A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 8 » Windows 8 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Atlantis Word Processor



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old February 8th 14, 07:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Blake[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,318
Default Atlantis Word Processor

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.


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.

Ads
  #62  
Old February 8th 14, 07:50 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default Atlantis Word Processor

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Ken Blake writes:
[ WordPad ]

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;


...describes most common plain text editors. But not *glorified* ones!
Maybe only glorified editors do those things. :-)

and doesn't usually do word-wrapping.


My standard Ubuntu text editor, gedit, does word-wrapping. In the
Preferences, there is a choice: [√] Enable text wrapping
and also a choice for: [√] Enable automatic indentation (which is a sort
of justification). There are a few basic choices for Fonts & Colors as
well where I can choose any font installed (proportional, if I wish) and
color schemes, too.

With all the thousands of editors available, we could waste the entire day
looking for user choices, eh? Nah, back to sports... g

--
-bts

  #63  
Old February 8th 14, 08:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Atlantis Word Processor

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
  #64  
Old February 8th 14, 09:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:00:40 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Shadow
writes:
[]
Nice = The clickerty sound. It does not phone home. It saves

[]
Since you don't explain what you mean by "The clickerty sound", I can
only assume you mean keyclicks. If you want those,
http://www.leeos.com/noisy_keyboard.html (and the mouse one!) is (are!)
still there - get them while they are, as the site doesn't seem to have
been altered since 2003, so I imagine it may not be there much longer.
It (they) work fine under XP (and many previous); whether 7 or not I
don't know (I'd say there's a good chance as the integration seems to be
well written).

Don't use unless you live alone ... (-:


That worked. Though I wish it could be limited to just my word
processor.
TY
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #65  
Old February 8th 14, 10:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Blake[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,318
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:09:30 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


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




In my view? Whether it's closer in features to a word processor like
WordPerfect or Word or to a text editor like Notepad.
  #66  
Old February 8th 14, 11:57 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On 2/8/14 2:29 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:09:30 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


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




In my view? Whether it's closer in features to a word processor like
WordPerfect or Word or to a text editor like Notepad.


Ah, but what features? Where is the line crossed from text editor to
word processor? This definition and description is at least one of two
things missing from this discussion. (I'll put the 2nd item in a reply
to ).

For sake of discussion, I'm going to limit use to 2 categories of
typing/text programs. Text editors and word processors.

To me, a text editor mimics what can be done with the last of the
mechanical typewriters and a few electric typewriters, like the IBM
Selectric and daisy wheel typewriters, where you can insert a different
ball or wheel and change font size and typeface. Spellchecking? No.
You've just crossed over into having created a very simple computer.

Something like word wrap is OK, you're mimicking the carriage return lever.

Basic margins/formatting is OK, since you can manually adjust this on
the carriage. Same for line spacing.

And whatever else you can do with a mechanical typewriter.

But, this is the computer age, so I would also accept some built in
features, like zoom for the visually impaired. And with a typewriter,
the user could have a magnifying glass.

Anything else intended to produce printed text are in the category of
word processors. From simple programs like WordPad and Abiword, to
document processors like LyX/LaTeX, to page layout software like Adobe
Pagemaker, Quark Express, Calamus SL.

And no, programs like CAD software, GPS software, databases, and
spreadsheets are not word processors. LOL

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0
  #67  
Old February 9th 14, 12:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On 2/8/14 3:57 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 2/8/14 2:29 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:09:30 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


snip

A quick followup, Pages from Apple contain elements of both word
processors like Word, WordPerfect, and page layout functions like
Pagemaker and Quark Express.

An interesting combo, which I think is a great idea for someone that
needs to do tasks that are suited for the different types of software.
If you're writing your dissertation, IMO a word processor is needed. If
you're doing a small flyer or multipage newsletter, page layout is the
better way to go.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0
  #68  
Old February 9th 14, 12:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Blake[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,318
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:57:13 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/8/14 2:29 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:09:30 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


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




In my view? Whether it's closer in features to a word processor like
WordPerfect or Word or to a text editor like Notepad.


