🚀 go-pugleaf

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
><https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
>but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
>in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>
>I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>
>Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
>processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
>or italic character and sub- and superscript.

UW (University of Waterloo) script.
Digital RUNOFF
Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
troff

all used markup sequences

On Fri, 2018-03-16, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>>I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
>><https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
>>but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>>first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
>>in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>>
>>I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>>IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>>display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>>
>>Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
>>processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>>didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
>>or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>
> UW (University of Waterloo) script.
> Digital RUNOFF
> Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
> troff
>
> all used markup sequences

And that non-WYSIWYG way of processing words still has a strong
following. HTML, Markdown, ...

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 3/16/2018 4:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
>> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
>> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
>> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>>
>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>>
>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
>> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
>> or italic character and sub- and superscript.
> 
> UW (University of Waterloo) script.
> Digital RUNOFF
> Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
> troff
> 
> all used markup sequences
> 

These things like RUNOFF are "text formaters", not word processors.  And 
IBM selectrics *are* typewriters.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
> 
> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
> 
> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
> or italic character and sub- and superscript.

IME SCRIPT filled that roll. My first acquaintance with SCRIPT was seeing
someone generate documentation on a 2741. Markup was used even earlier - I
have an early PL/I book that was generated on a line printer that included
roman and Italic fonts.

> 
> Apparently the IBM MT/ST (Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter) from 1964
> would match that description which was used only with an IBM
> Selectric. But there should had been applications which would not depend
> on an external type writer rather than using a dedicated printer, no?



-- 
Pete

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2018 4:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>>> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
>>> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
>>> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>>> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
>>> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>>> 
>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>>> 
>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
>>> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>>> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
>>> or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>> 
>> UW (University of Waterloo) script.
>> Digital RUNOFF
>> Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
>> troff
>> 
>> all used markup sequences
>> 
> 
> These things like RUNOFF are "text formaters", not word processors.  And 
> IBM selectrics *are* typewriters.
> 

What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.

-- 
Pete

On 03/16/2018 02:27 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even 
> if an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They 
> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.

I distinctly remember typewriters in the '90s that had a small (single 
line?) display on them for management and could record and edit 
documents for subsequent re-typing.

> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word 
> processors...

I'm guessing that "Professional Office", a.k.a. "PROFS", or subsequent 
versions, "Office Vision", a.k.a. "OV", very likely qualify.

> By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word processor 
> should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it didn't 
> fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold or 
> italic character and sub- and superscript.

I don't know how advanced they were, but they are very likely on your 
scale.  They might (I don't know) not have been able to manage bold / 
italic / other fonts.  But that was very likely a limitation of the 
printing technology (used in conjunction with the systems) of the time 
(as opposed to what was available).

> Apparently the IBM MT/ST (Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter) from 
> 1964 would match that description which was used only with an IBM 
> Selectric. But there should had been applications which would not depend 
> on an external type writer rather than using a dedicated printer, no?

I thought the MT/ST as a PoC type project (that did make it to market?) 
that took IBM's typewriter, Selectric, and allowed it to save and 
re-type documents.  I think it was an early version of the typewriters 
from the '90s I was referencing above.

I would be shocked if IBM did something with a typewriter other than the 
Selectric.  I would also be surprised if anyone else bothered to, or 
even could, re-use the MT/ST technology.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>
> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>
> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
> or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>
> Apparently the IBM MT/ST (Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter) from 1964
> would match that description which was used only with an IBM
> Selectric. But there should had been applications which would not depend
> on an external type writer rather than using a dedicated printer, no?

some of the CTSS 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Time-Sharing_System
went to the 5th flr, 545 tech sq,  to do MULTICS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics

and others went to the science center on the 4th floor and did virtual
machines, online computing, internal network, computer performance,
etc. As might be expected there was a little competition between the 4th
& 5th flrs. One of my hobbies was developing & supporting enhanced
operating systems for internal datacenters. It wasn't fair to compare
the total number of VM customers to MULTICS or even the number of VM
internal datacenters to MULTICS .... however I could compare the number
of my "CSC/VM" internal datacenters ... which was more than the total
number of all MULTICS installations (over its lifetime).

they initially did virtual machine CP/40 (& CMS) on 360/40 with hardware
modifications supporting virtual memory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/cp40seas1982.txt

CP/40 morphed into CP/67 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/CMS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_CP/CMS
when 360/67 became available that came standard with virtual memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360-67

CMS had standard conversational editor. Also CTSS RUNOFF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TYPSET_and_RUNOFF
CTSS RUNOFF manual
http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/CC-244.html

was re-implemented on CMS as "script" & looked very much
like CTSS RUNOFF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCRIPT_(markup)

At the univ. I added TTY/ASCII terminal support to CP/67 (existing
2741&1052 terminal support). Then I hacked os/360 HASP ... and added
CRJE-like terminal support to HASP and editor that re-implemented the
CMS editor systax from scratch.

