🚀 go-pugleaf

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 4:27:45 PM UTC-4, 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'm surprised to find no mention of John Draper's EasyWriter.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:26:18 -0700 (PDT), Daiyu Hurst wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 4:27:45 PM UTC-4, 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'm surprised to find no mention of John Draper's EasyWriter.

I never heard of it. Had to Google. It says that it was for the Apple 2
only. Although it predated the mentioned WordStar by a year or
two... Well it seems to be Apple only.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/2018/03/history-of-wordprocessors-and-spread.html

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-4, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >
> > I think almost every programmer prepared some documentation on
> > punched cards and printed it out.
> 
> This you can do with any text editor. I do not use LibreOffice here when
> when coding (using vi or Emacs).
> 
> >> 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?
> >
> > Not sure of your question.  The IBM MT/ST and MC/ST was integrated
> > with a Selectric typewriter which provided the keyboard and 'printer'.
> > As others mentioned, they were word processors.
> 
> I think I understand a word processor is something you edit a text. It
> assists you by wrapping text and allow modification of characters, like
> bold. Only *after* you are done editing you would print it out or save it
> to a file. You could move paragraphs around and often do mail
> merge. Things a Selectric could not do.

I think of a word processor as something that _stores_ text so
that it does not have to be retyped.  Everything is icing on the cake.

> The Selectric did not (for my knowledge) had a display. Even if it might
> had "write ahead" you could not see what you wrote until it was printed
> on paper. If you made a mistake it was too late. Because of that
> typewriters soon vanished after word processors were available in the
> late 70s to early 80s.
> 
> Which again raises the question: if word processors were around before
> the 70s, why didn't they supersede typewriters in offices already?

First, word processing machines were very expensive, far more so
than a typewriter.  Back in the early 1970s, I made $2.15/hour as
a typist--it was cheaper having people like me bang out reports,
even with multiple drafts, than getting something like an MT/ST
(which they did have.)

Second, typists prepare many different kinds of documents.  Some
do lend themselves readily to word processing due to the repetitive
nature of the text.  But other typewritten material does not lend
itself to word processing.  This would include custom letters,
documents prepared from computer output (before consolidated
merged processing), forms, envelopes, postcards, and index 
cards and file tabs.

In more recent years, the PDF format has become very common, so
forms can now be prepared on-line.  Also, email is almost standard,
so forms can be sent on-line to another person without printing.
This automation of form preparation has eliminated a great deal
of typing.  But until these things happened, typewriters were
still required.

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 2:50:13 AM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:

> Sorta. But the Correcting Selectric had a lift-off tape so you could 
> backspace an error out. If you're a typist, you probably know without 
> looking (you're looking at the copy stand, not the typewriter) as soon 
> as you press the wrong key. So many mistakes could be immediately 
> corrected without even losing much rhythm.

For an article about the Correcting Selectric, see:
https://books.google.com/books?id=fz0ymWEOyowC&lpg=PA12&dq=popular%20science%20%22correcting%20selectric%22&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false




> 
>   Because of that
> > typewriters soon vanished after word processors were available in the
> > late 70s to early 80s.
> > 
> > Which again raises the question: if word processors were around before
> > the 70s, why didn't they supersede typewriters in offices already?
> 
> The IBM Displaywriter was IBM's CRT word processor, and came out in 
> 1982. According to an IBM website, "A system of three displays sharing 
> a single higher speed printer and a paper handler sold for $26,185 and 
> leased for $845 a month." (That's $67,555 and $2180 in 2018 dollars. 
> Granted, it's for 3 workstations sharing a printer.)

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-4, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> I think I understand a word processor is something you edit a text. It
>> assists you by wrapping text and allow modification of characters, like
>> bold. Only *after* you are done editing you would print it out or save it
>> to a file. You could move paragraphs around and often do mail
>> merge. Things a Selectric could not do.
>
> I think of a word processor as something that _stores_ text so
> that it does not have to be retyped.  Everything is icing on the cake.

