On 2/8/14 11:41 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:19:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:12:12 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Talking of small word processors, how big is WordPad?


In Windows 8, it's 4,455 KB.

But I wouldn't call it a word processor. To me it's nothing more than
a glorified text editor.

To me, a text editor uses a monospaced font, of a fixed size and
colo(u)r, and with no bold, underline, or italic; and doesn't usually do
word-wrapping. Or any justification other than the default left.
Basically, could be (and was!) used on a character-mode terminal. Edit,
in DOS (I've just tried typing it into a Run box - it's still there in
XP!) was a (not very good) example.


Note that I said "glorified." Yes, it's more than a plain text editor,
but it's also less than a real word processor.

So... What is a fake/faux/phony/false word processor??????? LOL!

I'm sorry, Ken, I just couldn't resist that!

On the serious side of this discussion, what make a word processor a
word processor and not a "glorified text editor"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_editor



For a lot of light home users, I suspect WordPad would do all they want.


I'm sure you're right! But note that if you go back 30 years or so,
typewriters would also do all they wanted. And a typewriter is even
farther from a word processor than WordPad.



--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0