Atlantis Word Processor

I often don't get very excited about the daily offering on
Giveawayoftheday.com. And today was just another word processor which I
tried dozens of them in the past and almost none of them impress me at
all. But I must say just using this Atlantis Word Processor for a few
hours has really impressed me. If you are frustrated over non MS Word
word processors like me, this one is definitely worth a look. And it can
be portable too. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center

BillW50 wrote:
I often don't get very excited about the daily offering on
Giveawayoftheday.com. And today was just another word processor which I
tried dozens of them in the past and almost none of them impress me at
all. But I must say just using this Atlantis Word Processor for a few
hours has really impressed me. If you are frustrated over non MS Word
word processors like me, this one is definitely worth a look. And it can
be portable too. ;-)


Nice one.
Like a previous version of MS Word with typewriter clicks.

Ed

On 04/02/2014 10:22 AM, BillW50 wrote:
I often don't get very excited about the daily offering on
Giveawayoftheday.com. And today was just another word processor which I
tried dozens of them in the past and almost none of them impress me at
all. But I must say just using this Atlantis Word Processor for a few
hours has really impressed me. If you are frustrated over non MS Word
word processors like me, this one is definitely worth a look. And it can
be portable too. ;-)


Does it have a thesaurus?
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

"BillW50" wrote in message

I often don't get very excited about the daily offering on
Giveawayoftheday.com. And today was just another word
processor which I tried dozens of them in the past and
almost none of them impress me at all. But I must say
just using this Atlantis Word Processor for a few hours
has really impressed me. If you are frustrated over non
MS Word word processors like me, this one is definitely
worth a look. And it can be portable too. ;-)

I've used it for a number of years. It is a good program and reasonably
versatile. FWIW, I like it.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 2/4/2014 2:46 PM, dadiOH wrote:
wrote in message

I often don't get very excited about the daily offering on
Giveawayoftheday.com. And today was just another word
processor which I tried dozens of them in the past and
almost none of them impress me at all. But I must say
just using this Atlantis Word Processor for a few hours
has really impressed me. If you are frustrated over non
MS Word word processors like me, this one is definitely
worth a look. And it can be portable too. ;-)

I've used it for a number of years. It is a good program and reasonably
versatile. FWIW, I like it.

OMG! I never heard about it until today. And you never mentioned it
before? From what I have heard about it today, even v1.0 was quite good.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center

BillW50 wrote:

I often don't get very excited about the daily offering on
Giveawayoftheday.com. And today was just another word processor which I
tried dozens of them in the past and almost none of them impress me at
all. But I must say just using this Atlantis Word Processor for a few
hours has really impressed me. If you are frustrated over non MS Word
word processors like me, this one is definitely worth a look. And it can
be portable too. ;-)

Do it come with GOTD's wrapper that you can use the start & abort
install trick to get rid of it so it no longer exists for the real
installer? That gets rid of it phoning home to GOTD to check if you are
installing within the giveaway day.

The trick, as I recall, is you start GOTD's fake installer, let it
extract the real installer into the %temp% directory, grab a copy of the
real installer to store elsewhere, abort GOTD's fake installer, and
thereafter you have the real installer to run on any day you want.

Their online manual mentions their editor creates RTF files. Since they
mention Microsoft in that description, it looks like they support
Microsoft's TNEF format (which Microsoft incorrectly labelled "RTF"
despite HTML is also an RTF format). Can you load and save other the
other file formats and make one of them the default one?

http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com...ed_formats.htm

The GOTD download is only 2.4MB in size. This isn't a web-only
installer is it? That is, you don't get the real installer but instead
a web installer that has to retrieve the real installer and then runs
the real installer. The Kinsoft Office download is 46MB and Softmaker
FreeOffice is 60MB. Although this Atlantis download is only the word
processor (i.e., you don't get the other components of a suite, like
spreadsheet and presentation), 2.4MB seems too small for both the word
processor component along with an installer wrapped around it. When
searching in the setup.exe in the downloaded .zip file, I did see the
string "Welcome to the Atlantis Word Processor Setup" but I couldn't
tell if I was looking at a string in GOTD's wrapper or for a real
installer (and, if so, if it was a web-only installer and not the real
or full installer). Then I found "This "Giveaway-of-the-day" offer has
expired." inside the setup.exe file so, yep, this is the GOTD wrapper
but is it a web-only wrapper or does it contain the full Atlantis
product?

If their word processor is really this tiny for its installer (and not a
web-only installer), maybe because it lacks some important
functionality. Read:

http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/faq.htm

No table or frames support. Really, no table support? If you open a
doc someone else created using Word, table formatting is lost. Geesh,
have fun using monospace fonts and the tab key to emulate tables.
Reviewers noted lack of imaging support (pictures) but those were 2-year
old reviews. Since their online help describes how to add pictures,
maybe they got around to adding it in the last couple of years (a bit
late for a product that started back in 2003 as Atlantis Ocean Mind).
There is no PDF support but instead they have you install a PDF printer
and use that. No version control or change tracking like in MS Word,
Kingsoft, and Open/LibreOffice. So what else does it lack when compared
to the word processors available in the free Kingsoft, Softmaker, and
Open/LibreOffice suites? They claim to be an MS Word alternative, and
they charge for it, but it is a weak alternative. No point to pay when
you can get other better alternatives and for free (and all the time).