That is already provided by any simple text editor.;

>> The Selectric did not (for my knowledge) had a display. Even if it might
>> had "write ahead" you could not see what you wrote until it was printed
>> on paper. If you made a mistake it was too late. Because of that
>> typewriters soon vanished after word processors were available in the
>> late 70s to early 80s.
>> 
>> Which again raises the question: if word processors were around before
>> the 70s, why didn't they supersede typewriters in offices already?
>
> First, word processing machines were very expensive, far more so
> than a typewriter.  Back in the early 1970s, I made $2.15/hour as
> a typist--it was cheaper having people like me bang out reports,
> even with multiple drafts, than getting something like an MT/ST
> (which they did have.)

Thus they ran on mainframes, with the typists logging in from a cheap
dumb terminal.

> Second, typists prepare many different kinds of documents.  Some
> do lend themselves readily to word processing due to the repetitive
> nature of the text.  But other typewritten material does not lend
> itself to word processing.  This would include custom letters,
> documents prepared from computer output (before consolidated
> merged processing), forms, envelopes, postcards, and index 
> cards and file tabs.

That is where "mail merge" steps in. Already WordStar has this function.

[...]
-- 
Andreas

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

On 3/23/2018 4:50 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>

> 
>> Second, typists prepare many different kinds of documents.  Some
>> do lend themselves readily to word processing due to the repetitive
>> nature of the text.  But other typewritten material does not lend
>> itself to word processing.  This would include custom letters,
>> documents prepared from computer output (before consolidated
>> merged processing), forms, envelopes, postcards, and index
>> cards and file tabs.

This is true of the IBM Mag devices (though they could be used as a 
dumb typewriter as well). They could do custom letters, but a lot of 
times that wouldn't gain anything over a dumb typewriter. Later gear 
(Wang, CPT, Displaywriter, et al.) could do some of those things. 
Input from (other) computer output had to wait until media and formats 
had standardized. And odd pieces of paper and form factors are still a 
headache for output by computerized systems, as is filling in 
hard-copy printed forms.

> That is where "mail merge" steps in. Already WordStar has this function.

That is true. But word processing has been on the scene for more than 
a decade before WordStar brought it to the masses on generic (CP/M or 
MSDOS) hardware. Maybe much longer (I'm not familiar with mainframe 
connected WP).

I'd suggest that you're demanding too much of the definition. Being 
able to record typing, play it back, and make changes/fix mistakes are 
all that's necessary for WP. That requires automatic word wrap/rewrap 
and maybe knowing how long the print area is.

On 3/23/2018 2:36 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
 >    [snip...]           [snip...]         [snip...]
> 
> IMHO, the original IBM PC was too underpowered to properly support
> word processing, or indeed, much else.  The 286 onward was a lot
> faster and thus easier to use.  A lot of early programs obviously
> worked on the original PC, even with just floppies, but they ran
> slowly.
> 

Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2018-03-23, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-4, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> I think I understand a word processor is something you edit a text. It
>>> assists you by wrapping text and allow modification of characters, like
>>> bold. Only *after* you are done editing you would print it out or save it
>>> to a file. You could move paragraphs around and often do mail
>>> merge. Things a Selectric could not do.
>>
>> I think of a word processor as something that _stores_ text so
>> that it does not have to be retyped.  Everything is icing on the cake.
>
> That is already provided by any simple text editor.;

That caught me recently. Worddprocessors sometimes store data that you
do not really want.