In 1969 GML was invented at the science center ("G", "M", "L" chosen for
the 1st letter from the inventors last name) and GML tag processing
support added to CMS script. After a decade GML evolves into ISO
international standard SGML.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_Language
past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#sgml
After another decade SGML morphs into HTML at CERN.
http://infomesh.net/html/history/early/
Waterloo script original derived from CMS script
http://csg.uwaterloo.ca/sdtp/watscr.html

Univ of Michigan implemented MTS for their 360/67 and wrote lots
of their own online apps (like editors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Terminal_System

Stanford implemented Orvyl for their 360/67 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORVYL_and_WYLBUR
and the editor WYLBUR was later ported to VS2 and is still in some use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORVYL_and_WYLBUR#SuperWylbur%E2%84%A2

trivia: One of the guys on the 5th flr & MULTICS ... leaves for one of
the CP67/CMS virtual machine commercial online service spinoffs from
the science center (along with some of the CP67 people out at MIT
Lincoln Labs) ... which fairly quickly moves up the value stream
to specializing in offering online services and information to
the financial industry. In the late 70s, he teams up with Bricklin
to do Visicalc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisiCalc

IBM marketing CP/CMS, VM370/CMS, z/VM history
https://www-01.ibm.com/events/wwe/grp/grp019.nsf/vLookupPDFs/7%20-%20VM-45-JahreHistory-EA-J-Elliott%20%5BKompatibilit%C3%A4tsmodus%5D/$file/7%20-%20VM-45-JahreHistory-EA-J-Elliott%20%5BKompatibilit%C3%A4tsmodus%5D.pdf

science center, 545tech sq posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

other trivia: 1st web server in the US was at CERN's sister
site, SLAC on their VM370 system
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/history/earlyweb/history.shtml
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/history/earlyweb/firstpages.shtml

even more trivia: one of the IBM SEs (system engineers) in the IBM LA
branch office redid CMS script clone in the late 70s on trs80 and sold
it on trs80 and other machines (wrote "NewScript" and "Allwrite!")

NewScript version 7, 1982 at wayback machine
https://archive.org/details/NewScript_v7.0_1982_Tesler_Software_Corporation

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On 3/16/2018 6:07 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 3/16/2018 4:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>>> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and 
>>> spreadsheets
>>> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html> 
>>>
>>> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>>> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became 
>>> famous
>>> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>>>
>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even 
>>> if an
>>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They 
>>> hadn't a
>>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>>>
>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
>>> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line 
>>> if it
>>> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining 
>>> a bold
>>> or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>>
>> UW (University of Waterloo) script.
>> Digital RUNOFF
>> Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
>> troff
>>
>> all used markup sequences
>>
> 
> These things like RUNOFF are "text formaters", not word processors.  
> And IBM selectrics *are* typewriters.
> 
The MT/ST and MC/ST were not really "typewriters", they were 
standalone WP machines that included a selectric for IO. It's true 
that their capabilities were limited compared to later machines, but 
they could edit text (in a linear way, not random access), do word 
wrap, accept run-time insertions like mail merge (the operator 
manually provided the merge text), etc.

On 3/16/2018 6:38 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2018 4:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> writes:
>>>> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
>>>> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
>>>> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>>>> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
>>>> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>>>>
>>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>>>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>>>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>>>>
>>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>>> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
>>>> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>>>> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
>>>> or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>>>
>>> UW (University of Waterloo) script.
>>> Digital RUNOFF
>>> Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
>>> troff
>>>
>>> all used markup sequences
>>>
>>
>> These things like RUNOFF are "text formaters", not word processors.  And
>> IBM selectrics *are* typewriters.
>>
> 
> What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
> only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
> for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.
> 

My distinction is: word processors allow you to edit the actual text and 
make changes to the file.  The word processor handles word wrap and 
paragraphs... and often more.  The text formatters, the source file 
contains formatting codes and the text formatter follows those codes 
later and produces the finished document.

With text formatters, the source document may have a single word on each 
line or any sort of rag-tag arrangement.  The final result can still 
look good.

Think of the word processors like an interpreter, and the text formatter 
like a compiler.

But although the IBM selectrics allowed type-ahead, I believe it all was 
done electro-mechanically and *not* with memory chips.  And the IBM 
selectric *is* a typewriter.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 3/16/2018 7:35 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
 >         [snip...]         [snip...]         [snip...]
> 
> I would be shocked if IBM did something with a typewriter other than the 
> Selectric.  I would also be surprised if anyone else bothered to, or 
> even could, re-use the MT/ST technology.
> 

IBM had another typewriter *without* the ball called an IBM Quietwriter.



-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 03/16/2018 08:39 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
> IBM had another typewriter *without* the ball called an IBM Quietwriter.

*Blink*

Okay.

Thank you for the information.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
> 
> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
> processors... 

Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the high
school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice machine,
when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance). 

It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.

They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
-- 
roger ivie
roger...@gmail.com

On 2018-03-16 21:27, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
> 
> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
> 
> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
> or italic character and sub- and superscript.

And also know when to flow onto another page.

Which meant that soon they had to do page numbering, then customize the
numbering, then (automatic) header/footer.

