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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
"Ken Springer" wrote in message ... On 2/5/14 2:47 PM, BillW50 wrote: "VanguardLH" wrote in message ... BillW50 wrote: snip Why are people creating tables on a word processor? Why not use a spreadsheet? It depends on what your goal is with the table. I think people tend to lose sight of the purpose of a spreadsheet. It's for the purpose manipulating numbers, doing math operations of some type. It's not for manipulating text. You're right, but on the other hand, I think some lost sight what tables are for. And while spreadsheets are manipulating numbers, databases are for manipulating text and/or numbers. If say you are running a computer review for example, why are they using tables to just control the left and right margins of the paragraphs? In your preferred spreadsheet, can you insert a graphic/image into a cell? In a Libre Office spreadsheet, you can insert a graphic/image, but it's free floating, it's not inserted into the cell itself. Which you might want if you were using LO Writer to create a table for a basic HTML page. In Writer and Word, the image is inserted into the table cell. Change the size, shape, location of the table and/or cell, and the image moves with it. Doing the same in an LO spreadsheet, the image stays put. You have to manually reposition that image. I'm sure there are other differences, but this one comes to mind. And doing something like this that doesn't require a math component is simply extra steps you have to do to get that table into the text document, plus the extra time to edit that table info. You know, some word processors has features of basic spreadsheet and database use. Even though these features might be there, I wouldn't call them very useful except for the lightest of uses. You know I save lots of computers articles over the years. My most used format is in plain text. As it is the most transportable format of all. But when it just isn't practical, I'll use RTF, DOC, HTML, or even MHTML. And most of the time I see tables used in docs, it was totally unnecessary. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 06:01:47 -0500, Shadow wrote:
Nice = The clickerty sound. It does not phone home. It saves in RTF. Most companies use ODT and RTF as the others are not universal. Bad for business to lose a customer because some clueless salesman sent the letter in a proprietary format. I used to use .RTF as a standard in the late 90's and early 2000's BECAUSE all programs recognized it and it was the closest thing to an open format. Since the creation of .ODT, .RTF essentially lost its worth as the .ODT format is more capable and is guaranteed to be supported forever as well. I don't mind that .DOC or .DOCX have become standards in the industry, but I think it's a bad idea for all of the world's enterprises to give Microsoft a monopoly on document standards. The use of .ODT does not hand power to one specific entity whereas the use of .DOC or .DOCX does. Bad = It does not use open source dictionaries, and the author is not willing to add any new ones. See discussions in Forum. For me , not having a Brazilian-Portuguese dictionary is a no-no. I'll bet that LibreOffice offers it though. -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is a duct-taped form of Communism |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 06:31:08 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
Take a look at Mozilla for example. I view their products as always under construction and will never be completed. You can't develop good software using this model. What you always end up with is bloated spaghetti code. Mozilla continues to use the outdated and insecure Netscape API for Flash and is the slowest of all browsers for a cold start. It provides the best features but at the cost of more memory use and the potential of freezing the whole computer (my wife and I both experienced a frozen computer from Mozilla's garbage code on two entirely different laptops). -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is a duct-taped form of Communism |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
BillW50 wrote:
BillW50 wrote: VanguardLH wrote ... Did you try running the setup.exe with NO network access so the wrapper couldn't phone home? Absolutely! Then it wasn't the typical GOTD install that limits you to the giveaway day. Too bad GOTD doesn't identity their limited installs versus the author-original installs. The latter type is so rare that the expectation is a GOTD download will have their phone-home wrapper. So you're going to make someone bounce between a word processor and spreadsheet program just to, for example, see a list of ingredients in a recipe? Naw, MS Word can read Excel tables right inside of a Word document. This is called integration. First you argue that table support isn't needed. I wasn't talking about spreadsheet integration but using tables they way they are prevalently used: for formatting. Now you're trying to recover by arguing about embedded spreadsheets for tables despite that Altantis is NOT an office suite, is only a word processor, and there would be no spreadsheet program to integrate with their word processor. You're wandering. I was mentioning what Atlantis' word processor does NOT have. Really, that's your argument for not supporting tables in a word processor, that you don't need columnar formatting ever? I don't think of columns as tables per se. By the way, Atlantis does support columns. Might be doable to make up for the lack of table support for formatting. Uh huh, and I suppose you never used the tab key to align text either in a single or multiple columns. I've been using word processors