>
>>> The Selectric did not (for my knowledge) had a display. Even if it might
>>> had "write ahead" you could not see what you wrote until it was printed
>>> on paper. If you made a mistake it was too late. Because of that
>>> typewriters soon vanished after word processors were available in the
>>> late 70s to early 80s.
>>> 
>>> Which again raises the question: if word processors were around before
>>> the 70s, why didn't they supersede typewriters in offices already?
>>
>> First, word processing machines were very expensive, far more so
>> than a typewriter.  Back in the early 1970s, I made $2.15/hour as
>> a typist--it was cheaper having people like me bang out reports,
>> even with multiple drafts, than getting something like an MT/ST
>> (which they did have.)
>
> Thus they ran on mainframes, with the typists logging in from a cheap
> dumb terminal.
>
>> Second, typists prepare many different kinds of documents.  Some
>> do lend themselves readily to word processing due to the repetitive
>> nature of the text.  But other typewritten material does not lend
>> itself to word processing.  This would include custom letters,
>> documents prepared from computer output (before consolidated
>> merged processing), forms, envelopes, postcards, and index 
>> cards and file tabs.
>
> That is where "mail merge" steps in. Already WordStar has this function.
>
> [...]


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Sa 24 Mär 2018 at 00:53, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...

It worked quite well. Iused it for years on an Osborne I.

'Andreas

On 3/24/2018 3:25 AM, Andreas Eder wrote:
> On Sa 24 Mär 2018 at 00:53, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
>> Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...
> 
> It worked quite well. Iused it for years on an Osborne I.
> 

I mentioned Wordstar because Mr. Hancock was complaining that the 
original IBM PC did not have the horsepower to run a word processor well.

Wordstar was a counter-example, as I thought the original IBM PC had a 
more powerful, faster processor than a 4 megahertz Z80...  and the Z80 
handled word processing well using Wordstar.


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond
<nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

>On 3/24/2018 3:25 AM, Andreas Eder wrote:
>> On Sa 24 Mär 2018 at 00:53, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...
>> 
>> It worked quite well. Iused it for years on an Osborne I.
>> 
>
>I mentioned Wordstar because Mr. Hancock was complaining that the 
>original IBM PC did not have the horsepower to run a word processor well.
>
>Wordstar was a counter-example, as I thought the original IBM PC had a 
>more powerful, faster processor than a 4 megahertz Z80...  and the Z80 
>handled word processing well using Wordstar.

Wordstar is a bad counterexample with regard to the PC though.  It
took a signfiicant performance hit going from CP/M to MS-DOS and if
one's early PC experiences involved Wordstar on the PC one might have
a false impression--Wordstar on the PC literally could not keep up
with a fast typist.  We had a big proposal to get out one time against
a tight deadline and ended up using the PCs as terminals to a Z/80
CompuPro running Wordstar for CP/M because we were never going to get
it out using Wordsar for MS-DOS on the PC.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond
<nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

>On 3/24/2018 3:25 AM, Andreas Eder wrote:
>> On Sa 24 Mär 2018 at 00:53, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...
>> 
>> It worked quite well. Iused it for years on an Osborne I.
>> 
>
>I mentioned Wordstar because Mr. Hancock was complaining that the 
>original IBM PC did not have the horsepower to run a word processor well.
>
>Wordstar was a counter-example, as I thought the original IBM PC had a 
>more powerful, faster processor than a 4 megahertz Z80...  and the Z80 
>handled word processing well using Wordstar.

I remember a word processor for the Sinclair ZX-81 with the 16Kb ram
pack, but I don't know how well, or bad, it worked.

On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 5:50:34 PM UTC-4, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:

[snip]
> >> Which again raises the question: if word processors were around before
> >> the 70s, why didn't they supersede typewriters in offices already?
> >
> > First, word processing machines were very expensive, far more so
> > than a typewriter.  Back in the early 1970s, I made $2.15/hour as
> > a typist--it was cheaper having people like me bang out reports,
> > even with multiple drafts, than getting something like an MT/ST
> > (which they did have.)
 
> Thus they ran on mainframes, with the typists logging in from a cheap
> dumb terminal.

Back then "dumb terminals" were rather expensive, and too expensive
to replace a typewriter.  