A word processor also had some type of font handling: Bold/underline and
if the printer allowed, italics. Then letter width/height. With any of
those, the word processor had to calculate the correct line size and
page size so as to not overflow the page limits.

WordStar was the one I knew that could handle all of that. I saw it
first on a CP/M machine, but I didn't use it enough to find out its
capabilities. Nor did I see the first versions.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

The Quietwriter and the Wheelwriter were _much_ later, thermal transfer 
and daisywheel typewriters after the microprocessor era had begun.

On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>> 
>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>> processors... 
>
> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the high
> school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice machine,
> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance). 
>
> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>
> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.

That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or hardware.

Here are the ones I know of:

  OS/2 (IBM PC)
  OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
  OS/4 (Univac 9400)
  OS/6 (see above)
  OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
  OS/8 (PDP-8)
  OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)

Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.

"I'm electric, I'm eclectic, got an IBM Selectric..."
  -- National Lampoon

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:20:00 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if
>>> an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They
>>> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it
>>> out.
>>> 
>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>> processors...
>>
>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the
>> high school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice
>> machine,
>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance).
>>
>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>>
>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
> 
> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or
> hardware.
> 
> Here are the ones I know of:
> 
>   OS/2 (IBM PC)
>   OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>   OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>   OS/6 (see above)
>   OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>   OS/8 (PDP-8)
>   OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
> 
> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.

Also Strachey's OS6 (no slash or hyphen), later renamed to OSpub, 
although the papers on it call it OS6:

 http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication3726-abstract.html
 http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication5955-abstract.html

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> 
>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>>> 
>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>> processors... 
>> 
>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the high
>> school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice machine,
>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance). 
>> 
>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>> 
>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
> 
> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or hardware.
> 
> Here are the ones I know of:
> 
>   OS/2 (IBM PC)
>   OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>   OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>   OS/6 (see above)
>   OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>   OS/8 (PDP-8)
>   OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
> 
> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.
> 
> "I'm electric, I'm eclectic, got an IBM Selectric..."
>   -- National Lampoon
> 

What's the DEC system: OS/8, OS-8, or OS8?

-- 
Pete

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-16, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
>> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
>> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
>> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>> 
>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
> 
> You might like some of these;
> 
> http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/xerox860/index.html
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_(software)
>    (Look at the name of the second co-developer and ask yourself "Who wrote
>    MS Word?")
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star
> 
> http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/xerox-8010/
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVw86emu-K0
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Daybreak
> 
> And once you've marvelled at what was being done by Xerox nearly 50 years
> ago, ask yourself where it all went wrong? 

I think the Digibarn article says it, something like " few people know
about the Xerox 860." They had stuff that was ahead of it's time, but
marketed it poorly.


> (Xerox was last month subsumed
> by its Japanese joint venture, Fuji Xerox). And yes, I worked for them for
> some years, using (and in some cases programming) all the above systems. I
> wish them well, since they still have a pension of mine!
> 



-- 
Pete

On 3/16/2018 3:27 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.

The IBM MT/ST (Mag Tape) was introduced in 1964. Electric Pencil may 
have been one of the first that used a CRT, but it didn't appear until 
1976. By then, the IBM had been through several generations (Mag Card, 
Mag Card II) and similar machines were being manufactured by Wang, 
CPT, Lanier, and probably others.

> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
> 
> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
> or italic character and sub- and superscript.

That really depended on hardware. A formed-character printer (ball or 
daisywheel) couldn't change font without the ball/wheel being manually 
changed by the operator. You could, of course, program a halt to 
permit for that, but it was a PITA and really balked workflow. Some 
type balls had a superscript 2 and 3 , but anything else had to be 
done by manually rolling the platen, Dot matrix printers weren't used 
for WP in business, because the print quality was too poor (the 
standard was pretty much, it ought to look like it was done on a 
Selectric with a film ribbon).

> Apparently the IBM MT/ST (Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter) from 1964
> would match that description which was used only with an IBM
> Selectric. But there should had been applications which would not depend
> on an external type writer rather than using a dedicated printer, no?
> 
Pretty much all the printing was done by dedicated printers, in that 
an "ordinary" typewriter (including an ordinary Selectric) wasn't 
heavy duty enough, or have a suitable interface.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:07:52 -0500
Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 3/16/2018 4:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> > UW (University of Waterloo) script.
> > Digital RUNOFF
> > Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
> > troff
> > 
> > all used markup sequences
> > 
> 
> These things like RUNOFF are "text formaters", not word processors.  And 
> IBM selectrics *are* typewriters.

	True enough, but the first word processors I used (Electric Pencil,
WordStar) essentially integrated a text editor and a formatter to some
extent.

	Personally I have always preferred using a separate text editor
and formatter with some kind of markup over using a wsinqwyg word
processor, they fight back far less painfully, scale way better and can
easily be used with version control systems, database extracts ...