Ah, but what features? Where is the line crossed from text editor to
word processor?




The line is in my head. If you can't see it, or don't have the same
view I do, that's fine. We are all different.

There's really nothing to discuss here. From my perspective, WordPad
is closer to a text editor than to a word processor. Your perspective
is apparently different, and that's fine with me. It's not a matter of
right or wrong; it's a matter of different views.

  #69  
Old February 9th 14, 12:29 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On 2/8/14 9:02 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 2/8/2014 8:35 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message
, BillW50 writes:

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...


snip

A *spreadsheet* is for data on which calculations are anticipated.
Granted, not _all_ the columns/rows will have sums done on them - I've
nothing against column and row headings - but if _all_ you want is the
_layout_, don't use a spreadsheet. (VanguardLH [what's the origin of
that name by the way?] are for once in agreement on something!)


Odd? If I need a blank form let's say for daily blood glucose readings,
a spreadsheet is the way to do it. Why what would you use to create such
a form? You would use a word processor?


I think, in this discussion, we've omitted two pieces of information...
The definition of a "form", and the purpose for which the table/form
is being created.

I'm assuming "form" means something printed on a single piece of paper,
paper size being irrelevant. Not the "form" you would create in a
program like MS Access for data entry.

As for the purpose, using the blood glucose readings example...

If I simply wanted something printed to hand write the sugar level
readings, and nothing else, I'd use a word processor in a heartbeat.
You get immediate visual feedback of what it will look like when
printed, and fitting it to the page size is easy. Simply tell the
program how many rows you want, and how many columns you want. If your
mental calculations are close, you're basically done. Then you can fine
tune the result to fill the printable area of the paper if you wish.
But with a spreadsheet, you have to define a "printable area", I.E.
which columns and rows will print on a page, and then use Print Preview
to see what is may look like. Change the number of columns and/or rows
you want to include, and you have to reset the printable area. No
immediate feedback.

But, if I were going to do some type of calculations on the individual
readings, creating graphs of averages, total, whatever I wanted to know,
I'd use the spreadsheet to create the table/form. Although, I'd
probably take that initial setup and import it into something like
Access and create a custom form on the monitor for the data input.
Depending on the data you are including for your glucose readings, the
Access way is possibly better, if you're also keeping track of what and
when you're eating, the times the readings were taken, what you ate, etc.

Truthfully, if I wanted something that sophisticated, I'd just use the
software that comes with my meter! LOL

Basically, you have to determine how that table/form is going to be used
if you wish to use the software that will give you the best end result.

snip


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0
  #70  
Old February 9th 14, 12:32 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On 2/8/14 4:20 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:57:13 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/8/14 2:29 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:09:30 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


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



In my view? Whether it's closer in features to a word processor like
WordPerfect or Word or to a text editor like Notepad.


Ah, but what features? Where is the line crossed from text editor to
word processor?




The line is in my head. If you can't see it, or don't have the same
view I do, that's fine. We are all different.

There's really nothing to discuss here. From my perspective, WordPad
is closer to a text editor than to a word processor. Your perspective
is apparently different, and that's fine with me. It's not a matter of
right or wrong; it's a matter of different views.


Knew you would say that. G

Between two individuals, you are correct. But, with a group discussion,
everyone has to work with the same definition(s), whether you personally
agree with the definition or not.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0
  #71  
Old February 9th 14, 12:41 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Blake[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,318
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 16:32:14 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/8/14 4:20 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:57:13 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/8/14 2:29 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:09:30 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


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



In my view? Whether it's closer in features to a word processor like
WordPerfect or Word or to a text editor like Notepad.

Ah, but what features? Where is the line crossed from text editor to
word processor?




The line is in my head. If you can't see it, or don't have the same
view I do, that's fine. We are all different.

