Word look alike?

In article , Neil
wrote:


How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document)
in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you
implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory,
but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is
going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That
is for direct memory access to the file's contents.

The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the
size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory.
PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file
that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed
editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen
resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any
noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate
competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior
product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into
PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem.

quite a bit of revisionist history there.

photoshop implemented its own memory manager to handle larger images
before photostyler even existed due to the limitations of the hardware
at the time.

adobe purchased aldus for their entire portfolio, not specifically
photostyler, which wasn't in any way competition for photoshop.

On 9/17/2020 8:45 AM, Bennett wrote:
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi,

I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I
use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something
simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that
the user doesn't have to think.

I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows
version for lack of volunteers.

Are there other possibilities I should consider?


If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two
versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades,
another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I
heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this
correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that
online version and not spend an euro.

Assuming it's a Windows PC at issue, there's always Wordpad (=Write)
though you do have to specify docx as the preferred Save format.


Yes, that's a choice. But as far as I'm concerned, WordPad is not
really a word processor, it's more just a glorified text editor, with
very few of the formatting choices a real word processor has.

It might meet Carlos's needs, but it also might not. In my experience,
it's inadequate for most people.


--
Ken

On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite;


Assuming that you are talking about the Microsoft Office suite (there
are other Office suites), yes it does. But it not only come with the
full suite, it comes with all the smaller editions too.

--
Ken

On 9/17/2020 11:57 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document)
in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you
implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory,
but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is
going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That
is for direct memory access to the file's contents.

The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the
size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory.
PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file
that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed
editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen
resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any
noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate
competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior
product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into
PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem.

quite a bit of revisionist history there.

photoshop implemented its own memory manager to handle larger images
before photostyler even existed due to the limitations of the hardware
at the time.

adobe purchased aldus for their entire portfolio, not specifically
photostyler, which wasn't in any way competition for photoshop.

I don't know where you're getting your information about any of this,
but it's clear that it's not from personal experience. OTOH, I made a
good living using these apps professionally and know what their
differences amounted to because it affected my work.

Photoshop had quite a few shortcomings in comparison to PhotoStyler,
such as its method of loading the full image into memory and a lack of
customizable settings.

Yes, Adobe purchased Aldus to acquire PhotoStyler and PageMaker, but
their FIRST move was to take PhotoStyler off the market, and it was
definitely a competitive product. But, this thread isn't about
Photoshop, it's about image size limitations, and that was dealt with
effectively by several pro-level graphics apps at the time and could be
dealt with in the same manner today to allow editing of any size image.

Believe whatever you want or find in some google search.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 17/09/2020 18.18, Ken Blake wrote:
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite;


Assuming that you are talking about the Microsoft Office suite (there
are other Office suites), yes it does. But it not only come with the
full suite, it comes with all the smaller editions too.


Is it possible to get Word alone?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 16/09/2020 17.45, Philip Herlihy wrote:
In article , lid says...

Hi,

I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I
use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something
simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that
the user doesn't have to think.

I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows
version for lack of volunteers.

Are there other possibilities I should consider?


If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two
versions: one that you pay once about 200¤ and keep, with no upgrades,
another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I
heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this
correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that
online version and not spend an euro.

If you have a microsoft account (free), you can access the online version of
Word. Otherwise, don't forget WordPad, which is still there in Windows 10
(2004). It'll save in .rtf (default), .docx (Office Open XML), or .odt
(OpenDocument text).

I forgot to have my friend try it, but you are right, it could do.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Neil
wrote:

How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document)
in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you
implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory,
but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is
going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That
is for direct memory access to the file's contents.

The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the
size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory.
PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file
that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed
editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen
resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any
noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate
competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior
product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into
PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem.

quite a bit of revisionist history there.

photoshop implemented its own memory manager to handle larger images
before photostyler even existed due to the limitations of the hardware
at the time.

adobe purchased aldus for their entire portfolio, not specifically
photostyler, which wasn't in any way competition for photoshop.

I don't know where you're getting your information about any of this,
but it's clear that it's not from personal experience. OTOH, I made a
good living using these apps professionally and know what their
differences amounted to because it affected my work.

it's very much personal experience, going back to when photoshop was in
beta, long before photostyler even existed. i know people who worked on
photoshop as well as good friends with the owner of a company that
turned down the opportunity to publish it before adobe did. i've also
written several photoshop plug-ins and was intimately familiar with the
internals of photoshop.

your version of history does not match reality. it's as simple as that.

Photoshop had quite a few shortcomings in comparison to PhotoStyler,
such as its method of loading the full image into memory and a lack of
customizable settings.

rubbish. photoshop always had its own memory manager due to limitations
of 1980s era hardware, *before* photostyler even existed as a product.

claiming that adobe copied virtual memory from a non-existent product
is crazy-talk.

