From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: Wordprocessor - Tom responds. Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 03:07:30 GMT
bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>In article <1993May27.032314.3013@taylor.uucp> mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>>>In article <1993May26.125413.13864@taylor.uucp> mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>>>I never said PCL-5 was BETTER than Postscript, I said it is fast, free and
>>>>works (for what we and many are doing).
>>
>>>Then you're not talking about the WP5.1 clone that others are talking about.
>>
>>And neither were you. I thought we were talking about PCL-5.
>We were, if you've ever heard of Subject lines (and even Keyword lines),
>discussing word processors. The dominant ideas so far seem to be basing it on
>either WP5.1 or on LaTeX. *You* chose to drop PCL5 into the discussion along
>with a whine about Postscript.
I was neither whining or changing the subject. I was participating in
a discussion about WordProcessing Printing (which is what others were talking
about also). YOU went off on a comment about SCO Unix which started my
response.
>But the simple, documented fact of the matter is that PCL --- even PCL5 ---
>has too many limitations (not to say limits; doing tech documentation in LaTeX
>I can easily get more than 16 fonts per page) to support the current concept
>of word processing, as exemplified by WP5.1.
I do not deny that PCL-5 is weak and Postscript IS preferable, IF you have it.
PCL-5 works fine under all of our programs which support it, including
WordPerfect 5.1, for 99% of what we do here.
>>2) Altos has said no such thing about 3.2.4 that I am aware of
>Are you a distributor or just an end user? I'm talking about the 3.2.4
>release for the 5000, not the one for the 15000.
fine
>>4) The Altos 5000 was a worthless machine from inception
[not the 15000]
>No argument.
I suppose we are in agreement.
>>You were attacking SCO Unix, I was making a reply illustrating that SCO Unix
>>is stable, functional, and gets real work done in a large work environment.
>>Then I tried to redirect the discussion back to the subject line.
>Yeah, by arguing about PCL5. Hint: *look* at the subject line before trying
>to flame me about it.
Again, we were talking about printing from proposed wordprocessors. I'm sure
that people would agree that looking at PCL-5 is no more wrong than looking
at Postscript. I am in favor of support for both! But if it does not happen,
the world won't end :)
>Replies will be discarded, most especially if they're posted.
Likewise
-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor / mark@taylor.UUCP | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/