and text editors since the early 80's. And I'm even older than you and using computers even longer. Irrelevant to the discussion of why tables are missing from Atlantis. The point is that having to use tab keys is a clumsy method to make up for the lack of support tables (regardless of what software would support 30 years ago). I can't think of a single time I wanted to create a table (outside of a spreadsheet). So you are again using your limited experience to dictate that a product doesn't need a feature in a product that is used by lots of other users. Did you contract with Sun Rising to produce this product just for you? I don't know, we do pretty well in plain text newsgroups without all of that stuff. Wow, the limit for use of a word processor by you is that it only need to create documents for publishing in text-only newsgroups? Frankly I didn't think anyone would be using a *word processor* to post in Usenet. I didn't realize the discussion was about the LCD (lowest common denominator) feature set of a word processor to do plain text editing. Seems you should be happy with Notepad in Windows and vim in Linux. I have to wonder over such a long time with no changes, especially to accomodate customer requests, if the product is dead. I have a ton of such software. Although I have a different take about viewing such software. Most of these products virtually had been all ironed out. And they are far from the early buggy versions. And I think most software should be like this. Despite the argument, stagnant software is still stagnant software. That it got "ironed out" to no longer have any updates for a long time means it met the criteria of functionality designed by the author. Yet word processors shouldn't be stagnant software. We're not talking about edline or sed here. To me, this looks like Chinesware were further development wasn't warranted because the revenue stream didn't support it. Using GOTD is just another means for authors to get free advertising both at the GOTD site and through word of mouth from users. They pump up the advertising for a staid product. Take a look at Mozilla for example. I view their products as always under construction and will never be completed. You can't develop good software using this model. What you always end up with is bloated spaghetti code. And most users here aren't still using a staid OS, like CP/M, either. The very term "software" mean flexibility and change, not cast in stone. If you don't like change, computers are definitely nothing you should get involved with. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
Silver Slimer wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 06:31:08 -0500, BillW50 wrote: Take a look at Mozilla for example. I view their products as always under construction and will never be completed. You can't develop good software using this model. What you always end up with is bloated spaghetti code. Mozilla continues to use the outdated and insecure Netscape API for Flash and is the slowest of all browsers for a cold start. It provides the best features but at the cost of more memory use and the potential of freezing the whole computer (my wife and I both experienced a frozen computer from Mozilla's garbage code on two entirely different laptops). I can't say I've seen the same thing here. Firefox on this machine (WinXP), starts in one second. While viewing no web page content, memory consumption in Task Manager is listed as 35MB. And, I've never had a freeze due to Firefox or Thunderbird. To really have a freeze, you need to do some testing to classify it: 1) Press the shift lock key on the keyboard, and see if the keyboard LED flashes. If the desktop manager fails, sometimes that takes keyboard input with it. If the keyboard LED responds to the shift lock, then you're not really frozen. 2) The real test, is to attempt to ping the computer from another computer. If you get a response, then the computer really isn't frozen, and it's a GUI problem. Locking up the GUI, is not the same kind of failure as completely freezing it. If it happens regularly, consider looking into Windbg over a serial port. On Unix boxes we'd just Telnet in and do stuff. But I don't think that's an option on WinXP. Maybe the equivalent on Windows, would be a remote desktop session as a means to debug. Another reason why your machine freezes and mine doesn't, is the kind of AV you run. That can make a big difference to apparent stability. Firefox has a program in place to address memory usage. They actually have a surveillance system, so that on a per-release basis, they can detect whether any of their old memory usage problems have come back. So they have invested some effort in providing debugging tools for the developers, and surveillance when an update is pushed out. It's not like they're completely oblivious to your pain. Is Firefox bloated - agreed, if you download the tarball and look at the 60,000 files in the source. It's hell on Earth in there. I tried single stepping with a debugger, working on a problem, and it was virtually hopeless to make any headway. Several of the files, had routines that looked similar to one another, and yet were using different sets of preferences. Really... goofy. As far as I know, *all* the suppliers of browsers, rewrite stuff. The main problem with Firefox, is for at least some subsystems, they never ever seem to do a good job of it (e.g. printing in Firefox - boo hiss). Paul |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:52:29 -0500, Paul wrote:
I can't say I've seen the same thing here. Firefox on this machine (WinXP), starts in one second. While viewing no web page content, memory consumption in Task Manager is listed as 35MB. And, I've never had a freeze due to Firefox or Thunderbird. Meanwhile, browser reviewers have all pointed out that Firefox is the slowest to start. Not one has recorded a one-second start for Firefox on a cold start and they used i7 processors. To really have a freeze, you need to do some testing to classify it: 1) Press the shift lock key on the keyboard, and see if the keyboard LED flashes. If the desktop manager fails, sometimes that takes keyboard input with it. If the keyboard LED responds to the shift lock, then you're not really frozen. No response from the system at all constitutes a freeze, does it not? 2) The real test, is to attempt to ping the computer from another computer. If you get a response, then the computer really isn't frozen, and it's a GUI problem. Locking up the GUI, is not the same kind of failure as completely freezing it. If it happens regularly, consider looking into Windbg over a serial port. On Unix boxes we'd just Telnet in and do stuff. But I don't think that's an option on WinXP. Maybe the equivalent on Windows, would be a remote desktop session as a means to debug. Another reason why your machine freezes and mine doesn't, is the kind of AV you run. That can make a big difference to apparent stability. The anti-virus is McAfee and it's admittedly pretty ****ty. I blame it for the fact that my computer doesn't wake from sleep sometimes (whereas it works correctly without it installed). There IS a possibility that McAfee is affecting both Thunderbird and Firefox's proper operation but it's sad how neither IE nor Opera are problematic with it installed. As far as I know, *all* the suppliers of browsers, rewrite stuff. The main problem with Firefox, is for at least some subsystems, they never ever seem to do a good job of it (e.g. printing in Firefox - boo hiss).a Firefox, for me, is not worth using without at least HTTPS Everywhere and AdBlock Plus installed. If I were to discover that either of the two extensions were the cause of Firefox's crashes and freezes, I would remove them but Firefox would become useless to me. Malware generally comes from ads and stolen credit card details and the like come from visiting sites without proper encryption so I'm unwilling to use the browser without those tools being installed. Opera has the same plug-ins and like I mentioned before, is not affected by McAfee's potential problem-causing. In addition to that, it loads immediately unlike Firefox. -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is a duct-taped form of Communism |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
"VanguardLH" wrote in message ... BillW50 wrote: BillW50 wrote: VanguardLH wrote ... Did you try running the setup.exe with NO network access so the wrapper couldn't phone home? Absolutely! Then it wasn't the typical GOTD install that limits you to the giveaway day. Too bad GOTD doesn't identity their limited installs versus the author-original installs. The latter type is so rare that the expectation is a GOTD download will have their phone-home wrapper. So you're going to make someone bounce between a word processor and spreadsheet program just to, for example, see a list of ingredients in a recipe? Naw, MS Word can read Excel tables right inside of a Word document. This is called integration. First you argue that table support isn't needed. I wasn't talking about spreadsheet integration but using tables they way they are prevalently used: for formatting. Now you're trying to recover by arguing about embedded spreadsheets for tables despite that Altantis is NOT an office suite, is only a word processor, and there would be no spreadsheet program to integrate with their word processor. You're wandering. I was mentioning what Atlantis' word processor does NOT have. Really, that's your argument for not supporting tables in a word processor, that you don't need columnar formatting ever? I don't think of columns as tables per se. By the way, Atlantis does support columns. Might be doable to make up for the lack of table support for formatting. Uh huh, and I suppose you never used the tab key to align text either in a single or multiple columns. I've been using word processors and text editors since the early 80's. And I'm even older than you and using computers even longer. Irrelevant to the discussion of why tables are missing from Atlantis. The point is that having to use tab keys is a clumsy method to make up for the lack of support tables (regardless of what software would support 30 years ago). I can't think of a single time I wanted to create a table (outside of a spreadsheet). So you are again using your limited experience to dictate that a product doesn't need a feature in a product that is used by lots of other users. Did you contract with Sun Rising to produce this product just for you? I don't know, we do pretty well in plain text newsgroups without all of that stuff. Wow, the limit for use of a word processor by you is that it only need to create documents for publishing in text-only newsgroups? Frankly I didn't think anyone would be using a *word processor* to post in Usenet. I didn't realize the discussion was about the LCD (lowest common denominator) feature set of a word processor to do plain text editing. Seems you should be happy with Notepad in Windows and vim in Linux. I have to wonder over such a long time with no changes, especially to accomodate customer requests, if the product is dead. I have a ton of such software. Although I have a different take about viewing such software. Most of these products virtually had been all ironed out. And they are far from the early buggy versions. And I think most software should be like this. Despite the argument, stagnant software is still stagnant software. That it got "ironed out" to no longer have any