
    in X modem only 1.3 times faster (via Uninet or Tymnet)
    than 1200 baud, and it is ONLY in X modem that I need real speed,
    and considering that currently neither Delphi nor the CoCo
    supports any sensibly designed error correcting protocols
    oriented to efficient use of 1200 baud and up, I will
    wait before buying my 2400 baud unit. The price can ONLY
    plummet. I do feel you chose VERY wisely in getting
    a unit that supports CCITT protocol!!!!! VERY VERY wisely!!!

    The use of Bell 212A here in the US seems awfully stupid to
    me, as most of the rest of the world uses CCITT, and in many if not
    all Eureopean countries Bell 212A modem tones will totally
    foul up the local switching systems. Eventually, I suspect,
    212A may get replaced by CCITT. There currently is strong
    internaional pressure on the US in that direction.

    Here’s to a future totally international modem transmission
    standard!!!

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    7771 10MAY86-2345 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7521)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    Here here, now’s here’s my vote toward international standards among
    modemming… There is one quirk with it… It won’t manually originate
    properly but it will manually answer. In order to manually originate
    I have to type ‘ATD’ and the other feller simulates a dial tone and then
    gives carrier and it connects but without simulating a dial tone I get
    a ‘NO DIALTONE’ repsonse and it hangs up. Unless I’m missing some sort
    of command to force it do it I’m at a loss as to why. I plan on giving
    Priority One a call and find out why. I bought 2400 purely for the
    purpose of finally getting my BBS written and on-line at 2400 baud…
    That is if I can ever get out of these apartments and into a house
    or find someone willing to put up with the system. I just simply refuse
    to have a second phone line in an apartment, especially at $102.50 a shot!
    I take it you have caught my message about the BUG RIDDEN Last Word that
    Computerware is selling. Here’s some ideas I have for my own word processor.
    I am going to attempt to come up with my own bug free that will have the
    powers of much larger systems using modules, ie. if you want to look up a
    word in the dictionary it calls in the lookup module and runs it. I’m
    kicking around some ideas at the moment and am looking for some suggestions
    that some of you might like to throw in.

  • pucc_unknown

    7511 3MAY86-1723 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7510)
    From: ERIKGAV To: RAINBOWMAG

    Cray, is there any reason why any of the longer messages that I type always
    look so pathetic? Delphi always seems to throw in all sorts of extra
    carriage returns and makes the general look of the message really awful.

    At the start of this message I did a “.rm 75″ which I’m praying will correct
    some of this stupidity… I crossed both my fingers and the fingers of someone
    I love in hopes of getting lucky.

    However, is this long line thing something I’m doing or a fault with Delphi?
    If it’s Delphi, will it be fixed *soon*? If it’s me, how can I fix it?

    Obloquializing querulously and queriously,
    — Erik

  • pucc_unknown

    7768 10MAY86-2336 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7510)
    From: GREGL To: ERIKGAV

    It connects to US Robotics Courier 2400′s just dandy. I think I finally got
    it all worked out in that in most instances it waits to see if the host will
    increase to 1200 answer carrier and if not it attempts to originate with
    2400 and if it still doesn’t get a proper reply it drops to 1200 and then
    if it doesn’t get a proper reply it disconnects. The one system I haven’t
    been able to connect to was due to terrible phone lines and long-distance.
    I’ve called several TBBS systems with USR 2400′s at 2400 baud long-distance
    with no problem except this one. The phone lines at this one are terrible
    and the worst part is that it is on call-forwarding from one city to the
    next… I think you can begin to get the idea as to why it won’t connect.
    I plan on taking the system down there on my vacation and attempting to
    connect from home (which is a local call). It’s a terrific modem and I
    truly love it.

  • pucc_unknown

    7786 11MAY86-0107 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7771)
    From: ERIKGAV To: GREGL

    Have you tried doing an “ATO”? That works with the Hayes… I’ve never
    understood just exactly what the advantage of doing an “ATO” over an “ATD”
    was, but perhaps in your case it has a legitimate use. Perhaps a more
    logical solution would be just to go to an answer tone and let the other
    guy do the originating, but this is clumsy at best.