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 09:41:24 -0500, Dave Garland
<dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:

>On 3/16/2018 3:27 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> I was writing a blog article about early word processors and spreadsheets
>> <https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html>
>> but only covered early 8-Bit micros. Assuming Electric Pencil was the
>> first while WordStar or SuperCalc (spreadsheet) only really became famous
>> in the early days of the late 70s to early 80s.
>
>The IBM MT/ST (Mag Tape) was introduced in 1964. Electric Pencil may 
>have been one of the first that used a CRT, but it didn't appear until 
>1976. By then, the IBM had been through several generations (Mag Card, 
>Mag Card II) and similar machines were being manufactured by Wang, 
>CPT, Lanier, and probably others.
>
>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if an
>> IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They hadn't a
>> display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it out.
>> 
>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>> processors... By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word
>> processor should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a bold
>> or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>
>That really depended on hardware. A formed-character printer (ball or 
>daisywheel) couldn't change font without the ball/wheel being manually 
>changed by the operator. You could, of course, program a halt to 
>permit for that, but it was a PITA and really balked workflow. Some 
>type balls had a superscript 2 and 3 , but anything else had to be 
>done by manually rolling the platen, Dot matrix printers weren't used 
>for WP in business, because the print quality was too poor (the 
>standard was pretty much, it ought to look like it was done on a 
>Selectric with a film ribbon).
>
>> Apparently the IBM MT/ST (Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter) from 1964
>> would match that description which was used only with an IBM
>> Selectric. But there should had been applications which would not depend
>> on an external type writer rather than using a dedicated printer, no?
>> 
>Pretty much all the printing was done by dedicated printers, in that 
>an "ordinary" typewriter (including an ordinary Selectric) wasn't 
>heavy duty enough, or have a suitable interface.

I think the system being sought in this discussion was the IBM 2680,
available in 1967 or 1968, which was a phototypesetting system driven
by a System/360 with associated software.  There were similar systems
from RCA, Harris, and Mergenthaler.

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:41:49 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> I think the system being sought in this discussion was the IBM 2680,
> available in 1967 or 1968, which was a phototypesetting system driven
> by a System/360 with associated software.  There were similar systems
> from RCA, Harris, and Mergenthaler.

I had never heard of that system.

I found more information here:

https://circuitousroot.com/artifice/letters/phototypesetting/aps/index.html

The IBM 2680 CRT Printer was originally the Autologic APS-3; their APS-2, I had 
seen pictures of before, it was built around a PDP-8. Autologic certainly got 
around.

John Savard

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:10:48 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:

> The MT/ST and MC/ST were not really "typewriters", they were 
> standalone WP machines that included a selectric for IO. It's true 
> that their capabilities were limited compared to later machines, but 
> they could edit text (in a linear way, not random access), do word 
> wrap, accept run-time insertions like mail merge (the operator 
> manually provided the merge text), etc.

They were very sophisticated machines for their time.

Here is an ad from 1966:

https://books.google.com/books?id=sCvjjWpUMDUC&lpg=PA998&dq=aba%20mt%2Fst&pg=PA998#v=onepage&q&f=false

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:36:23 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:

> But although the IBM selectrics allowed type-ahead, I believe it all was 
> done electro-mechanically and *not* with memory chips.  And the IBM 
> selectric *is* a typewriter.

Yes, the basic IBM Selectric was just a typewriter.  No electronics.

IBM also continued to make conventional typebar typewriters for
many years in addition to the Selectrics.

In the 1980s, some IBM typewriters got electronics, as did many
other brands of typewriters.  These could do some basic functions.

Here is an ad for one from 1982:
https://books.google.com/books?id=s5v1cGp1Fi0C&lpg=PA909&dq=aba%20electronic%20typewriter&pg=PA909#v=onepage&q&f=false

I picked up a nice SCM unit at a yard sale for $1.  It was in good
shape and included the manual.  Unfortunately, it did not include
the ribbon.  The ribbon cartridge for that particular machine was
obsolete and rather expensive to buy.  I ended up tossing the machine.

On 3/17/2018 11:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

> I think the system being sought in this discussion was the IBM 2680,
> available in 1967 or 1968, which was a phototypesetting system driven
> by a System/360 with associated software.  There were similar systems
> from RCA, Harris, and Mergenthaler.
> 
Yes, the phototypesetting gear was pretty sophisticated. I wouldn't 
call it "word processing" myself, though. To me, WP is an improved 
version of what was done by secretaries or typists with typewriters in 
a typical office, rather than something that replaced a Linotype. 
YMMV. I did typeset a few things using PS typewheels and WordStar, but 
that was not fun (WordStar did have character-width tables, but you 
had to hex-edit the binary to change them). WP (and page-layout 
programs) really had to wait for decent (and affordable) laser 
printers before they were very useful for fancier output.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:35:54 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> On 03/16/2018 02:27 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word processor
>> should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a
>> bold or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>
> I don't know how advanced they were, but they are very likely on your
> scale.  They might (I don't know) not have been able to manage bold /
> italic / other fonts.  But that was very likely a limitation of the
> printing technology (used in conjunction with the systems) of the time
> (as opposed to what was available).