In 1983, a generic 3270-type terminal was about $900, a true
3270 was several hundred dollars more.  But in addition to the
terminal, you would need a remote communications controller,
local coaxial wiring, a good phone line to the mainframe, a
communications controller on the mainframe, and enough horsepower
(CPU, core memory, and disk memory) to support online terminals.
In the early 1980s, all that stuff was not cheap and required
a solid system to justify the investment.  As hardware costs
dropped in that decade, online systems became more common.

I don't believe word processing software was available on the
mainframe back then, and if so, I don't think it got much
use (if wrong, please correct me).  Programmers used their
_existing_ tools, like TSO or ROSCOE editors because they
were already available, and, they knew how to use them.  They
were not well suited for a secretary to do stuff in a 
text editor.

In those days, a company having sufficient volume to justify
word processing would get a standalone machine.


> > Second, typists prepare many different kinds of documents.  Some
> > do lend themselves readily to word processing due to the repetitive
> > nature of the text.  But other typewritten material does not lend
> > itself to word processing.  This would include custom letters,
> > documents prepared from computer output (before consolidated
> > merged processing), forms, envelopes, postcards, and index 
> > cards and file tabs.
> 
> That is where "mail merge" steps in. Already WordStar has this function.

A lot of early word processors and PC word processing software had
fancy functions, but they required the data to be available.  It
took time for companies to transition from either paper files or
mainframe files to storing stuff on the PC.  We take that all for
granted today, but in the 1980s, we were still in the early stages.

To this day, some companies maintain some classic applications still
on the mainframe in the traditional style; converting over to 
PC-based server systems has proven to be more of a challenge than
anticipated.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 23:50:52 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>
> On 3/23/2018 4:50 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> That is where "mail merge" steps in. Already WordStar has this function.
>
> That is true. But word processing has been on the scene for more than
> a decade before WordStar brought it to the masses on generic (CP/M or
> MSDOS) hardware. Maybe much longer (I'm not familiar with mainframe
> connected WP).

All right. May be I should had called the subject "Word processors for
computers with (commercial available [1]) microprocessors". So everything
after the Intel 4004.

[1] The until 1997 classified MP944 might have been the first ever
    "computer on a chip".
-- 
Andreas

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

On 3/24/2018 2:32 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 5:50:34 PM UTC-4, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>>>> Which again raises the question: if word processors were around before
>>>> the 70s, why didn't they supersede typewriters in offices already?
>>>
>>> First, word processing machines were very expensive, far more so
>>> than a typewriter.  Back in the early 1970s, I made $2.15/hour as
>>> a typist--it was cheaper having people like me bang out reports,
>>> even with multiple drafts, than getting something like an MT/ST
>>> (which they did have.)
>   
>> Thus they ran on mainframes, with the typists logging in from a cheap
>> dumb terminal.
> 
> Back then "dumb terminals" were rather expensive, and too expensive
> to replace a typewriter.
> 

The price of "dumb" terminals came down... when the dumb terminals used 
an embedded microprocessor and RAM. This started happening in the 
1970's.  Before shift registers were used to hold data and terminals 
were controlled by discrete logic (SSI and MSI) chips.  That made the 
terminals more expensive to produce.

These terminals were still dumb because the microprocessor was embedded 
and used to control the terminal operation only...


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 3/24/2018 7:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond
> <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/24/2018 3:25 AM, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>> On Sa 24 Mär 2018 at 00:53, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...
>>>
>>> It worked quite well. Iused it for years on an Osborne I.
>>>
>>
>> I mentioned Wordstar because Mr. Hancock was complaining that the
>> original IBM PC did not have the horsepower to run a word processor well.
>>
>> Wordstar was a counter-example, as I thought the original IBM PC had a
>> more powerful, faster processor than a 4 megahertz Z80...  and the Z80
>> handled word processing well using Wordstar.
> 
> Wordstar is a bad counterexample with regard to the PC though.  It
> took a signfiicant performance hit going from CP/M to MS-DOS and if
> one's early PC experiences involved Wordstar on the PC one might have
> a false impression--Wordstar on the PC literally could not keep up
> with a fast typist.  We had a big proposal to get out one time against
> a tight deadline and ended up using the PCs as terminals to a Z/80
> CompuPro running Wordstar for CP/M because we were never going to get
> it out using Wordsar for MS-DOS on the PC.
> 
> 

The comparison was Wordstar on the Z80 vs. *any* early word processor on 
the PC.  IMO it's *not* lack of processing power on the 8088, but the 
way things were mishandled on the PC.

