Atlantis Word Processor

Ken Springer wrote:


I would like to install it in VM program here, just haven't gotten to it.

It's dead simple.

Examine what platforms, virtual machines exist for here.

http://www.modern.ie/en-us/virtualiz...ools#downloads

Then, go get a copy of VirtualBox and install it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualbox

https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

When unpacked, the Windows Virtual Machines on offer,
do not have a valid license key. They don't activate.
It means, you have to rearm them several times, to
keep them for a limited period. And after all the
rearms are used up, just decompress a fresh copy from
the original (4GB+) set of downloads.

rundll32.exe syssetup,SetupOobeBnk # rearm WinXP
slmgr /rearm # for later OSes,
there is slmgr

Machines are available for WinXP (not for much longer),
Vista SP2 (pretty good), Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.
At least on VirtualBox. Win2K does not run well on
VirtualBox (bug not fixed, the last I tested). And
you can install many Linux LiveCD distros as well,
for a well-rounded set of machines.

You cannot run two virtual machine hosts at the same
time. You can't start VirtualBox and run WinXP,
then reach over and start Windows Virtual PC and run
a copy of Windows 7. And that encourages selecting
a single hosting platform, that runs all the ones you're
interested in. It causes fewer issues that way.

HTH,
Paul

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.

What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?

Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf

Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.

On 2/11/2014 9:05 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.

What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?

Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf

Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.

Somebody created those tables and charts on a word processor? I don't
think so. If they did, creating them from a spreadsheet and importing
them to a word processor would have been far easier. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

On 2/11/14 6:22 AM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:


I would like to install it in VM program here, just haven't gotten to it.

It's dead simple.

Examine what platforms, virtual machines exist for here.

http://www.modern.ie/en-us/virtualiz...ools#downloads

Then, go get a copy of VirtualBox and install it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualbox

https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

When unpacked, the Windows Virtual Machines on offer,
do not have a valid license key. They don't activate.
It means, you have to rearm them several times, to
keep them for a limited period. And after all the
rearms are used up, just decompress a fresh copy from
the original (4GB+) set of downloads.

rundll32.exe syssetup,SetupOobeBnk # rearm WinXP
slmgr /rearm # for later OSes,
there is slmgr

Machines are available for WinXP (not for much longer),
Vista SP2 (pretty good), Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.
At least on VirtualBox. Win2K does not run well on
VirtualBox (bug not fixed, the last I tested). And
you can install many Linux LiveCD distros as well,
for a well-rounded set of machines.

You cannot run two virtual machine hosts at the same
time. You can't start VirtualBox and run WinXP,
then reach over and start Windows Virtual PC and run
a copy of Windows 7. And that encourages selecting
a single hosting platform, that runs all the ones you're
interested in. It causes fewer issues that way.

Looks like I gave you the impression I don't have any VM software
installed. My apologies if that's the situation. I've got Parallels
Desktop for Mac installed, with XP, Vista, Win 7, and Win 8 installed.
It's getting GeoWorks and OS2 up and running that I haven't gotten to.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.
What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?
Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf

Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.


The encryption (128), seems to be removable with qpdf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPDF

qpdf --decrypt input.pdf output.pdf

The resulting output.pdf, you can then copy text. Copy
from Acrobat, into a text file.

But the "flattening" claimed by my print driver,
is still happening. As Shadow notes, the printer
is being forced to produce a bitmap image, instead
of vanilla PostScript. (This is even worse than using
a modern PostScript driver, that only makes bitmaps in
prints. :-( )

If I try and print to PostScript, the decrypted output.pdf
(the one I can copy from), it complains that some embedded
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
of completely removing the protection methods. I would have
to crack open the PDF standards book, to find out what
monkey business this is. Because I've never seen my
old fashioned print driver ever mention "flattening" before
while it was printing. Maybe the print driver itself
is getting hijacked, by code in the document.

I guess this is why they pay software people...

Paul

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:17:50 -0500, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.
What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?
Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf

Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.