    – Erik

  • pucc_unknown

    7792 11MAY86-0412 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7771)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    I’m sorry to hear that the Last Word is NOT at all good. It had received
    some very good press thru the rumor mill… but then, utter garbage
    like Desk Mate was well reviewed in a number of official places too.
    I would be delighted to chat with you about wordprocessors, and
    to beta test any code you might write. With wordprocessors,
    remember to do the CORE functions well first… THEN add the bells,
    whistled, and features. Make darn sure the thing scrolls rapidly,
    has easy and logical cursor movement control, that is VERY responsive.
    Much time has to be spent with differing timings for cursor slide speeds
    and the like. Make sure that no matter how big the file in memory,
    insertion into the top or middle of it is FAST, with NO lagging
    of the screen appearance when the keyboard is hit. All of this is
    quite possible… if you know the tricks for writing editors
    that were developed in the 60′s and 70′s…
    and ignored by most writers of the mediocre products we have to
    deal with on the CoCo market. AFTER you have a simply structured,
    logical, consistenly controlled editor, THEN you can start mapping out
    and implimenting the fancier features. One other word of advice…
    just an opinion… DON’t use a mouse for word processor.
    In processing WORDS, you are constantly using the keybard ANYWAY…
    and my experience has shown that PROPERLY implimented cursormovement
    control via the keyboard is quite adequate. Having to take your hands
    off the keyboard to move a mouse is ridiculous.
    Don’t use icons either just to be cute! ICONs are, in general, overused.
    And ignorant reviewers will drool “Oh! It has ICONs… it has to be GOOD!”
    What drivel! There is NOT formula way to write a good user interface.
    It takes time, careful thought, LOTS of revisions, and MONTHS of
    beta testing and further revisions. Look at the Eclipse Magnifying Editor
    here in the graphics data base for and example of a program where
    every detail of the user interface was sweated, debated, and played with
    over more than a year.

    The CoCo… and its soon to be released successor(s)… NEED a quality
    word processor badly. And from what you tell me, one does NOT
    currently exist.

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    7990 17MAY86-0037 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7786)
    From: GREGL To: ERIKGAV

    ATO is used to return to an on-line state after placing the modem back in
    command mode. For instance you call a buddy and forgot to set half duplex
    so you send a +++ and then get the OK prompt from the modem and you now
    type ATF1 to set half duplex and then ATO to get back to communications.
    I haven’t figured out the originate thing yet but I did notice that I was
    talking to a guy earlier and he put me on hold and accidently flipped his
    Modem Ib to answer and I type ATD and it connected without argument.

  • pucc_unknown

    7992 17MAY86-0053 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7792)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    You are quite correct in stating that a highly responsive, easy to use,
    powerful, reliable word processor does not exist for either OS-9 nor
    the CoCo based OS-9. Dynastar is nice but sluggish and doesn’t work with
    02.00.00. Stylograph is cutesy but not very powerful. The Last Word is
    complete trash. Sled is slightly unreliable. Vedit has it’s own quirks
    and requires WordPak control codes like Stylograph instead of RS mode.
    You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned doing the CORE first as
    this is an absolute requirement and I want to start with the very basics
    and try to get it as reliable and fast as I can and then I’ll think about
    adding such things as bells & whistles. The four cursor keys are to be used
    to move the cursor on the screen and the first line will be a ruler line and
    the rest will be for the document itself. Of course I will have help screens
    available if needed but if most people are like me they soon tire of cute
    stuff on the screen and only want the nitty gritty. I had played with the idea
    of a page editor (ie you work with on “printed” page at a time) but that would
    be too cumbersome and slow. I am playing around with some of the fancy stuff
    that I want to add but seeing as how this is my first word processor then I
    will require much time devoted to the basics before attempting to tackle the
    stuff that won’t work without the basics.

  • pucc_unknown

    8018 17MAY86-0708 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7992)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    There is a lot about Telewriter 64′s editor’s command structure
    that is worth looking at. Oh, the program itself is incompetently
    written, and the menu navigation is abominable. And some of
    the menu choices are badly done. But it’s main editor has
    a very logical and quick to learn command syntax.

    For cursor movement, unaugmented, shifted, and “controlled” arrow keys
    work very well… they are any easy convention to remember.
    Tho where you deal with sliding cursors and key repeat,
    you must spend a great deal of time choosing the right amount
    of time to delay before the start of a repeat and for the speed of
    the repeat. Ideally allow serious hackers to adjust same via
    a configure program, but still you will IF you work hard
    be able to choose values that are pleasant for the vast majoritiy
    of users.