WordStar, one of the first word processors, did support font weight (like
bold or italics). Whether a printer can then print that has nothing to do
with a word processor. If you used a daisy-wheel printer you were usually
out of luck. Matrix printers then could, so did laser printers.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:04:19 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
<a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:35:54 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On 03/16/2018 02:27 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> By word processor I do not mean any text editor. A word processor
>>> should at least be able to wrap a word into the next line if it
>>> didn't fit into the current line. And had some markup for defining a
>>> bold or italic character and sub- and superscript.
>>
>> I don't know how advanced they were, but they are very likely on your
>> scale.  They might (I don't know) not have been able to manage bold /
>> italic / other fonts.  But that was very likely a limitation of the
>> printing technology (used in conjunction with the systems) of the time
>> (as opposed to what was available).
>
>WordStar, one of the first word processors, did support font weight (like
>bold or italics). Whether a printer can then print that has nothing to do
>with a word processor. If you used a daisy-wheel printer you were usually
>out of luck. Matrix printers then could, so did laser printers.

Daisies could often do bold the same way a typewritter does--offset a
little to one side and restrike.  Italic not so much.

On 3/17/2018 11:19 AM, Huge wrote:
> On 2018-03-17, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:07:52 -0500
>> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2018 4:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>>> UW (University of Waterloo) script.
>>>> Digital RUNOFF
>>>> Burroughs ADS (Automatic Documentation System).
>>>> troff
>>>>
>>>> all used markup sequences
>>>>
>>>
>>> These things like RUNOFF are "text formaters", not word processors.  And
>>> IBM selectrics *are* typewriters.
>>
>> 	True enough, but the first word processors I used (Electric Pencil,
>> WordStar) essentially integrated a text editor and a formatter to some
>> extent.
>>
>> 	Personally I have always preferred using a separate text editor
>> and formatter with some kind of markup over using a wsinqwyg word
>> processor, they fight back far less painfully, scale way better and can
>> easily be used with version control systems, database extracts ...
> 
> *applause*
> 
> 

Formatters are very useful and require the user to imagine what they 
want the final document to be.  But like a compiled computer language, 
you have to execute the formatter software to see what the final 
document will look like.

This may be a moot point today... since compilers and text formatters 
are blazingly fast on current computer hardware!

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 3/17/2018 3:09 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 3/17/2018 11:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
>> I think the system being sought in this discussion was the IBM 2680,
>> available in 1967 or 1968, which was a phototypesetting system driven
>> by a System/360 with associated software.  There were similar systems
>> from RCA, Harris, and Mergenthaler.
>>
> Yes, the phototypesetting gear was pretty sophisticated. I wouldn't call 
> it "word processing" myself, though. To me, WP is an improved version of 
> what was done by secretaries or typists with typewriters in a typical 
> office, rather than something that replaced a Linotype. YMMV. I did 
> typeset a few things using PS typewheels and WordStar, but that was not 
> fun (WordStar did have character-width tables, but you had to hex-edit 
> the binary to change them). WP (and page-layout programs) really had to 
> wait for decent (and affordable) laser printers before they were very 
> useful for fancier output.

More advanced and more involved software was called "desktop publishing" 
software instead of being called a word processor.  There was much 
overlap in the two types of software.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

>What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
>only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
>for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.

     WordStar was WYSIWYG within the limits of a character-only
terminal.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 03/17/2018 07:23 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:20:00 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if
>>>> an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They
>>>> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>>> processors...
>>>
>>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the
>>> high school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice
>>> machine,
>>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance).
>>>
>>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>>>
>>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
>>
>> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or
>> hardware.
>>
>> Here are the ones I know of:
>>
>>    OS/2 (IBM PC)
>>    OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>>    OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>>    OS/6 (see above)
>>    OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>>    OS/8 (PDP-8)
>>    OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
>>
>> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.
> 
> Also Strachey's OS6 (no slash or hyphen), later renamed to OSpub,
> although the papers on it call it OS6:
> 
>   http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication3726-abstract.html
>   http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication5955-abstract.html
> 
How about Unisys OS/1100 and OS/2200?

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
>> only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
>> for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.
> 
>      WordStar was WYSIWYG within the limits of a character-only
> terminal.

Fixed-width characters with no bold or italic. I think it used attributes
like underline and reverse video to indicate bf and ital.

> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko
> 



-- 
Pete

On Sa 17 Mär 2018 at 15:18, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> 	Personally I have always preferred using a separate text editor
> and formatter with some kind of markup over using a wsinqwyg word
> processor, they fight back far less painfully, scale way better and can
> easily be used with version control systems, database extracts ...