The encryption (128), seems to be removable with qpdf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPDF

qpdf --decrypt input.pdf output.pdf

The resulting output.pdf, you can then copy text. Copy
from Acrobat, into a text file.

But the "flattening" claimed by my print driver,
is still happening. As Shadow notes, the printer
is being forced to produce a bitmap image, instead
of vanilla PostScript. (This is even worse than using
a modern PostScript driver, that only makes bitmaps in
prints. :-( )

If I try and print to PostScript, the decrypted output.pdf
(the one I can copy from), it complains that some embedded
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
of completely removing the protection methods. I would have
to crack open the PDF standards book, to find out what
monkey business this is. Because I've never seen my
old fashioned print driver ever mention "flattening" before
while it was printing. Maybe the print driver itself
is getting hijacked, by code in the document.

If I just flip the copy bit in Sumatra, I can copy all the
text with a CTRL-A and paste it into libreoffice with CTRL-V.
Then copy image by image with right-click copy image, and
paste that into the .doc.
There was no encryption involved.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:17:50 -0500, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:32:12 -0200, Shadow wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:44:05 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Yep. Though I had to search through a collection of pdfs
before I came across one with simple "text copy disallowed". If I ever
do come across one obfuscated by the idiot, I'll just print it. Unless
that is obfuscated too.
What about printing to PDF? The target PDF doesn't inherit the restrictions
of its parent, does it?
Tried that, it prints to an image, 5 times the size of the
original PDF. Flipping the no-copy-text jump does not help.

For all you windows lovers, here is the 2Mb .pdf I tested on:

http://principledtechnologies.com/Mi...affic_0613.pdf
Now I see what you mean. The example doc was very helpful.

The encryption (128), seems to be removable with qpdf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPDF

qpdf --decrypt input.pdf output.pdf

The resulting output.pdf, you can then copy text. Copy
from Acrobat, into a text file.
But the "flattening" claimed by my print driver,
is still happening. As Shadow notes, the printer
is being forced to produce a bitmap image, instead
of vanilla PostScript. (This is even worse than using
a modern PostScript driver, that only makes bitmaps in
prints. :-( )

If I try and print to PostScript, the decrypted output.pdf
(the one I can copy from), it complains that some embedded
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
of completely removing the protection methods. I would have
to crack open the PDF standards book, to find out what
monkey business this is. Because I've never seen my
old fashioned print driver ever mention "flattening" before
while it was printing. Maybe the print driver itself
is getting hijacked, by code in the document.

If I just flip the copy bit in Sumatra, I can copy all the
text with a CTRL-A and paste it into libreoffice with CTRL-V.
Then copy image by image with right-click copy image, and
paste that into the .doc.
There was no encryption involved.
[]'s

I think it's the protection for making modifications
to the document (like an author's password).

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
[]
Illicit stills are known for blowing up.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

---------------------------------------------------------
"Where do you want to crash today?"
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Haynes

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes:
[]
fonts are missing. And when the PostScript is redistilled,
kinda blows up. So it's still pretty well protected, in terms
[]
Illicit stills are known for blowing up.

My next door neighbor used to have one (still),
and all it did, was make the guy cranky :-)

We didn't know until he died, and they pulled
a copper spiral out of the basement when housecleaning,
what he was doing down there.

At least it wasn't a meth lab :-)

Paul

| Even the Mozilla products and extensions have an annoying
| habit of trying to track installs by sending the browser to
| their homepage on first run after an install or update.
|
| Noscript comes to mind
|
| | Maybe we could start an about:config thread back in
| | alt.comp.freeware. To make Firefox freeware again. IE and Chrome are
| | built as malware, there is nothing that can be done to avoid the
| | spyware.
|

I was reminded of this thread this morning, reading
this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingco...at-the-center/

It seems the Mozilla people are planning to put ads
in new browser windows, as well as customizing what
people see online. ("User personalization".) Worse, the
spokesman pretends these changes are well intentioned,
describing it all as "putting the user front and center".
They're hoping to convert FF to an adware product that
not only shows ads, but even subverts the main program
functionality in the interest of commercialism.