    You MUST use the “editorwith a hole in the middoe of it” structure
    for FAST insertion in the middle and top of any file no matter how big.
    Insert or Type Over mode of course must be offerred. And capability
    to display page breaks for a given bunch of format settings
    ON THE SCREEN is absolutely essential (a serious deficiency in
    Telewriter!). A ruler is nice… some folks prefer
    a digital display on a status line of the current position.
    Ideally you should offer eitehr, both, or neither, settable
    at the user’s preference: Either a status line with
    page #, line # and horiz pos # plus oter goodies (inser vs type over mode,
    and that sort of stuff, and/or the ruler you described. Or neither!)

    The format and disk I/O should be menu driven,
    with INPUT of files being via display of all valid ASCII files
    on the disk and the user pointing at the one they want.
    (you can allow type in of the file name for the die hard
    system freaks who will otherwise moan and groan about how
    long it takes to scroll an arrow or a list of filenames!).

    A LOT of thought needs to be given to how you work the ALLIGN TEXT
    function. This is one of the hardest and trickiest decisions of
    Word Processor design specs I can think of. There are VERY many alterantives
    to dealing with this issue that I have seen. A baffling number.
    One could write a book on that!

    Same for how you work embedded format and or non printable character
    info, and specific support of the basic underline and bold face functions.
    Note, by the way, that in an utterly unbelieveable bit of
    stupidity, there IS no standard support in eitehr standard
    drivers or in standard hardware for underline and bold face,
    which are no longer considered luxuries in the REAL world
    of desk top computers. (LUXURIES are now considered
    to be display of italics and alternate type fonts on the screen.
    )
    Thus in that repsect OS 9 is utterly user hostile and archaeic.
    Indeed, one of the reasons I elected to get and use a PC CLONE
    and NOT spend time for now learning about OS 9 was my own need for
    a more what you see iswhat you get text processor. And it was clear
    that the existing CoCo hardware simply did not support what nearly
    every oter current brand of desk top now does. Same for OS 9
    driver software. That fact that OS 9 driver software from Tandy
    does NOT seem to provide for underline and bold face as stadard
    would make me fear that the new machine will not support it either
    in its hardware, but on this matter I really do NOT know and will,
    like the rest of us, have to wait and see.

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8067 18MAY86-0015 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 7992)
    From: DENNYSKALA To: GREGL

    I guess great minds do run in similar tracks. After all the troubles
    with lword, just today I was musing (don’t do that very often!) how nice
    it would be to have something like Telewriter running under OS-9. I agree
    with most of Marty’s response to your message – TW64 is a pretty nice piece
    of work. Sure, there are a few things I would change: easier menu selection;
    overstrike mainly, but remember the thing is quite old. Even so, at this
    point, I would rejoice over an exact OS-9 clone. Wish I had more time.
    I think there would be a real market for a Telewriter OS-9 clone.

    —- Dennis —-

  • pucc_unknown

    8338 25MAY86-0305 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8018)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    I had intedened to use two lines at the top of the screen with the first being
    for status and the second for a ruler line and display the text exactly as it
    will be seen on “paper” when printed. The idea of a display page/line/column at
    the top is definitely a good idea but the option of turning a lot of options on
    and off will likely eat up useful memory although I do plan a lot of defaults
    to be set through a config file or program. The config program sounds better as
    it would make the change permanent per say and allow faster booting up than
    having
    to read in several files to get each little option. I plan to present both
    underlining
    and boldface characters in reverse video. I also will have the capability to
    imbed printer control codes (invisibly) such that if you type an ESC-A then
    it will imbed an escape and then an A in the file and not display it unless
    you type ALT-V which will make all hidden control characters visible to allow
    for easy spotting and modifying. For the actual imbedding I will use a sequence
    such as ALT-P and then type in the hex or decimal value and then another ALT-P
    to end the imbedding. I am doing much research into word processors found on
    MS-DOS, C/PM, and other systems and am looking for a very easy interface that
    will prove to be powerful and easy. Hopefully if I work hard enough then I
    will obtain a happy medium and a bug-free word processor.