updates for a long time means it met the criteria of functionality designed by the author. Yet word processors shouldn't be stagnant software. We're not talking about edline or sed here. To me, this looks like Chinesware were further development wasn't warranted because the revenue stream didn't support it. Using GOTD is just another means for authors to get free advertising both at the GOTD site and through word of mouth from users. They pump up the advertising for a staid product. Take a look at Mozilla for example. I view their products as always under construction and will never be completed. You can't develop good software using this model. What you always end up with is bloated spaghetti code. And most users here aren't still using a staid OS, like CP/M, either. The very term "software" mean flexibility and change, not cast in stone. If you don't like change, computers are definitely nothing you should get involved with. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
"BillW50" wrote in message ... "VanguardLH" wrote in message ... Sorry about the last post, fingers slipped. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On 2/6/14 7:06 AM, BillW50 wrote:
"Ken Springer" wrote in message ... On 2/5/14 2:47 PM, BillW50 wrote: "VanguardLH" wrote in message ... BillW50 wrote: snip Why are people creating tables on a word processor? Why not use a spreadsheet? It depends on what your goal is with the table. I think people tend to lose sight of the purpose of a spreadsheet. It's for the purpose manipulating numbers, doing math operations of some type. It's not for manipulating text. You're right, but on the other hand, I think some lost sight what tables are for. And while spreadsheets are manipulating numbers, databases are for manipulating text and/or numbers. "manipulating text and/or numbers"... You've lost me there with that phrase. How do you "manipulate" text? I can sort of see it with numbers. If say you are running a computer review for example, why are they using tables to just control the left and right margins of the paragraphs? Assuming your review is simply a text article, I wouldn't use a table at all. Possibly for a pull quote, but I'd more than likely use a text box there. My uses of tables would be more for presenting information in a... At a loss for a descriptor here. LOL For instance, I have document listing different types of scholarships (music, engineering, scientific) in one column of the table, where to apply for it in the second column, and the web page hyperlink in the third column. But the formatting does look like a spreadsheet layout. It's constantly changing, or was as the project is in languish mode, and is small enough that using spreadsheet to do the ever changing updates would take more time than just doing it in Word/Libre Office/???????? tables. And, I can sort the data as I wish. There is one case where I would use a spreadsheet, although I've never had the reason to do so. I have to prepare a report to somebody about the financial portion of some project. But, as I do the report, all the numbers needed for the report are not available. In the spreadsheet, I'd put the relevant data where calculations can be done as the data comes in, with the results being dynamic in this case. The "bottom line" of all these calculation goes into the report. I'd create the "bottom line" part of the spreadsheet as a linked object into the text document so that as new information comes in and is entered into the spreadsheet, the changes to the "bottom line" are automatically updated in the text document. In your preferred spreadsheet, can you insert a graphic/image into a cell? In a Libre Office spreadsheet, you can insert a graphic/image, but it's free floating, it's not inserted into the cell itself. Which you might want if you were using LO Writer to create a table for a basic HTML page. In Writer and Word, the image is inserted into the table cell. Change the size, shape, location of the table and/or cell, and the image moves with it. Doing the same in an LO spreadsheet, the image stays put. You have to manually reposition that image. I'm sure there are other differences, but this one comes to mind. And doing something like this that doesn't require a math component is simply extra steps you have to do to get that table into the text document, plus the extra time to edit that table info. You know, some word processors has features of basic spreadsheet and database use. Even though these features might be there, I wouldn't call them very useful except for the lightest of uses. Years ago, I experimented with the spreadsheet function of a table in Word. Can't remember which version, but 2003 or previous. The cell names were the antiquated R1C1 for the upper left cell, not A1 as we are used to these days. Never played with a database feature of a word processor. Or, at least, not knowingly! LOL You know I save lots of computers articles over the years. My most used format is in plain text. As it is the most transportable format of all. But when it just isn't practical, I'll use RTF, DOC, HTML, or even MHTML. And most of the time I see tables used in docs, it was totally unnecessary. For the copies I'm going to share, I use PDF. And save the original in native format for the program. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 24.0 Thunderbird 24.0 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:40:29 -0500, "Silver Slimer"
wrote: Bad = It does not use open source dictionaries, and the author is not willing to add any new ones. See discussions in Forum. For me , not having a Brazilian-Portuguese dictionary is a no-no. I'll bet that LibreOffice offers it though. Of course it does. But no clickerty-click. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:28:23 -0500, "Silver Slimer"