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com>
wrote:
>Mr. Hancock

Guess again.

On 2018-03-24 13:33, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond
> <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/24/2018 3:25 AM, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>> On Sa 24 Mär 2018 at 00:53, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...
>>>
>>> It worked quite well. Iused it for years on an Osborne I.
>>>
>>
>> I mentioned Wordstar because Mr. Hancock was complaining that the 
>> original IBM PC did not have the horsepower to run a word processor well.
>>
>> Wordstar was a counter-example, as I thought the original IBM PC had a 
>> more powerful, faster processor than a 4 megahertz Z80...  and the Z80 
>> handled word processing well using Wordstar.
> 
> Wordstar is a bad counterexample with regard to the PC though.  It
> took a signfiicant performance hit going from CP/M to MS-DOS and if
> one's early PC experiences involved Wordstar on the PC one might have
> a false impression--Wordstar on the PC literally could not keep up
> with a fast typist. 

I didn't notice any problem, but my PC was faster (Amstrad PC1512).

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-03-25 15:09, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> On 25/03/2018 13:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2018-03-24 16:56, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> Yes, running at 4.77 MHz. However, calling the 8088 the "8-bit version
>>> of the 8086" is potentially confusing.
>>>
>>> It had an 8-bit external data bus, but it still had the same registers
>>> and instruction set as the 8086; it was still a 16-bit microprocessor.
>>
>> Yes, the bus was multiplexed.
>>
>> They used a similar trick with the 80386SX, IIRC: 32 bit inside, 16
>> bit bus.
>>
> 
> And how well off we low level aficionados felt with the 386SX!

It was the best I could afford ;-)
And I did not buy the faster clock, either.

I remember studying the capabilities of that processor and being very
disappointed at what dos/win could do with it.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On 25/03/2018 14:35, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2018-03-25 15:09, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>> On 25/03/2018 13:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-24 16:56, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> Yes, running at 4.77 MHz. However, calling the 8088 the "8-bit version
>>>> of the 8086" is potentially confusing.
>>>>
>>>> It had an 8-bit external data bus, but it still had the same registers
>>>> and instruction set as the 8086; it was still a 16-bit microprocessor.
>>>
>>> Yes, the bus was multiplexed.
>>>
>>> They used a similar trick with the 80386SX, IIRC: 32 bit inside, 16
>>> bit bus.
>>>
>>
>> And how well off we low level aficionados felt with the 386SX!
> 
> It was the best I could afford ;-)
> And I did not buy the faster clock, either.
> 
> I remember studying the capabilities of that processor and being very
> disappointed at what dos/win could do with it.
> 
  History repeats itself because Intel's attempts to pass off it's
faulty floating point in the Bugium is now being repeated by
NVidia's latest offerings and at $2000 per unit it's no laughing matter!

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:50:11 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:35:55 -0500, JimP wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond
>> <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Wordstar was a counter-example, as I thought the original IBM PC had a 
>>>more powerful, faster processor than a 4 megahertz Z80...  and the Z80 
>>>handled word processing well using Wordstar.
>>
>> I remember a word processor for the Sinclair ZX-81 with the 16Kb ram
>> pack, but I don't know how well, or bad, it worked.
>
> I think I once ran in on an emulated Spectrum. It used graphics to
> display an 80 columns display. Cannot locate the tape image on my
> computer anymore to verify.

The Spectrum's display was only 256 pixels wide so you may be
misremembering.

The Spectrum word processor I am familiar with is Tasword which did
64 columns (and that was difficult to read). I believe it originated
on the ZX81.