Yes, Adobe purchased Aldus to acquire PhotoStyler and PageMaker, but
their FIRST move was to take PhotoStyler off the market, and it was
definitely a competitive product.

the only advantage photostyler had was that it ran on windows before
photoshop, which began life as a mac-only product and was ported to
windows with version 2.5, well before adobe bought aldus.

since there was no reason to have two nearly identical products, adobe
eol'ed photostyler.

But, this thread isn't about
Photoshop, it's about image size limitations, and that was dealt with
effectively by several pro-level graphics apps at the time and could be
dealt with in the same manner today to allow editing of any size image.

this subthread is about the limitations of 32 bit apps.

Believe whatever you want or find in some google search.

no need, since i know exactly what happened and some of the people
involved.

perhaps you should talk to people who actually worked on photoshop,
although i doubt even that would convince you.

Neil wrote:

On 9/16/2020 10:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document)
in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you
implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory,
but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is
going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That
is for direct memory access to the file's contents.

The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the
size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory.
PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file
that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed
editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen
resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any
noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate
competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior
product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into
PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem.

Do any of these techniques apply to MS Word, and its, so far, suggested
alternative word processors?

In article , VanguardLH
wrote:

How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document)
in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you
implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory,
but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is
going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That
is for direct memory access to the file's contents.

The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the
size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory.
PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file
that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed
editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen
resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any
noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate
competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior
product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into
PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem.

Do any of these techniques apply to MS Word, and its, so far, suggested
alternative word processors?

no.

On 9/17/2020 2:02 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Neil wrote:

On 9/16/2020 10:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document)
in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you
implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory,
but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is
going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That
is for direct memory access to the file's contents.

The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the
size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory.
PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file
that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed
editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen
resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any
noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate
competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior
product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into
PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem.

Do any of these techniques apply to MS Word, and its, so far, suggested
alternative word processors?

My response to your question about how a 32-bit program is going to
manage a data block that is over 4 GB in size was just that, not about
Word, which is why I clipped that portion of the discussion. IOW, the
size of a file that a program can manage depends on how the program is
written.

--
best regards,

Neil

"Carlos E.R." wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

Carlos E.R. wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite;

Assuming that you are talking about the Microsoft Office suite (there
are other Office suites), yes it does. But it not only come with the
full suite, it comes with all the smaller editions too.

Is it possible to get Word alone?

Yep, but that will be more expensive than the payware alternatives
already suggested, and infinitely more expensive than the free
alternatives. She can afford $100 to get the standalone edition of Word
2019?

Remember that working from home was the big change because of Covid-19
(aka SARS 2). We all geared up for the changes to distance ourselves.
When there's an effective vaccine, and especially when the death rate
from Covid drops below that for the common flu, we'll be gearing back to
working at work. She could pay $70 for a 1-year subscription to
Microsoft 365 Personal. Then she'll have MS Word without any worries
about document or feature compatility with the alternatives. In less
than a year from now, she might be back at her workplace using whatever
software they choose.

The only reason to look at offline alternatives is she doesn't have a
decent Internet connection, or security mandates from her employer
require no documents be stored online (but then just how is she going to
get these documents in the first place if not transmitted over the
Internet)? With a decent Internet connection, have her try the free
Microsoft web apps for Office. In OneDrive (assuming the aggregate size
of her documents don't exceed the 5 GB default quota), she gets to
decide with whom she shares the documents. Presumably you came here
trying to find a solution at the least cost, if any, for your friend.
Start free, then decide if payware is needed because additional features
are needed.

Sorry, but I don't see a school teacher will be viewing or editing
documents that the free solutions won't support (online MS Office web
apps, LibreOffice, FreeOffice, or WPS). Does she have or would qualify
for Microsoft Office Certification to know everything about MS Office to
know all of its esoteric features that might become problematic with the
free or cheaper paid alternatives?

How much time can she afford to learn a free or paid alternative?
Learning a new program, regardless of how compatible it claims, will
take time. LibreOffice isn't just something you just jump into and
immediately know how to do everything within it that you did in MS Word.
Same for the other free/paid alternatives. If she has to work on the
documents *NOW*, have her sign into https://www.office.com/ (and not get
lured into buying Microsoft/Office 365). Been about 2 years since I had
MS Word, but I suspect the web GUIs even Microsoft's online Office web
apps will be slightly different than the offline/standalone cousins, so
expect some clumsiness in using anything other than what she did before.

"Carlos E.R." wrote:

Ah, yes, I'm the support guy that drinks the beer or coffee :-D
but not these days with a face mask, we both have risk factors.

A straw fits under a mask. Yeah, you don't look manly drinking beer
through a straw, and guzzling won't work through a straw.