True enough, but tell that to zhe unwashed masses. :-)

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:20:21 +0100
Andreas Eder <a_ede...@web.de> wrote:

> On Sa 17 Mär 2018 at 15:18, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > 	Personally I have always preferred using a separate text editor
> > and formatter with some kind of markup over using a wsinqwyg word
> > processor, they fight back far less painfully, scale way better and can
> > easily be used with version control systems, database extracts ...
> 
> True enough, but tell that to zhe unwashed masses. :-)

	The one time I succeeded in doing so our documentalist went from
swearing at Word and falling ever further behind on our own documentation to
using docbook-xml and being so far ahead she was touting for business from
other groups.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
>>> only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
>>> for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.
>> 
>>      WordStar was WYSIWYG within the limits of a character-only
>> terminal.
>
> Fixed-width characters with no bold or italic. I think it used attributes
> like underline and reverse video to indicate bf and ital.

WordStar produced bold and thelike. I am also quite sure you could tell
it to use proportional. Or even had to tell it to *not* use proportional
but fixed-width. Of course it's up to the printer whether it can produce
them.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:

> On 03/17/2018 07:23 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:20:00 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if
>>>>> an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They
>>>>> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it
>>>>> out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>>>> processors...
>>>>
>>>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the
>>>> high school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice
>>>> machine,
>>>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance).
>>>>
>>>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>>>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>>>>
>>>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>>>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>>>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
>>>
>>> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>> Here are the ones I know of:
>>>
>>>    OS/2 (IBM PC)
>>>    OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>>>    OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>>>    OS/6 (see above)
>>>    OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>>>    OS/8 (PDP-8)
>>>    OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
>>>
>>> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.
>> 
>> Also Strachey's OS6 (no slash or hyphen), later renamed to OSpub,
>> although the papers on it call it OS6:
>> 
>>   http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication3726-abstract.html
>>   http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication5955-abstract.html
> 
> How about Unisys OS/1100 and OS/2200?

I never got to work with the 1100 series, but I suspect those names
are latecomers.  I don't know what its OS was originally called, though.

There were a couple of variants on the 9300's operating system.  It was
originally called NCOS (Non-Concurrent Operating System, there was also
a COS on tape-based systems which allowed for symbionts to do spooling).
OS-500 was NCOS with a DCT-500 terminal attached as a console.  (The
DCT-500 was a 30-cps hard-copy terminal intended as a Teletype replacement.)
Apparently there was also OS-100, which used a Uniscope 100 CRT terminal.
These variants never really caught on; when you have a maximum of 32K of
memory, it's hard to add interesting features and still have enough memory
left for your programs.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:36:23 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> Think of the word processors like an interpreter, and the text
>> formatter like a compiler.
>
> I can agree again. :-)

Q: What does a word processor do?
A: Well, you know what a food processor does to food...

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 18 Mar 2018 21:17:07 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
> On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:36:23 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Think of the word processors like an interpreter, and the text
>>> formatter like a compiler.
>>
>> I can agree again. :-)
>
> Q: What does a word processor do?
> A: Well, you know what a food processor does to food...

I don't see the analogy.

I found
<https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-a-text-editor-and-a-word-processor>
which appears to have some nice answers about the differences between a
text editor and a word processor.

I can agree again. :-P
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On 3/18/2018 4:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:36:23 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Think of the word processors like an interpreter, and the text
>>> formatter like a compiler.
>>
>> I can agree again. :-)
> 
> Q: What does a word processor do?
> A: Well, you know what a food processor does to food...
> 

"If a train station is where a train stops, then what is a work station??"

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:20:56 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:

> On 3/18/2018 4:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:36:23 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Think of the word processors like an interpreter, and the text
>>>> formatter like a compiler.
>>>
>>> I can agree again. :-)
>> 
>> Q: What does a word processor do?
>> A: Well, you know what a food processor does to food...
>> 
>> 
> "If a train station is where a train stops, then what is a work
> station??"

Cue the one about baby oil.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/17/2018 07:23 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:20:00 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if
>>>>>> an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They
>>>>>> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>>>>> processors...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the
>>>>> high school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice
>>>>> machine,
>>>>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance).
>>>>> 
>>>>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>>>>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>>>>> 
>>>>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>>>>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>>>>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
>>>> 
>>>> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or
>>>> hardware.
>>>> 
>>>> Here are the ones I know of:
>>>> 
>>>> OS/2 (IBM PC)
>>>> OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>>>> OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>>>> OS/6 (see above)
>>>> OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>>>> OS/8 (PDP-8)
>>>> OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
>>>> 
>>>> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.
>>> 
>>> Also Strachey's OS6 (no slash or hyphen), later renamed to OSpub,
>>> although the papers on it call it OS6:
>>> 
>>> http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication3726-abstract.html
>>> http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication5955-abstract.html
>> 
>> How about Unisys OS/1100 and OS/2200?
> 
> I never got to work with the 1100 series, but I suspect those names
> are latecomers.  I don't know what its OS was originally called, though.
> 
> There were a couple of variants on the 9300's operating system.  It was
> originally called NCOS (Non-Concurrent Operating System, there was also
> a COS on tape-based systems which allowed for symbionts to do spooling).
> OS-500 was NCOS with a DCT-500 terminal attached as a console.  (The
> DCT-500 was a 30-cps hard-copy terminal intended as a Teletype replacement.)
> Apparently there was also OS-100, which used a Uniscope 100 CRT terminal.
> These variants never really caught on; when you have a maximum of 32K of
> memory, it's hard to add interesting features and still have enough memory
> left for your programs.
> 

EXEC, starting with just EXEC, I believe, and advancing to EXEC II ... up
to EXEC 8.