  • pucc_unknown

    8343 25MAY86-0332 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8067)
    From: GREGL To: DENNYSKALA

    Yall just may change my mind on the newest wp… I was planning the latest and
    greatest WP to come along that would blow the socks off of MS-DOS wp’s very
    easily but yall are talking me into a Telewriter port. I was thinking of
    something
    very sleek and sophisticated with such wonders as on-screen print formatting,
    multiple headers and footers (more than one line), footnotes, auto paragraph
    numbering, sorting, auto index and table of contents generation, etc. Mainly
    taking the best ideas from the likes of Write One, All Write, etc. and rolling
    them into a greatest hits… Seems now I’m gonna have to get a copy of
    Telewriter
    and attemp to port it and make some needy changes to it. Yup, I don’t have
    Telewriter nor any other RS-DOS word processor as I don’t use RS-DOS for
    much of anything except games…

  • pucc_unknown

    8349 25MAY86-1437 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8338)
    From: SCIGUY To: MARTYGOODMAN

    RE the software/hardware switch question. Motorola’s motto has always been
    ‘Everything in Software’ so if you do anything with OS-9 (which adheres to
    this philosophy) the switch should be software controlled. I personally
    think that this is a dumb philosophy and that the switch should be in
    hardware unless there is a good reason why it shouldn’t. After all, what’s
    inelegant about a minimum parts count?

  • pucc_unknown

    8390 26MAY86-1527 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8338)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    A suggestion about embedding stuff…
    Just as you undoubtedly will have a “short hand” for embedding
    previously defined BOLD and Underline sequences, I suggest
    it is desireable to allow te user to define a number
    of other short hand sequences that the user can
    associate with stuff specific to their
    printer, such as font changes
    or activaton of specific wierd characters on a given print whell.
    For a given user may need only a half dozen of such, but it is a grand
    painn to have to repeatedly type in Esc ZG instead of
    a single augmented key that you associate
    with, say, italics or yen sign or whatever.

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8361 25MAY86-1701 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8343)
    From: DENNYSKALA To: GREGL

    I’ve always sort of liked Telewriter. I think the menu stuff and on-screen
    formatting are good – most of the other stuff too. Biggest lack is no
    overstrike mode.

  • pucc_unknown

    8382 26MAY86-0343 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8349)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: SCIGUY

    I personally like the idea of the hardware switch IN THIS PARTICULAR
    case. In other cases, software switching of stuff may be better.
    I feel each situation needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
    I LIKE the idea of being able to FORCE the darn monitor to see
    one or another signal in ANY software situation. I CAN see cases
    where a software switch would be desireable… but overall,
    I think the hardware switch approach in this case is better.

    So… I guess we agree on that one!!

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8485 28MAY86-2109 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8361)
    From: GREGL To: DENNYSKALA

    Looks like I’m being torn between Telewriter and Wordstar. At the moment it’s
    about a 50/50 draw and I’m not sure which to do. Telewriter is good but it does
    need a few features added such as overstrike mode, capability to edit files
    larger than the buffer, and a few others as well as an easier command interface.
    Maybe I’ll do a Telewriter port first, or at least write a wp as similar as
    possible to Telewriter and then do a second version with the enhancements
    and then a third based on WordStar and leave it up to yall to get the one
    you wnat or all three.

  • pucc_unknown

    8487 28MAY86-2122 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8390)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    Eggzactly, which is what I had in mind. Say some type of macro definitions
    file set up somewhere or somehow that would allow macros of all sorts. Such
    as the fact that ALT-P sounds logical for printer control codes then have
    ALT-P (anykey) as a macro except possible P which would define a hand typed
    sequence. I am thinking that a good way to do this is to allow you to define
    the macros as you are editing and then at some point allow you to store the
    macros defined to some pre-determined file that will have the path-name
    stored in the code by a config program such as /D0/DEFS/WP.DEFS or such.

  • pucc_unknown

    8518 29MAY86-0213 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8487)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    You have quite a big task on yer hands…
    unending headaches in terms of support for wierd printers
    and the like…

    But the CoCo… and especially its OS 9 level 2 based
    shadowy successor… NEEDs a definitive word processor.