"Carlos E.R." wrote:

The worst of this is that my friend "needs Word" for working at home
because of the pandemic, thus her employer should be providing any
software needed at their expense, but apparently they will not :-/

You sure MS Word is a mandate dictated by her employer? Maybe she just
thinks it is a mandate from her employer? More likely they just want
her to work on Word documents.

At least (being the education administration) they could have some kind
of rebate plan, but apparently they don't. If you are curious, they
contracted gmail for group or enterprises, thus google documents is
certainly an enticing idea.

Not sure how her employer would know she was not using MS Word at home
if the alternative word processors could read and save in .doc[x]
format. Her employer would just be getting a file as the result of her
home-based work. Although possible, it is unlikely her employer's
documents (if not using VBA for scripting) use features available in MS
Word that are not available in the alternatives. If Wordpad, as
suggested by others, is a viable candidate for an alternative word
processor to MS Word, the scripting and esoteric features in MS Word are
non-issues to selecting alternatives to MS Word.

Do any of these documents she is supposed to work on incorporate VBA
macros (i.e., dynamic documents)? That is where compatibility fails
with alternatives, even with LibreOffice. The alternatives may provide
scripting in the documents, but their scripting interpreter/engine won't
be Microsoft's VBA. There also some esoteric functions in MS Word that
may be missing in the alternatives. I remember Pivot Tables (in Excel)
weren't available in some alternatives. Since you can link Excel
spreadsheets into Word documents (the table isn't merged or inserted
into the Word document, but referenced by the document and visibly shown
as though part of the document), not only would the user of the Word
document need support for pivot tables but also have Excel to properly
view that pivot table inside the Word document.

https://forum.softmaker.com/viewtopic.php?t=19628
While Softmaker appearently support pivot tables in their office suite
(PlanMaker), there might be some differences or bugs, and no idea if
their FreeOffice freeware supports them. Freeware from authors of
commercial versions of the product usually cripple the freeware version.
They need a lure to snag the freeloaders to buy.

Supporting the Microsoft or Open Doc file formats does not equate to
supporting all the same features in a different word processor. Also,
how to perform a matching feature in an alternative word processor may
not match how it is utilized in a different word processor. I remember
when starting to use LibreOffice that some features readily accessible
via ribbon bar in MS Word were buring in some submenu in LibreOffice.
Despite trying to be feature compatible, there is still a learning curve
when using an alternate.

https://www.softmaker.com/en/compari...ftmaker-office

I gave that URL before. Obviously the freeware version doesn't have
everything their payware version does. In addition, they won't list (no
one every does) every feature in MS Word to show they have an equal or
similar feature in their payware version. For example, FreeOffice
doesn't support charts in a [TextMaker] document. You could see if
creating the chart in their spreadsheet [PlanMaker], creating a chart in
the spreadsheet from data cells there, and then if you can link or
insert the chart from the spreadsheet into the document. I think the
lack of chart creation solely within their document program (TextMaker)
is why I panned their FreeOffice product. There was some other
deficiency, but too long ago to remember, and after a compounding of
missing or deficient features led me to get LibreOffice. However,
LibreOffice doesn't support Microsoft's VBA scripting language, but then
I never suffered having to create or edit dynamic documents whether at
the workplace or home (for myself or doing work at home). Those using
VBA that I encountered were creating new apps, like just-in-time
inventorying, using VBA to create what looked like a whole separate
program but relied on Excel to interpret the scripts. They bundled
Excel (and Word) with their scripts to produce a new program.

I'd say, if she has a decent always-on Internet connection, to have your
friend try the free online Office web apps to see if they are sufficient
for her use. If so, and if offline access is needed, then consider
offline alternatives, like Softmaker's FreeOffice or LibreOffice, but
she'll still have some learning to adapt to the alternatives. Just
showing a ribbon bar similar to MS Word doesn't compensate for all the
differences between different programs.

In article , VanguardLH
wrote:


Not sure how her employer would know she was not using MS Word at home
if the alternative word processors could read and save in .doc[x]
format. Her employer would just be getting a file as the result of her
home-based work.

the alternatives are not 100% compatible.

the moment she sends a file that doesn't render properly for her
employer or that she has problems reading a file sent to her, it will
become quite obvious she's not using the real thing. this is most
commonly seen with tables.

On 16/09/2020 15.03, Big Al wrote:
On 9/16/20 8:28 AM, this is what Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi,

I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me,
I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need
something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by
default, so that the user doesn't have to think.

I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the
Windows version for lack of volunteers.

Are there other possibilities I should consider?


If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two
versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades,
another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I
heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this
correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that
online version and not spend an euro.

You can set Libreoffice to default to the .doc (word 97) format in
settings.
Options - load/Save - GeneralÂ* You'll find a tick box to turn off
warnings if not odt and a drop down for default format (pick word 97 doc).

Ah, that's an idea, thanks. I should have remembered.

--
Cheers, Carlos.