I guess if you like this word processor (and only want a word processor)
but miss out on the GOTD offer, you could buy it for only $10 with a 70%
discount offer at softpedia.com.

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Office-...rocessor.shtml

As of version 1.6.5.8, this product dropped support for Windows 9x and
Windows NT4. It's been awhile since I've seen anyone using NT4 but I
still see plenty of users of Windows 9x.

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 23:17:01 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

As of version 1.6.5.8, this product dropped support for Windows 9x
and Windows NT4. It's been awhile since I've seen anyone using
NT4 but I still see plenty of users of Windows 9x.

I hope you advised them to upgrade to WinXP! Though, wait,...

"VanguardLH" wrote in message


If their word processor is really this tiny for its
installer (and not a web-only installer), maybe because
it lacks some important functionality.

My ancient version is 3.75 MB installed. The exe is about 2.1 MB. It is
Atlantis Ocean Mind (the previous name) v 1.5.1.4 and is probably 10 years
or more old.

Reviewers noted
lack of imaging support (pictures) but those were 2-year
old reviews.

No problem inserting pictures in my way more than two year old version.

I can't comment on your other concerns as they aren't things I use, need or
want. I am sure there are more full featured word processors but simplicity
decreases with features.

One thing I do like about it is the ability to save in htm. I have and can
use html editors but rarely use them as I don't have much need for them.
The web pages in my sig were made with Atlantis and IrfanView.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

In message , dadiOH
writes:
[]
I can't comment on your other concerns as they aren't things I use, need or
want. I am sure there are more full featured word processors but simplicity
decreases with features.

"they aren't things I use, need, or want". This statement bears
examination. They aren't things you use, that's self-evident! They
aren't things you need - depends on your definition of need; you don't
_need_ a word processor, or even a computer. As to whether they're
things you _want_ - well, I suppose if you don't actually know about
them you can't want them; however, they might be things you'd want _if_
you actually saw them.

One thing I do like about it is the ability to save in htm. I have and can
use html editors but rarely use them as I don't have much need for them.
The web pages in my sig were made with Atlantis and IrfanView.

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.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If your mind goes blank, remember to turn down the sound.

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.

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
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.

Yes. I don't agree with the W3 - and am surprised that Sir T B-L has
anything to do with them on that matter. (Another one they "deprecate" -
I _hate_ that word, it smacks of smug superiority - is CENTER. Easy to
understand, you see.)

I _can_ see the point of CSSs - but _not_ that _all_ pages should use
them.

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.

Not only Word-specific, but (and this applies to all machine-generated
HTML I've seen - Word isn't actually the worst) lots of _spurious_ code.
Some emails I've received, when I've saved them, have had ten or twenty
{DIV}{/DIV} tags, usually with virtually - or, in fact actually! -
nothing separating them; and, at least three sets of nested tables. Oh,
and they might have a single & n b s p ; inside lots of {DIV} and
{FONT} tags. (Come to think of it, they tend to include both {DIV} _and_
{FONT} tags, so they _aren't_ even doing away with FONT, just adding DIV
_as well_.

(And they rarely give more than a cursory nod to code indenting,
either.)

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.
[]
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

Useful - I'll try to remember it. Though I only have (imposed, of
course) Word 2010 at work, where I don't generate any HTML (any I
generate for unofficial purposes I do with Notepad or 1-word; I think
for corporate webpage generation, some bloated style-thing is imposed on
us, that is even worse).

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.

Gee, only 703 instead of 125!

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.

Will browsers _actually_ stop parsing the old tags anyway, whatever W3
and HTML5 say? I rather doubt it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Does Barbie come with Ken?"
"Barbie comes with G.I. Joe. She fakes it with Ken." - anonymous

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
BillW50 wrote:

I often don't get very excited about the daily offering on
Giveawayoftheday.com. And today was just another word processor which
I
tried dozens of them in the past and almost none of them impress me
at
all. But I must say just using this Atlantis Word Processor for a few
hours has really impressed me. If you are frustrated over non MS Word
word processors like me, this one is definitely worth a look. And it
can
be portable too. ;-)

[...]
Then I found "This "Giveaway-of-the-day" offer has
expired." inside the setup.exe file so, yep, this is the GOTD wrapper
but is it a web-only wrapper or does it contain the full Atlantis
product?

I downloaded it a few minutes after it was up on the website. Mine had
no GAOTD wrapper, just a setup.exe and a readme.txt. Although it doesn't
make a lot of difference, since once installed you can create a copy on
a flash drive. And running it on the flash, has the ability to install
on the computer you are running it on.

[...]
No table or frames support. Really, no table support?

Why are people creating tables on a word processor? Why not use a
spreadsheet?

I guess if you like this word processor (and only want a word
processor)
but miss out on the GOTD offer, you could buy it for only $10 with a
70%
discount offer at softpedia.com.

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Office-...rocessor.shtml

As of version 1.6.5.8, this product dropped support for Windows 9x and
Windows NT4. It's been awhile since I've seen anyone using NT4 but I
still see plenty of users of Windows 9x.

Hmm... I wonder if it gets you future updates for free?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

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.

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.




--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

"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

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