The sheer dishonesty and disrespect of the piece is
chilling.

I think it would be a good start if we could
just stop referring to people as "users" and "consumers".
Those are crass, exploitive, reductive terms. And the
Mozilla snake oil salesmen would have a tough time
explaining a new drive, to edit what you see online,
called "person personalization".

On 12/02/2014 9:24 AM, Mayayana wrote:

I was reminded of this thread this morning, reading
this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingco...at-the-center/

It seems the Mozilla people are planning to put ads
in new browser windows, as well as customizing what
people see online. ("User personalization".) Worse, the
spokesman pretends these changes are well intentioned,
describing it all as "putting the user front and center".
They're hoping to convert FF to an adware product that
not only shows ads, but even subverts the main program
functionality in the interest of commercialism.

The sheer dishonesty and disrespect of the piece is
chilling.

I think it would be a good start if we could
just stop referring to people as "users" and "consumers".
Those are crass, exploitive, reductive terms. And the
Mozilla snake oil salesmen would have a tough time
explaining a new drive, to edit what you see online,
called "person personalization".

Giving away a product for free just doesn't make sense if no features
are reserved for paying customers. What incentive do people have to
donate to Mozilla? None, unless you want that 'free' t-shirt. We're
going to see a lot of products return to the advertising model which
people detested in the early days of the Internet. Removing the ads was
enough of an incentive to pay a minimal fee for a product and frankly
it's only fair for developers to ask for something in return for the
fact that they're providing you with a product.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux ****' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:24:30 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I was reminded of this thread this morning, reading
this:

https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingco...at-the-center/

It seems the Mozilla people are planning to put ads
in new browser windows, as well as customizing what
people see online. ("User personalization".) Worse, the
spokesman pretends these changes are well intentioned,
describing it all as "putting the user front and center".
They're hoping to convert FF to an adware product that
not only shows ads, but even subverts the main program
functionality in the interest of commercialism.

The sheer dishonesty and disrespect of the piece is
chilling.

I think it would be a good start if we could
just stop referring to people as "users" and "consumers".
Those are crass, exploitive, reductive terms. And the
Mozilla snake oil salesmen would have a tough time
explaining a new drive, to edit what you see online,
called "person personalization".

You do realize that a large part of the mozilla code is now
written by Google programmers, right ? That lovely "remotely switch on
your microphone and cam" came direct from Google's bowels.

about:config

Search:
social

Google "firefox social api"
Delve down in the flames of it's functions ... while you are
at it, have a cup of coffee with the Devil. He always serves it nice
and hot.

[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

| Giving away a product for free just doesn't make sense if no features
| are reserved for paying customers. What incentive do people have to
| donate to Mozilla? None, unless you want that 'free' t-shirt. We're
| going to see a lot of products return to the advertising model which
| people detested in the early days of the Internet. Removing the ads was
| enough of an incentive to pay a minimal fee for a product and frankly
| it's only fair for developers to ask for something in return for the
| fact that they're providing you with a product.
| --

Lots of people give away some of their work, including
myself. I don't see it as "only fair" that people have to make
a buck on everything. What made the Internet so inspiring in
the early days was peoples' willingness to chip in -- whether
it was software, a brownie recipe, or directions for car repair.
A lot of people just contributed. Firefox was originally a small
OSS project on a shoestring budget, intended to provide a
credible alternative to IE's 90+% browser share. It became
almost a movement. And the effort succeeded.

Then they got carried away and went downhill. I don't know
the details. I suspect they were bloated with pride about their
noble quest and decided that with more funding they could
do even more good. What I do know is that for several years
now they've been getting more than $100 million/year from
Google, which is most of their income. It's a sham deal. Google
ostensibly pays to have their search bar in the main window,
but in reality they've essentially bought out Mozilla. Now the
Mozilla Foundation has developed a ridiculous 100-million-dollar
-a-year addiction, Firefox has become grossly overproduced,
and Google pretty much owns them. The result can be seen
in the steady move away from providing settings and options,
especially anything that might hamper Google's spying and
advertising. (The setting to block 3rd-part images was removed;
cookie settings were hidden; javascript settings have been
removed....) So the browser that saved us from corporate control
has itself become one of two browsers that now constitute
nearly a monopoly for Google, which is arguably a more generally
malefic force in computing and on the Internet than Microsoft
ever could have been.

