It SHOULD be a matter of PRIDE though to make sure the included
Winders does not run for a single microsecond before you overwrite
with Linux
On 04/06/2025 23:58, c186282 wrote:
On 6/4/25 4:21 PM, rbowman wrote:WordStar produced plain text files It was an editor.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:47:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
04/06/2025 20:37, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:14:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
Remember all the great IBM-PC/BIOS routines ?
Made it EASY to write full-screen editors. You had to have the >>>>>> "Technical Reference Manual" to know all that stuff, however >>>>>> I did
have that ....
And everyone felt compelled to write an editor...
Fuck that. Wordstar had been available on CP/M for ages, and was better >>>> than vi.
So when it turned up on DOS everyone grabbed a pirate copy. 'joe'
emulates it these days for Linux
Definitely. WordStar was bundled on the Osborne 1 CP/M I bought in
'81 and
hat is what I used. When I moved to DOS I used Brief which was
designed to
be a programming editor.
The 'write an editor' think could be traced to the programming books of
the day. They tended to use string handling in their examples and it
followed 'Oh, I can write an editor'.
I wrote cross-assemblers when they weren't available or expensive but I
was happy with available editors. I did not use vi. Vim (vi improved)
is a
hell of an improvement but that was more than 10 years in the future.
vi in most Linux distros is a symlink to Vim so many who claim to use vi >>> aren't using the original Bill Joy version.
Umm ... are we talking WordSTAR or WordPERFECT here ?
Word produced its own format - it was a primitive word processor
I've used both - indeed even WS on a Kaypro CP/M box -Word Perfect was in many ways Perfect...Just enough features to be
but WordPerfect was much better. The old boss still
used it for everything until he retired a few years
ago. Fortunately LibreOffice could at least READ WP
files (not sure if ever became able to write them).
useful to write letters and short documents on with an easy interface.
Word suffered from 'creeping feauturism' and couldn't decide whether it
was a desktop publishing suite or a thing to write letters and manuals
with.
Well had to use it because everyone else sent is Word files, etc etc.
On Fr 06 Jun 2025 at 18:48, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 04-06-2025, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a écrit :
On 04/06/2025 20:37, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:14:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
Remember all the great IBM-PC/BIOS routines ?
Made it EASY to write full-screen editors. You had to have the
"Technical Reference Manual" to know all that stuff, however I did >>>>> have that ....
And everyone felt compelled to write an editor...
Fuck that. Wordstar had been available on CP/M for ages, and was better
than vi.
So when it turned up on DOS everyone grabbed a pirate copy. 'joe'
emulates it these days for Linux
I don't know about the difference between wordstar and vi ages ago. I
have always used vim. Last time I checked joe is nowhere close to vim.
joe can emulate Wordstar.
On 06/06/2025 22:08, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Fr 06 Jun 2025 at 18:48, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >>
Le 04-06-2025, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a écrit : >>>> On 04/06/2025 20:37, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:14:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
Remember all the great IBM-PC/BIOS routines ?
Made it EASY to write full-screen editors. You had to have the >>>>>> "Technical Reference Manual" to know all that stuff, however I did >>>>>> have that ....
And everyone felt compelled to write an editor...
Fuck that. Wordstar had been available on CP/M for ages, and was better >>>> than vi.
So when it turned up on DOS everyone grabbed a pirate copy. 'joe'
emulates it these days for Linux
I don't know about the difference between wordstar and vi ages ago. I
have always used vim. Last time I checked joe is nowhere close to vim.
joe can emulate Wordstar.
That's what I said.
You may say that Wordstar doesn't have all the regex extensions that VI
had, but remember, when your output device is a teleprinter you really
NEED those.
Wordstar assumes an 80x25 character screen.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:02:19 -0400, c186282 wrote:
On 6/4/25 3:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:14:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
Remember all the great IBM-PC/BIOS routines ?
Made it EASY to write full-screen editors. You had to have the
"Technical Reference Manual" to know all that stuff, however I did >>>> have that ....
And everyone felt compelled to write an editor...
GOOD !
There WERE a lot of them early in PC-dom ... some were simple, some
ambitious, some evolved into better things.
I suppose it was better than reading the Dragon book and deciding to write
a compiler.
I don't recall ever testing it with more than 80 columns, but as it
worked just fine with 50 lines I presume it would have worked with more
than 80 columns.
On 2025-06-07 04:42, Rich wrote:
...
I don't recall ever testing it with more than 80 columns, but as it
worked just fine with 50 lines I presume it would have worked with more
than 80 columns.
Considering that a pin printer that did 80 chars per line could use
condensed font at 132 chars per line, WS could handle those files. I
don't remember how.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
joe can emulate Wordstar.
That's what I said.
Wordstar assumes an 80x25 character screen.
Depends upon which version is your reference point. WordStar 7 for DOS
(the last DOS version, by the way) will use larger than 80x25 character screens. I used it (WS7) for a good many years running (IIRC) in 80x50 character mode, first under DesqView on top of DOS plus QEMM386 then
later in Dosemu on Linux.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 02:42:38 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
joe can emulate Wordstar.
That's what I said.
Wordstar assumes an 80x25 character screen.
Depends upon which version is your reference point. WordStar 7 for DOS
(the last DOS version, by the way) will use larger than 80x25 character
screens. I used it (WS7) for a good many years running (IIRC) in 80x50
character mode, first under DesqView on top of DOS plus QEMM386 then
later in Dosemu on Linux.