wrote: I can't say I've seen the same thing here. Firefox on this machine (WinXP), starts in one second. While viewing no web page content, memory consumption in Task Manager is listed as 35MB. And, I've never had a freeze due to Firefox or Thunderbird. Meanwhile, browser reviewers have all pointed out that Firefox is the slowest to start. Not one has recorded a one-second start for Firefox on a cold start and they used i7 processors. Reviewers are expensive. Only Micro$oft and Google can afford the best. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:33:19 -0500, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:28:23 -0500, "Silver Slimer" wrote: I can't say I've seen the same thing here. Firefox on this machine (WinXP), starts in one second. While viewing no web page content, memory consumption in Task Manager is listed as 35MB. And, I've never had a freeze due to Firefox or Thunderbird. Meanwhile, browser reviewers have all pointed out that Firefox is the slowest to start. Not one has recorded a one-second start for Firefox on a cold start and they used i7 processors. Reviewers are expensive. Only Micro$oft and Google can afford the best. []'s That is more paranoia from what I will have to assume it's a GNU/Linux advocate. There are multiple videos on Youtube where the browsers are put side-by-side on the same computer and launched at exactly the same time under identical scenarios which clearly demonstrated that Firefox was the slowest. If that's not sufficient evidence for you, I don't think there ever will be. -- Silver Slimer GNU/Linux is a duct-taped form of Communism |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
On 2/06/2014, Shadow posted:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:28:23 -0500, "Silver Slimer" wrote: I can't say I've seen the same thing here. Firefox on this machine (WinXP), starts in one second. While viewing no web page content, memory consumption in Task Manager is listed as 35MB. And, I've never had a freeze due to Firefox or Thunderbird. Meanwhile, browser reviewers have all pointed out that Firefox is the slowest to start. Not one has recorded a one-second start for Firefox on a cold start and they used i7 processors. Reviewers are expensive. Only Micro$oft and Google can afford the best. []'s To be consistent, you should spell the later company name as GoogŁe. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Atlantis Word Processor
"VanguardLH" wrote in message ... BillW50 wrote: BillW50 wrote: VanguardLH wrote ... Did you try running the setup.exe with NO network access so the wrapper couldn't phone home? Absolutely! Then it wasn't the typical GOTD install that limits you to the giveaway day. Too bad GOTD doesn't identity their limited installs versus the author-original installs. The latter type is so rare that the expectation is a GOTD download will have their phone-home wrapper. Yeah was an error on GOTD part? Was it the wrapper caused the install to fail? Did the developer say don't bother with the wrapper as the program can clone itself anyway? Who knows? Remember GOTD had taken a lot of heat for about 6 years with a wrapper that was easy to crack. Some developers had taken extra steps to protect their software by using an activation key. Which their servers would only accept during the give away. Nowadays GOTD uses a much different wrapper. So you're going to make someone bounce between a word processor and spreadsheet program just to, for example, see a list of ingredients in a recipe? Naw, MS Word can read Excel tables right inside of a Word document. This is called integration. First you argue that table support isn't needed. I wasn't talking about spreadsheet integration but using tables they way they are prevalently used: for formatting. Now you're trying to recover by arguing about embedded spreadsheets for tables despite that Altantis is NOT an office suite, is only a word processor, and there would be no spreadsheet program to integrate with their word processor. You're wandering. Ok. I save articles from webpages all of the time. I mostly save them as plain text which doesn't have table support in the format. And even though some of them use tables, the information didn't generally had to be used in a table anyway. I find most people who use tables are over using them. Rarely do I find the need for a table necessary. And when I come across that really needs it, then I can't save it as plain text and most use another format. Same is true if there are graphic images that must be included if they pertain to the article. I was mentioning what Atlantis' word processor does NOT have. Yes we know, it doesn't do tables and it is only 3MB in size. Yet it still can do things that Word can't. That is one heck of an achievement, if you ask me. Really, that's your argument for not supporting tables in a word processor, that you don't need columnar formatting ever? I don't think of columns as tables per se. By the way, Atlantis does support columns. Might be doable to make up for the lack of table support for formatting. You know, back in the 80's you didn't use GUI word processors for tables. You used a GUI publisher instead. Whatever happened to those? Uh huh, and I suppose you never used the tab key to align text either in a single or multiple columns. I've been using word processors and text editors since the early 80's. And I'm even older than you and using computers even longer. Irrelevant to the discussion of why tables are missing from Atlantis. The point is that having to use tab keys is a clumsy method to make up for the lack of support tables (regardless of what software would support 30 years ago). Well I see it as no big deal. Maybe the developer