Talk:Word processor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation
This page was cited by William & Mary Law Review
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale

Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ludicrous clumsiness (alleged)

Hmm, early word processors were "ludicrously clumsy" because they needed people to memorise mnemonic commands? I'm not so sure. Modern word processing software such as that included in OpenOffice.org Writer or like Microsoft_Word still support mnemonic-like keypresses. They're specifically used to increase editing speed (hands stay on keyboard). Use of such hotkeys is also said to reduce risk of RSI. Specialised text editors like emacs and vi still rely on keypresses and are still very popular. Emacs has the idea of using "chords". The user often holds down several meta key-combinations at once and in sequence (like C-x C-s to save). vi allows users to type commands in sequence, and the hands of the user seldom stray far from the home keys (see: touch typing). (vi has :w to save, or :wq to save-and-quit)

An allegorical(?) story goes that at at least one shop, they had replaced the more common word processors with vi for their secretaries, with the resulting increse in productivity. (Where did this story originate?)

Having said that, using hotkeys takes much longer to learn to do right, and is only really useful for heavy computer users, for whom the rewards in productivity and reduction of medical risks outweigh the cost of learning.

... added on 26 January 2004 by Kim Bruning

I read:

Early word-processing software was ludicrously clumsy in comparison to dedicated word processors; for example, it required users to memorize semi-mnemonic key combinations rather than pressing keys labelled "copy" or "bold." (In fact, many early PCs lacked cursor keys; WordStar famously used the I/J/K/M "diamond" for cursor navigation.)

Er, no. For a start, WordStar famously used the ESDX cursor "diamond". Secondly, "ludicrously" is either blatantly PoV or a dead cliche for "very" and still PoV. Thirdly, if this whole business is more than mere PoV, this seems to have confused (a) the learning of WP software with (b) the use of WP software. I don't remember bold in WordStar, but it probably would have been Ctrl-something-something. With the Ctrl key right next to A, as it was in those days, Ctrl-something-something can be typed faster by most touch typists than some special-purpose key (necessarily outside ~!@#...<>?, let alone qwer...bnm) can be hunted for. Actually my memory tells me that it's the reverse of the truth: Displaywriter (an expensive word processor device from IBM) was a dog compared with WordStar. (From my PoV, MS Word and OOo are dogs compared with WordStar.) -- Hoary 11:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I've just noticed that a similar complaint was made two years previously. So much for quality standards in Wikipedia (and the William and Mary Law Review)!

Right then, I'll change the article. -- Hoary 11:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Microsoft bias?

This page seems to have an anti-Microsoft, pro-free software bias.130.15.162.92

Your edits seem to have a anti-free software, pro-Microsoft bias. To be serious, though, when you have items A and B, and want to list them, you do have to put either A or B first. I would assume the argument to put the proprietary things first is that most people use them; on the other hand, we're under no obligation to provide exposure for commercial entities. Noel (talk) 04:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why have a picture of open-office when Microsoft word is used by 99% of the world? I'm all for free software but it should be accurate.... --81.156.176.82

I agree with the above. Microsoft Word is the most common word processor, so I think it would be most appropriate to have a screenshot of that. I don't know much about copyright, but MS is okay with a screenshot, right? --Nuggit (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emacs a word processor?

Should Emacs be listed as a word processor? I certainly don't think of it as one (and I'm an Emacs user :-); it's really just a very powerful text editor. Noel (talk) 04:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Add a list of dedicated word processor hardware?

Should we add a list of dedicated word processor hardware such as the Friden Flexowriter, Canon Cat, Brother, and AlphaSmart ?

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WordProcessor

[edit] Reversion of vandalism

12 July 2005,16:22 IST (GMT+5:30)

Referenced the Page Word Processor. Found that it was reading: "ROONEY IS A GYPO" Used the Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version to revert it to the previous version.

Hope I didn't muck up anything!

--getkashyap 10:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You did fine. Thank you. But your message here made me wonder just what had happened, and I noticed that you reverted to a version that was itself inferior to what had preceded it -- a lot of links to the equivalent article in other languages, etc., had been stripped out. So I re-reverted it, to that older version. -- Hoary 11:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Actual comparisons

Nice article. But it seems to me there isn't really that much actual comparing of word processors going on? The history and technology is interessting - but the article is about comparing the technologies, not the background of it.

[edit] Document processor

There's two different systems that I've seen described as document processors, neither of these are in fact word processing systems.

The older of the two is Computer Concepts' Impression line of document processors for Acorn RISC computers (Commonwealth only). Impression is basically a DTP program with integrated word processor, so that you can WYSIWYG edit your text on screen, and have it automatically re-flowed in real-time. This was made possible by the (then brand new, and extremely innovative) ARM 32-bit RISC processor.

The other document processor is LyX, which can be seen as a kind of front-end for LaTeX. Certain operations that are possible in word processors are forbidden in LyX. LyX requires the user to input the semantics of a document, not the layout. LyX then uses one of many possible latex engines to generate a formatted output in batch mode.

For these reasons, I don't think Document Processor should redirect here.

Kim Bruning 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word processor screenshot

The screenshot currently shows an empty word window. Well, that's enlightening (not) :-P To get this featured, perhaps we should find shots of old dedicated word processors as well, for instance? Kim Bruning 01:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous? paragraph about TrueType fonts

I'm removing this:

Of particular interest to many is the standardization of Truetype fonts used in both Macintosh and Windows PCs. While the publishers of the operating systems provide Truetype typefaces, they are largely gathered from traditional typefaces converted by smaller font publishing houses to replicate "revered" fonts. Advertising continues to create a demand for new and interesting fonts, which can be found free of copyright restrictions, or commissioned from font designers. "Software With Flair" was a software house, as an example, that employed artists in the 1980s and 1990s to create fonts.

because I don't see it as being very germane to the topic of word processors.

Fonts, as generally implemented, impact the whole OS and the entire suite of software running on it. Also, fonts, as described here, seems to me to be more of a concern of professional and semiprofessional designers, and uses of page layout software (Quark, InDesign, etc.) than word processors. Word processor users enjoy using decorative fonts in memos, invitations, etc. but don't usually care whether they're TrueType or where they came from.

The mention of one specific software house seems inappropriate to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding section for my University Class

I was given the assignment to add to a Wikipedia entry on a "subject we have expertise in." As a college student, I decided word processing was right up my ally. However, I am unsure of the relevance of my topic (Typical Word Processing Usage) and therefore posting here to let you - the experts - know that I am doing so. I have a lot of respect for people who devote time to editing here, and use this site often when beginning research for an assignment. Thus, if somebody feels the entry I have added is unnecessary or irrelevant, feel free to edit it out at any time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dolanre (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] See Also / mention of word processor machines in the header

Two comments - one, the only hardware word processor I see mentioned is an obsolete machine of Amstrad make; surely this deserves no more attention than does Brother's machines, the Wang, or any of the host of WP machines out there.

Secondly, I don't see any link or really any information about the word processor machines that predated common use of DOS PCs for word processing. That seems odd to say the least. --Edwin Herdman 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Pencil

It seems to be widely reported that Electric Pencil was the first word processing program for a PC http://inventors.about.com/od/wstartinventions/a/WordStar.htm, so surely it should be mentioned on this page? Eraserhead1 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software and Hardware separation

I think there should be separate articles for Word Process (Hardware) and Word Processor (Software). The current article is almost of no use to anyone that is looking for information about hardware word processors.--NeF (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Format

What can be included about use with Asian languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.172.215.250 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)