I was using K-Meleon for awhile, which seemed to be picking
up where Firefox abandoned. But that project seems to have
dried up.

In ,
BillW50 typed:
"Ken Springer" wrote in message
...
I suspect that also factors into the lack of use of a database
program. And with MS dropping works, which had a database component,
plus vendors not including packaged software anymore, even fewer
people know what database software is, or any of its advantages.

If one really wanted Works, I would guess eBay probably still has lots
of them. Don't know if there are problems running them under Windows 7
or 8. Vista and Windows 7 users are lucky as they can run the free MS
Office 2010 Starter. It came with one of my machines and I don't use
it a lot, but it doesn't seem too bad for a lite version of Office.
Doesn't have Access though.

I got curious and revisited MS Works once again. MS Works is on this
machine and it is at v8.0. I do know one can upgrade to v8.5 for free,
but you loose Word Art, remember that one? Both Works and Office used in
the earlier versions. Anyway I am surprised how many features are packed
into this product.

For example, many of the features we chatted about that we use all of
the time is there too under MS Works, even tables. Surprisingly it also
has a grammar checker, plus it has a real dictionary (The American
Heritage). Yes, it has the definition of many commonly used words.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 2/13/14 6:02 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
BillW50 typed:
"Ken Springer" wrote in message
...
I suspect that also factors into the lack of use of a database
program. And with MS dropping works, which had a database component,
plus vendors not including packaged software anymore, even fewer
people know what database software is, or any of its advantages.

If one really wanted Works, I would guess eBay probably still has lots
of them. Don't know if there are problems running them under Windows 7
or 8. Vista and Windows 7 users are lucky as they can run the free MS
Office 2010 Starter. It came with one of my machines and I don't use
it a lot, but it doesn't seem too bad for a lite version of Office.
Doesn't have Access though.

I got curious and revisited MS Works once again. MS Works is on this
machine and it is at v8.0. I do know one can upgrade to v8.5 for free,
but you loose Word Art, remember that one? Both Works and Office used in
the earlier versions. Anyway I am surprised how many features are packed
into this product.

For example, many of the features we chatted about that we use all of
the time is there too under MS Works, even tables. Surprisingly it also
has a grammar checker, plus it has a real dictionary (The American
Heritage). Yes, it has the definition of many commonly used words.

I've never used Works, nor had a copy past vers. 4, but I've always felt
the later versions of Works had about the same abilities of Word 6, more
or less.

Some have speculated about the reasons MS dropped Works, usually
speculating they didn't want to draw sales away from Office. I suspect
there is some truth to that, but possibly MS saw no reason to develop
competing products, even though I think they could have sold a lot more
copies of Works than they were had they seriously marketed it. Which
leads me to wonder how many sales to MS were lost because people didn't
want to pay the price for Office, and since there was no Works, they
went elsewhere.

I haven't had any good reasons to write something in depth for quite
awhile, but on this Mac, I'm now trying out iPages 09. Bought iWorks 09
when I bought the computer. Didn't care for the interface, too "Maccy".
LOL But, I'm becoming quite impressed, once I started seeing and
understanding how Apple does things with their software. Not only does
it have basic and some advanced word processor features, it also has
basic frame-based DTP features. I don't know of any other word
processing package that has that.

FYI, the iWorks packages are still available, but not bundled together
anymore. I'd update iPages, but it requires an OS update, which does
not interest me.

For Windows, I have Softmaker Office Free installed. Haven't written
anything there at all. But its tables have sorting, which is a feature
I want. As does iPages.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0