There's really nothing to discuss here. From my perspective, WordPad
is closer to a text editor than to a word processor. Your perspective
is apparently different, and that's fine with me. It's not a matter of
right or wrong; it's a matter of different views.


Knew you would say that. G



LOL!


Between two individuals, you are correct. But, with a group discussion,
everyone has to work with the same definition(s), whether you personally
agree with the definition or not.



I don't agree, but your view is fine with me. Wait for someone else to
answer your question. I've already expressed my view, so I'm done with
this thread.

  #72  
Old February 9th 14, 04:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Atlantis Word Processor

| Apart from Mozilla FF or TB, I don't use any other open source products
| and I have no plans to change my habits.
|
| My website runs on Linux but it is maintained by my host and I have
| involvement with it.
|

My website also runs on Linux. I use Filezilla for
FTP. Do you use commercial software?

While I agree that a lot of OSS programs are projects
that are never finished (Linux, GIMP) or solid projects
that will always lack adequate GUI polish (7-Zip), I've
only bought two commercial products in the past
10 years or so: 1) BootIt for disk management and
disk imaging. 2) Corel Paint Shop Pro. Everything
else I use is either OSS or free. And all are the best
products I know of for the purpose. I'm willing to pay
for something that's worth it to me. I just don't see
such products. (I wouldn't touch anything from Adobe
or Symantec. And I don't like to use software that's
designed to call home without asking.)
The free products I use are *at least* adequate:

OSS:

Acrylic DNS
7-Zip
Filezilla (FTP)
Libre Office
SumatraPDF (which I was able to recompile, fairly easily,
to ignore PDF file restrictions)
VLC Media Player
Audacity (audio editor)

Free but not OSS:

IrfanView
HxD hex editor
CPUID
DVDFlick
Imgburn (CD/DVD writer)
Agent Ransack (Windows Find replacement)
Sysinternals utilities
Online Armor 4.0.0.15 for XP (last version before it was sold)
Private Firewall for Win7
(I don't use AV, but install Avast for people who's
PCs I manage.)

Someone who uses MS Office for work is likely to
say that Libre Office doesn't compare. I don't doubt
that's true. But Libre Office is free and opens all
versions of MS Office files. As a casual user who
only needs to occasionally print business cards,
receipts, contracts, etc. it's more than adequate.
And it allows me to open anything from any MS Office
user. If I wanted to do that with MS Office I'd have
to keep buying each [wildly overpriced] version. (It's
amazing how many MS Office users don't know how
to write even a simple note without firing up MS
Word, and then assume that everyone else can
easily open their docx file.)

The only thing I find I'm unable to really be satisfied
with is browsers. IE is not even worth critiquing. Chrome
is spyware from the biggest spyware company going.
Opera is out of the running. I've never tried Safari, but
I wouldn't have high hopes for anything from Apple.
They're not known for catering to end-user choice.

Firefox keeps changing. They get most of their money
from Google, and it shows. Gradually the flexibility and
privacy options have been disappearing. Every time I
update it takes more work to get the functionality back.
I'm finding that I'm ending up with "extension creep":
adding more and more extensions to get the functions
that used to be built in. A browser that requires numerous,
arcane prefs edits and a handful of add-ons in order to
work properly is a bad piece of software.

I've been using Pale Moon in general, but that's really just
a leaner version of Firefox, not a better one.

I keep thinking it's time for a new, honest browser to
appear, but nothing does. I suppose all the idealistic,
young, genius programmers are too busy diddling their
Facebook on their cellphones to think about Internet
browsing.


  #73  
Old February 9th 14, 05:51 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Yvonne York
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Atlantis Word Processor

On 05/02/14 18:35, Ken Springer wrote:

[snip]

I still want to give Linux a try, I even created a partition on my boot
drive for that. Haven't had time and energy to do it. I've read some
nice things about Netrunner (I think) and it's attempt to make switching
from Windows less painful. It's supposed to include Flash, Java, and
who knows what else.