    Plan to torture yerself supporting PROPORTIONAL spacing???
    Or will ya leave THAT to masochists who use Stylograph?

    heh heh

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8554 30MAY86-2130 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8485)
    From: DENNYSKALA To: GREGL

    If you’re thinking of going commercial with this, I’d recommend basing it on
    Telewriter – simply because there are a lot of people already comfortable with
    it. . After you make it as similar to TW as you feel good about, then add the
    missing features, or those Wordstar features which you feel are noticably
    better that TW’s

  • pucc_unknown

    8556 30MAY86-2135 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8518)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    Proportional spacing was the BIGGEST reason I planned on writing the word
    proocessor…. Perhaps seeing as Stylograph won’t ps on my DWP-210 and Stylo
    swears they are working on a patch for it (for a year and a half now) that
    I finally gave up on their non-support. Once I get everything figured out
    then I’ll whole hog the thing so it does everything under the sun and then
    some. But for now, expect nothing but absolute bare bones but it should be quite
    fast…

  • pucc_unknown

    8558 30MAY86-2139 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8554)
    From: GREGL To: DENNYSKALA

    That’s not a bad idea… With all the fuss with Apple I don’t want to get into
    a fight with Cognitec over the ‘look and feel’ oof their product.
    Perhaps I can make it SIMILAR to Telewriter with Telepatch and WordStar
    patches and mak it much better and more easy toio use that Telewriter
    and perhaps even come up with some other applications stuff that are just as
    good…

  • pucc_unknown

    8561 30MAY86-2150 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8558)
    From: RAINBOWMAG To: GREGL

    Personally (and I will probably die for this statement) I favor VIP Writer.
    We just got another font cartridge for the laserjet that has about seven
    different proportional fonts on it. I can easily switch between these fonts
    and quickly and easily create whatever type of correspondence I wish to
    produce. I also feel VIP offers a much more professional appearance. Despite
    what many say about it being difficult to learn, my wife was able to pick it
    up and use it well in just one night. And this from one who thinks computers
    belong in a gutter someplace. Oh well, I’ll get off the soapbox now and
    prepare to duck the onslaught of ripe vegetables.

    Cray

  • pucc_unknown

    8574 31MAY86-0421 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8558)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    You will need to check up on this thru proper
    channels (probably via a call to Howard Cohen, founder
    of Cognitec and Author of Telewriter), but…

    I strongly doubt you will have much problems
    immitating just the “feel” of Telewriter’s editor.
    Frankly, my PERSONAL opinion would be that the
    MORALLY right thing to do would be to offer Howard
    some MODEST royalty… some VERY modest royalty…
    in return for both his official blessing about
    using a varient of his editor command structure
    and maybe even reference to the similarity to
    Telewriter in your advertising…

    But the thing you are proposing to create will
    overall be SO very different from Telewriter itself
    in the vast majority of its characterists… and
    will be UTTERLY virgin code, with not a single
    BYTE stolen from TW64… so Cognitec will most
    likely N
    OT have a legal leg to stand on if it
    objected to your product’s esistance.

    (Note I am N
    OT a lawyer… this is merely
    an educated guess by a layman, tho a layman
    who is surrounded by lawyer friends and who
    has on occasion had to look into such matters).

    Anyway, I would feel that a MODEST royalty
    in return for an endorsement would be
    appropriate… tho IF Howard got greedy
    I suspect you could just tell him to take a hike
    and merely not be able to claim in your ads
    that you have the official blessing of
    Cognitec.

    This is all assuming that Howard Cohen is NOT
    in any way planning to continue to support
    TW 64 with any new OS 9 based products.

    Considering objectively his utter failure to make
    desperately needed and demanded upgrades in the program
    over many years… and considering that all the rumor mill
    has to say is that Howard is utterly thru with the product…
    I doubt he is working on any new version of TW64… or has
    any intention to do so. But once again, you will have to ask
    HIM about that. To be properly ethical about the whole matter.

    — Marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8563 30MAY86-2234 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8561)
    From: ERIKGAV To: RAINBOWMAG

    I also prefer VIP Writer. I like its hi-res character set and the way its
    keys are laid out (using home row keys for insert & delete options, etc.)

    Even though it’s downright nasty in terms of speed when proofreading a
    document, and if you type too fast you get problems with key repeat, for
    the most part it’s a better looking and feeling package than Telewriter.

    I’ll dodge the veggies too, I guess. (Watch, here comes some spinach from
    Kiev!)