-- 
Pete

Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>>> What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
>>>> only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
>>>> for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.
>>> 
>>> WordStar was WYSIWYG within the limits of a character-only
>>> terminal.
>> 
>> Fixed-width characters with no bold or italic. I think it used attributes
>> like underline and reverse video to indicate bf and ital.
> 
> WordStar produced bold and thelike. I am also quite sure you could tell
> it to use proportional. Or even had to tell it to *not* use proportional
> but fixed-width. Of course it's up to the printer whether it can produce
> them.

I was thinking of what you could be expect to be displayed on the screen.

-- 
Pete

On 03/18/2018 05:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/17/2018 07:23 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:20:00 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if
>>>>>> an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They
>>>>>> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>>>>> processors...
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the
>>>>> high school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice
>>>>> machine,
>>>>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance).
>>>>>
>>>>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>>>>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>>>>>
>>>>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>>>>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>>>>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
>>>>
>>>> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or
>>>> hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the ones I know of:
>>>>
>>>>     OS/2 (IBM PC)
>>>>     OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>>>>     OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>>>>     OS/6 (see above)
>>>>     OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>>>>     OS/8 (PDP-8)
>>>>     OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
>>>>
>>>> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.
>>>
>>> Also Strachey's OS6 (no slash or hyphen), later renamed to OSpub,
>>> although the papers on it call it OS6:
>>>
>>>    http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication3726-abstract.html
>>>    http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication5955-abstract.html
>>
>> How about Unisys OS/1100 and OS/2200?
> 
> I never got to work with the 1100 series, but I suspect those names
> are latecomers.  I don't know what its OS was originally called, though.
> 
Originally called Exec-8, named after the Univac 1108. Renamed OS/1100 
when the 1108 was replaced by the Unisys 1100 series (1100/40, 1100/60, 
1100/80, etc. I don't know what year that was, but you are probably 
right that it was a latecomer. Renamed OS/2200 when the 1100 series 
became the 2200 series.

> There were a couple of variants on the 9300's operating system.  It was
> originally called NCOS (Non-Concurrent Operating System, there was also
> a COS on tape-based systems which allowed for symbionts to do spooling).
> OS-500 was NCOS with a DCT-500 terminal attached as a console.  (The
> DCT-500 was a 30-cps hard-copy terminal intended as a Teletype replacement.)
> Apparently there was also OS-100, which used a Uniscope 100 CRT terminal.
> These variants never really caught on; when you have a maximum of 32K of
> memory, it's hard to add interesting features and still have enough memory
> left for your programs.
> 

On 03/18/2018 07:51 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/17/2018 07:23 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:20:00 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if
>>>>>>> an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They
>>>>>>> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it
>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>>>>>> processors...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the
>>>>>> high school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice
>>>>>> machine,
>>>>>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>>>>>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>>>>>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>>>>>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
>>>>>
>>>>> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or
>>>>> hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the ones I know of:
>>>>>
>>>>> OS/2 (IBM PC)
>>>>> OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>>>>> OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>>>>> OS/6 (see above)
>>>>> OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>>>>> OS/8 (PDP-8)
>>>>> OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.
>>>>
>>>> Also Strachey's OS6 (no slash or hyphen), later renamed to OSpub,
>>>> although the papers on it call it OS6:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication3726-abstract.html
>>>> http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication5955-abstract.html
>>>
>>> How about Unisys OS/1100 and OS/2200?
>>
>> I never got to work with the 1100 series, but I suspect those names
>> are latecomers.  I don't know what its OS was originally called, though.
>>
>> There were a couple of variants on the 9300's operating system.  It was
>> originally called NCOS (Non-Concurrent Operating System, there was also
>> a COS on tape-based systems which allowed for symbionts to do spooling).
>> OS-500 was NCOS with a DCT-500 terminal attached as a console.  (The
>> DCT-500 was a 30-cps hard-copy terminal intended as a Teletype replacement.)
>> Apparently there was also OS-100, which used a Uniscope 100 CRT terminal.
>> These variants never really caught on; when you have a maximum of 32K of
>> memory, it's hard to add interesting features and still have enough memory
>> left for your programs.
>>
> 
> EXEC, starting with just EXEC, I believe, and advancing to EXEC II ... up
> to EXEC 8.
> 
I believe that Exec II and Exec 8 were different OS's.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
>>> only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
>>> for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.
>> 
>>      WordStar was WYSIWYG within the limits of a character-only
>> terminal.
>
>Fixed-width characters with no bold or italic. I think it used attributes
>like underline and reverse video to indicate bf and ital.