Try
http://solydxk.com/
and be pleasantly surprised
  #74  
Old February 9th 14, 06:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Atlantis Word Processor

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Is the HTML code it produces (a) standards-compliant (b) compact? I only
ask because I'm most unimpressed with what Word produces. Try the
following (change the {} to ):

{HTML}{HEAD}{/HEAD}
{BODY}
{FONT COLOR=RED}red}{/FONT}
{FONT COLOR=YELLOW}yellow{/FONT}
{/BODY}
{/HTML}

create that (e. g. in notepad), save it as colours.htm, load it into
Word, re-save it, look at the size, look at it in notepad ...

(I think Word's output might just be standards-compliant.)


Alas, while the FONT tag is easy to understand, W3 decided to deprecate
it in favor of the more complicated CSS method. The FONT tag isn't
supported in HTML5. You're supposed to now use CSS (well, whenever they
actually get around to ratifying HTML5 which looks to be around 2021).
Apparently they think HTML shouldn't be easy to decode.

With MS Word, configure it (if possible) so NOT add all the Word-only
specific tags. HTML generated by Word will, by default, include a bunch
of tags that are non-standard (not true HTML tags) and only understood
by MS Word. All of it is fluff if your intention is to publish the
document outside of Word, like on a web server or to recipients who you
don't have a clue as to what client they use to view your document.

Alas, in the Word 2010 that I now have (had Word 2003 before), I cannot
find the option to omit Word-specific tags in HTML output files. There
was such an option back in Word 2003. In Word 2010, under Options -
Advanced - General - Web Option, I don't see this option. There is,
however, a "Rely on CSS for font formatting" option that is enabled by
default.

The 125 byte file from the above simple HTML code (I removed the ""
after the "red" text) will explode to 20,365 bytes when you make a
change (and then remove the change just so Word sees the document change
flag got set) and save using Word. Yeah, like that's efficient.

By the way, unless you change the file, Word doesn't save anything. So,
for example, after opening in MS Word, change "red" (shown in red color)
to "red text" and then save. Now Word will have something different to
save back in the same file. The result is you get a huge amount of meta
data added to the file (all of which is superfluous as all it does is
identify Word was the document editor) and a bunch of o and w tags
which is the non-standard tag having meaning ONLY to MS Word. It is all
these Word-specific non-standard tags for which there used to be an
option to omit in a changed document saved by MS Word.

Although Word used to have an option to omit its Word-specific tags from
a changed HTML document, I cannot find it in Word 2010 (which I haven't
used much since changing from Word 2003); however, any time you use Word
to edit an HTML document will result in a significant increase in size
and not just due to converting deprecated tags, like FONT to an over-
bloated CSS equivalent. It's just Microsoft's view that they own and
can control a technology in which they choose to participate late.

After some hunting around, and after still not finding the old option to
omit all the extraneous Word-specific tags from the .htm[l] file, I
noticed in the Save As dialog that you can select "Web Page Filtered".
That gets rid of all the Word-specific tags and meta-data. Word still
converts the deprecated tags (FONT) to CSS to define a class that gets
used as an attribute in the p paragraph tag so the file will still get
larger but this time the 125-byte simple code file will only mushroom to
703 bytes after converting the deprecated FONT tags to CSS classes.

So when HTML5 gets ratified and after an adoption period (which could be
around 6 years) then HTML won't be so simple anymore. I have to wonder
by 2027 if something won't have replaced HTML by then rather than
attempt to keep rewriting an old document formatting standard.
  #75  
Old February 9th 14, 06:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-8
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Atlantis Word Processor

Maurizio wrote:

BillW50 wrote:

... Atlantis Word Processor ...


Atlantis is good, but it doesn't support tables which is really
inconvenient.


Trying to start a duplicate subthread on an argument already in process?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.