-- 
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
   - Douglas Adams

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 03:24:47 -0500
Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:50:11 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net>
> wrote:

> > I think I once ran in on an emulated Spectrum. It used graphics to
> > display an 80 columns display. Cannot locate the tape image on my
> > computer anymore to verify.
> 
> The Spectrum's display was only 256 pixels wide so you may be
> misremembering.
> 
> The Spectrum word processor I am familiar with is Tasword which did
> 64 columns (and that was difficult to read). I believe it originated
> on the ZX81.

	Not a chance! 64 columns gives only 4 pixels wide and you need a
gap. The tightest character set I know of is 5x7 in a 6x8 grid which would
make for a 42x24 mode. IIRC the standard text mode on the spectrum was
32x24 using an 8x8 grid.

-- 
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 2018-03-25, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Hancock
>
> Guess again.

"Mister Ander-son."
  -- Mr. Smith

-- 
/~\  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 2018-03-24, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:49:27 -0500, Charles Richmond
> <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2018 3:25 AM, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>
>>> On Sa 24 Mär 2018 at 00:53, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Try using Wordstar under CP/M on a 4 megahertz Z80 machine...
>>> 
>>> It worked quite well. Iused it for years on an Osborne I.
>>> 
>>
>> I mentioned Wordstar because Mr. Hancock was complaining that the 
>> original IBM PC did not have the horsepower to run a word processor well.
>>
>> Wordstar was a counter-example, as I thought the original IBM PC had a 
>> more powerful, faster processor than a 4 megahertz Z80...  and the Z80 
>> handled word processing well using Wordstar.

A 4.77-MHz 8088 wasn't that much more powerful than a 4-MHz Z80.

> Wordstar is a bad counterexample with regard to the PC though.  It
> took a signfiicant performance hit going from CP/M to MS-DOS and if
> one's early PC experiences involved Wordstar on the PC one might have
> a false impression--Wordstar on the PC literally could not keep up
> with a fast typist.  We had a big proposal to get out one time against
> a tight deadline and ended up using the PCs as terminals to a Z/80
> CompuPro running Wordstar for CP/M because we were never going to get
> it out using Wordsar for MS-DOS on the PC.

Did your machines have CGA?  Much of the speed problem was in the
display adapter.  A PPOE's first IBM PC clones all came with CGA;
everyone was dazzled by colour graphics, even though most of the
machines were to be used for word processing.  A good typist could
easily stay a word ahead of the display.  We eventually swallowed
our pride and swapped out the CGAs for monochrome adapters, which
were much faster and had razor-sharp displays.

-- 
/~\  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 Mon, 26 Mar 2018 03:24:47 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:50:11 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think I once ran in on an emulated Spectrum. It used graphics to
>> display an 80 columns display. Cannot locate the tape image on my
>> computer anymore to verify.
>
> The Spectrum's display was only 256 pixels wide so you may be
> misremembering.
>
> The Spectrum word processor I am familiar with is Tasword which did
> 64 columns (and that was difficult to read). I believe it originated
> on the ZX81.

Yes, Tasword. Now I remember. Might as well have been 64 instead of 80
then. I remember it was incredible slow. You could type faster than the
characters appeared on the screen.
-- 
Andreas

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

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:32:37 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 03:24:47 -0500
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:50:11 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> > I think I once ran in on an emulated Spectrum. It used graphics to
>> > display an 80 columns display. Cannot locate the tape image on my
>> > computer anymore to verify.
>> 
>> The Spectrum's display was only 256 pixels wide so you may be
>> misremembering.
>> 
>> The Spectrum word processor I am familiar with is Tasword which did
>> 64 columns (and that was difficult to read). I believe it originated
>> on the ZX81.
>
> 	Not a chance! 64 columns gives only 4 pixels wide 

Only if all characters are the same width.

It was still pretty difficult to read, especially on old crappy TVs.
It was also pretty awful to use too.

-- 
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
   - Douglas Adams