I still have WorStar 6.0 running on this linux box in dosemu. Years ago I found a hack to boost it to a 50 line display. Have no idea now how/what that was. The only kink is that the top 80x25 display is one color and the bottom 80x26-50 are default. I guess I can live with that....
I started out with WordStar ?.?? on a Sanyo MBC-1000 CPM box somewhere
around 1981. Great times.
I started out with WordStar ?.?? on a Sanyo MBC-1000 CPM box somewhere
around 1981. Great times.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 14:33:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-07 04:42, Rich wrote:
...
I don't recall ever testing it with more than 80 columns, but as it
worked just fine with 50 lines I presume it would have worked with more
than 80 columns.
Considering that a pin printer that did 80 chars per line could use
condensed font at 132 chars per line, WS could handle those files. I
don't remember how.
heh.... Console line width and printer line width are two different things.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 02:42:38 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
joe can emulate Wordstar.
That's what I said.
Wordstar assumes an 80x25 character screen.
Depends upon which version is your reference point. WordStar 7 for DOS
(the last DOS version, by the way) will use larger than 80x25 character
screens. I used it (WS7) for a good many years running (IIRC) in 80x50
character mode, first under DesqView on top of DOS plus QEMM386 then
later in Dosemu on Linux.
I still have WorStar 6.0 running on this linux box in dosemu. Years ago I found a hack to boost it to a 50 line display. Have no idea now how/what that was. The only kink is that the top 80x25 display is one color and the bottom 80x26-50 are default. I guess I can live with that....
I started out with WordStar ?.?? on a Sanyo MBC-1000 CPM box somewhere
around 1981. Great times.
On 7 Jun 2025 20:37:25 GMT, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
I started out with WordStar ?.?? on a Sanyo MBC-1000 CPM box somewhere
around 1981. Great times.
The 1981 Osborne 1 luggable bundled WordStar and SuerCalc. WordStar was
okay, never did figure out SuperCalc.
On 6/7/25 4:37 PM, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 02:42:38 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
joe can emulate Wordstar.
That's what I said.
Wordstar assumes an 80x25 character screen.
Depends upon which version is your reference point. WordStar 7 for DOS
(the last DOS version, by the way) will use larger than 80x25 character
screens. I used it (WS7) for a good many years running (IIRC) in 80x50
character mode, first under DesqView on top of DOS plus QEMM386 then
later in Dosemu on Linux.
I still have WorStar 6.0 running on this linux box in dosemu. Years ago I >> found a hack to boost it to a 50 line display. Have no idea now how/what
that was. The only kink is that the top 80x25 display is one color and the >> bottom 80x26-50 are default. I guess I can live with that....
I started out with WordStar ?.?? on a Sanyo MBC-1000 CPM box somewhere
around 1981. Great times.
Not gonna diss WordStar - used it on CP/M and x86.
Not super-capable, but usually capable ENOUGH if
you didn't need typesetting effects.
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 6/7/25 4:37 PM, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 02:42:38 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
joe can emulate Wordstar.
That's what I said.
Wordstar assumes an 80x25 character screen.
Depends upon which version is your reference point. WordStar 7 for DOS >>>> (the last DOS version, by the way) will use larger than 80x25 character >>>> screens. I used it (WS7) for a good many years running (IIRC) in 80x50 >>>> character mode, first under DesqView on top of DOS plus QEMM386 then
later in Dosemu on Linux.
I still have WorStar 6.0 running on this linux box in dosemu. Years ago I >>> found a hack to boost it to a 50 line display. Have no idea now how/what >>> that was. The only kink is that the top 80x25 display is one color and the >>> bottom 80x26-50 are default. I guess I can live with that....
I started out with WordStar ?.?? on a Sanyo MBC-1000 CPM box somewhere
around 1981. Great times.
Not gonna diss WordStar - used it on CP/M and x86.
Not super-capable, but usually capable ENOUGH if
you didn't need typesetting effects.
Newer WordStar's, just like all the other word processors of the time, gradually added on more and more "typesetting effects". None of them
ever rivaled true typesetting programs, but they all added enough that
one could do a passing job for the most part.
Not gonna diss WordStar - used it on CP/M and x86.
Not super-capable, but usually capable ENOUGH if you didn't need
typesetting effects.
Ah ... I remember the Osborne - and Kaypro was good too.
Perfectly solid CP/M "portables".
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 14:33:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-07 04:42, Rich wrote:
...
I don't recall ever testing it with more than 80 columns, but as it
worked just fine with 50 lines I presume it would have worked with more
than 80 columns.
Considering that a pin printer that did 80 chars per line could use
condensed font at 132 chars per line, WS could handle those files. I
don't remember how.
heh.... Console line width and printer line width are two different things.
I use LibreOffice in read only mode if someone
sends me a document. Trying to edit an existing document or create on
doesn't have a happy ending.
On 08/06/2025 07:47, rbowman wrote:
I use LibreOffice in read only mode if someone sends me a document.
Trying to edit an existing document or create on doesn't have a happy
ending.
I have a letter template that I use every time that contains the senders
text box and the recipients text box and the date.
That means I dont need to format anything
Occasional manuals that are longer usually result on me spending more
time fiddling with the formats than actually writing the data.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 163:05:14 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,509 |