also sees it the same way. And if it is one of those must have features for you, then Atlantis isn't for you. No big deal, there are lots of other word processors out there that should make you happy. I can't think of a single time I wanted to create a table (outside of a spreadsheet). So you are again using your limited experience to dictate that a product doesn't need a feature in a product that is used by lots of other users. Did you contract with Sun Rising to produce this product just for you? No, I am saying use the right tool for the job. The install is only 3MB in size and look at all it can do. Adding tables would likely bloat it another 40MB or so. Then there would be nothing special about Atlantis, now would there? I don't know, we do pretty well in plain text newsgroups without all of that stuff. Wow, the limit for use of a word processor by you is that it only need to create documents for publishing in text-only newsgroups? Frankly I didn't think anyone would be using a *word processor* to post in Usenet. I didn't realize the discussion was about the LCD (lowest common denominator) feature set of a word processor to do plain text editing. Seems you should be happy with Notepad in Windows and vim in Linux. Actually it is very tricky and one requires powerful word processors to pull it off with any productivity. No notepad is a very lousy tool for the job. As notepad has no line length rulers, no reformatting macros, no margins, etc. I have to wonder over such a long time with no changes, especially to accomodate customer requests, if the product is dead. I have a ton of such software. Although I have a different take about viewing such software. Most of these products virtually had been all ironed out. And they are far from the early buggy versions. And I think most software should be like this. Despite the argument, stagnant software is still stagnant software. That it got "ironed out" to no longer have any updates for a long time means it met the criteria of functionality designed by the author. Yet word processors shouldn't be stagnant software. We're not talking about edline or sed here. I don't know about that? As I see lots of products that peeked and before the downslope. And that is the best way to end it and that is the way it should be done IMHO. Pushing something passed its prime is self defeating. And I can think of zillions of examples if you need some. To me, this looks like Chinesware were further development wasn't warranted because the revenue stream didn't support it. Using GOTD is just another means for authors to get free advertising both at the GOTD site and through word of mouth from users. They pump up the advertising for a staid product. Well you are probably right. But I also recall when GOTD was first set up and it is probably still true today is the developers got paid per download from GOTD. Sure it was a few bucks per download or something, not a lot or anything, but better than giving it away for free. And GOTD got their money from running ads on the site. Kind of a win for everybody, don't you think? Take a look at Mozilla for example. I view their products as always under construction and will never be completed. You can't develop good software using this model. What you always end up with is bloated spaghetti code. And most users here aren't still using a staid OS, like CP/M, either. The very term "software" mean flexibility and change, not cast in stone. If you don't like change, computers are definitely nothing you should get involved with. Whoa! That is a very odd statement for me to hear. If it wasn't for change, only computer nerds would be using computers today. As I recall trying to get friends and family interested in computers in the early days and told them about the wonderful things like email. And it was really odd back then. Some people got a computer and they couldn't do a dang thing with it and passed it on to somebody else. And often the same thing would happen. If you tried to teach them a few things, many of them got frustrated right away. Like if they put in a floppy to save something and it pops up with an error, they were lost. You go there and say, no you have to format a floppy first. They ask how do you do that? And then you say by typing "Format a:". Then they say what? How am I going to remember that? No, rather it is only change that is keeping everything going. If it didn't change, computers would have been history a long time ago. Change is the only thing that is keeping the momentum going. ;-) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Atlantis Word Processor
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:28:29 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote: On 2/06/2014, Shadow posted: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:28:23 -0500, "Silver Slimer" wrote: I can't say I've seen the same thing here. Firefox on this machine (WinXP), starts in one second. While viewing no web page content, memory consumption in Task Manager is listed as 35MB. And, I've never had a freeze due to Firefox or Thunderbird. Meanwhile, browser reviewers have all pointed out that Firefox is the slowest to start. Not one has recorded a one-second start for Firefox on a cold start and they used i7 processors. Reviewers are expensive. Only Micro$oft and Google can afford the best. []'s To be consistent, you should spell the later company name as GoogŁe. It was not voluntary. I do not have the "s" letter on this keyboard, it's one of those communist open-source ones, so I have to use "$"....... I thought Thatcher sold England by the Pound, not GoogŁe. Ah, maybe they bought it .... hum. OK, I'll put an OT up there. I'm good at that. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|