    – Erik

  • pucc_unknown

    8583 31MAY86-0741 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8561)
    From: WHIFFLE To: RAINBOWMAG

    I SEE THE NELSON BROTHERS ARE NOW IN THE ST MARKET.THEY JUST GOT RIPPED IN A
    REVIEW IN A ST MAGAZINE FOR THEIR VIP PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE.THE REVIEWER
    LIKED THE PRODUCT BUT WAS ABHORRED AT THEIR PROTECTION POLICIES.($150 FOR
    ONE DISKETTE,SOFTWARE AGREEMENT LICENSE,ETC…)
    THEY HAVE GONE FROM THE MODEL I/III,COCO,COMMDORE MARKET TO THE ATARI MARKET.
    THEY ALSO HAVE GONE FROM NELSON SOFTWARE TO SOFTLAW TO VIP TECHNOLOGIES…
    IT’S INTERESTING TO SEE JACK TRAMIEL AND THEM IN THE SAME MARKET.

  • pucc_unknown

    8603 31MAY86-1902 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8561)
    From: GREGL To: RAINBOWMAG

    Well, each is completely entitled to his/her own opinions and if I may say so
    I have used no word processor to the extint of knowing it other than Dynastar
    and Stylograph along with some others on a non-coco such as Write One. I have
    Vip Writer laying around here somewhere but have never used it much. Being a
    true sportsman as such, I stick to OS-9 for everything…

  • pucc_unknown

    8569 31MAY86-0335 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8556)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    Well… as you know well… support for proportional spacing is
    a real headach to do. Not all that TECHNICALLY difficult, but
    a GRAND TEDIOUS pain to impliment and do so that it comes out
    LOOKING very nice. Many programs… including some that
    are VERY expensive… alledge to support proportional spacing,
    but the results are NOT all that great, by professional type setting
    standards.

    Attention to detail there is VERY VERY critical!!!

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8575 31MAY86-0425 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8563)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: ERIKGAV

    Ever try to compare the speed of Telepatched Telewriter
    to that of VIP Writer in INSERT MODE???
    (
    Wheee!!!

    VIP writer is laughably and unuseably slow…

    Telewriter (when Telepatched) is darn NEAR up to
    (tho NOT QUITE) being a professional first class product.

    Also, VIP writer’s command structure… with all of those
    double CLEAR key hits and the like…
    is VERY VERY badly thought out and very user hostile.

    I DO conceed that VIP writer in some respects offers
    more POWER and CONTROL for some sophisticated
    tasks…. But the product Greg is alledgedly
    to create will address those needs fully…

    All I referred to in MY recommendation to emulate
    aspects of Telewriter was Telewriters
    core editing commands and, most importantly,
    the logic of its ALLIGN command.

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8604 31MAY86-1905 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8569)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    You are quite correct. I bought Stylograph for the fact that it reported
    to support proportional spacing but the fact remains that when I attempt to
    use it I get lines such as…

    T hi s i s a p rop r tio na l spa c ed l in e.

    As you can see, this ain’t what I want an
    I am leaving proportional spacing as the very last step of the project.

  • pucc_unknown

    8606 31MAY86-1921 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8574)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    Thanks for the info Marty… I’ll give it some thought and see qhat I come
    up with one the legal issues… I don’t see any problems at the moment
    alothought
    (as you said) it will be completely virgin code and probably only a modest
    subset of his interface will be used. Perhaps a variation even, but I will
    definitely not use his 100% interface as I will have some additional codes
    to add and if I remember TW64 properly then there are a FEW things in the
    interface that I want changed.

  • pucc_unknown

    8622 1JUN86-0419 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8606)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGL

    There are a LOT of things in that interface you will want to change!!!
    The menu navigation will have to be totally rewritten and re layed out!
    Only the control functions.. or at least a number of them.. need be
    “copied”. Note that MANY word processors use sub sets of
    NURD STAR’s control key functions. And Micropro (makers of NURD STAR)
    is a much bigger and more powerful outfit than Cognetec! I never heard
    of Micropro making a legal stink about the “rampant copying” of its
    editing control key set up.

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    8957 7JUN86-2338 Archives
    RE: word wackers OS9 (Re: Msg 8622)
    From: GREGL To: MARTYGOODMAN

    Well, I have laid out a very basic screen editor in assembly and it works just
    fine.
    It allows you to position the cursor on the screen with the arrow keys and type
    into a screen buffer and all of that good stuff and even goes so far as to
    intercept the break key and when you’re finished and hit EOF or BREAK then it
    saves the buiuffer to a disk file for examination to ensure that what is there
    is supposed to be there. I’m starting to work on scrolling now with a lrager
    buffer and storing text to disk on the fly unsing the biffer as a window into
    the disk file….