     And was configurable for the terminal.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> writes:
>On 03/18/2018 05:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 03/17/2018 07:23 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 05:20:00 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-03-17, roger...@gmail.com <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that in offices before that era type writers were used, even if
>>>>>>> an IBM Selectric could ease the work. But they were hardware. They
>>>>>>> hadn't a display (monitor) to edit text and only when done print it
>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still I wonder if big machines like some IBM 360/370 did not have word
>>>>>>> processors...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know about big iron, but the vocational center across from the
>>>>>> high school I attended had an IBM Office System/6 that was a very nice
>>>>>> machine,
>>>>>> when it was working (sadly, it seemed to require a lot of maintenance).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It had a CRT display, 8" floppies, and the nicest keyboard I've ever
>>>>>> used; it felt and sounded just like typing on a Selectric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They had only the one OS/6 and it didn't get used a lot. They also had
>>>>>> a room full of Commodore PETs with nice keyboards and a word processor
>>>>>> in ROM, which is what the students mostly used.
>>>>>
>>>>> That just about completes the list of OS/x operating systems and/or
>>>>> hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the ones I know of:
>>>>>
>>>>>     OS/2 (IBM PC)
>>>>>     OS/3 (Univac 90/30, System 80)
>>>>>     OS/4 (Univac 9400)
>>>>>     OS/6 (see above)
>>>>>     OS/7 (Univac 9700, stillborn)
>>>>>     OS/8 (PDP-8)
>>>>>     OS-9 (Motorola 6809, TRS-80 Color Computer, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the slash is replaced by a hyphen in OS-9.
>>>>
>>>> Also Strachey's OS6 (no slash or hyphen), later renamed to OSpub,
>>>> although the papers on it call it OS6:
>>>>
>>>>    http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication3726-abstract.html
>>>>    http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication5955-abstract.html
>>>
>>> How about Unisys OS/1100 and OS/2200?
>> 
>> I never got to work with the 1100 series, but I suspect those names
>> are latecomers.  I don't know what its OS was originally called, though.
>> 
>Originally called Exec-8, named after the Univac 1108. Renamed OS/1100 
>when the 1108 was replaced by the Unisys 1100 series (1100/40, 1100/60, 
>1100/80, etc. I don't know what year that was, but you are probably 
>right that it was a latecomer. Renamed OS/2200 when the 1100 series 
>became the 2200 series.

And there was a Sperry facility on 2200W near the Salt Lake City Airport....

On 2018-03-18, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:20:56 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2018 4:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:36:23 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Think of the word processors like an interpreter, and the text
>>>>> formatter like a compiler.
>>>>
>>>> I can agree again. :-)
>>> 
>>> Q: What does a word processor do?
>>> A: Well, you know what a food processor does to food...
>>> 
>> "If a train station is where a train stops, then what is a work
>> station??"
>
> Cue the one about baby oil.

I heard about a baby food company that was having poor sales in
a country where the convention was that the picture on the label
represented the contents of the jar.  Those cute baby pictures
on the label had to go.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:51:23 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> 
>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>>>> 
>>>> WordStar was WYSIWYG within the limits of a character-only
>>>> terminal.
>>> 
>>> Fixed-width characters with no bold or italic. I think it used attributes
>>> like underline and reverse video to indicate bf and ital.
>> 
>> WordStar produced bold and thelike. I am also quite sure you could tell
>> it to use proportional. Or even had to tell it to *not* use proportional
>> but fixed-width. Of course it's up to the printer whether it can produce
>> them.
>
> I was thinking of what you could be expect to be displayed on the screen.

WS has two modes. One for plain text, one for a "word document" which can
have bold text among other. You only see plain ASCII characters in either
case. But in the word document mode you see \bThis is bold\b or
something. Only when it is printed on a printer you actually see bold
text (if the printer supports that).
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-7, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> WS has two modes. One for plain text, one for a "word document" which can
> have bold text among other. You only see plain ASCII characters in either
> case. But in the word document mode you see \bThis is bold\b or
> something. Only when it is printed on a printer you actually see bold
> text (if the printer supports that).

Depends on the terminal, actually. The display on the Otrona Attache could
do anything WordStar could do, including italics. Using WordStar on it was
magic. There's no reason someone couldn't build a terminal to do the same.
-- 
roger ivie
roger...@gmail.com

On 2018-03-18 22:09, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> What's your distinction? I seem to recall that Wordstar wasn't WISIWIG. The
>>>> only difference between Wordstar and something like Script is what you use
>>>> for markup: control characters vs. dot-commands.
>>>
>>>      WordStar was WYSIWYG within the limits of a character-only
>>> terminal.
>>
>> Fixed-width characters with no bold or italic. I think it used attributes
>> like underline and reverse video to indicate bf and ital.
> 
> WordStar produced bold and thelike. I am also quite sure you could tell
> it to use proportional. Or even had to tell it to *not* use proportional
> but fixed-width. Of course it's up to the printer whether it can produce
> them.

I remember trying proportional but not what word processor it was;
probably WordStar. The problem was that the idea the computer had about
the exact size of the words was not the same as the printer had, so that
the result was not reliable.

I don't remember if WP 5.1 got it right or not (on my 9 pin pin printer).

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.