Back in the mid-/late-80's my first proper job was working in an office with a Dacoll computer (green screen, twin 5.25" floppies, CP/M) running WordStar and SuperCalc...my first proper exposure to "real" business software. I went on to somewhere else where Word Perfect reigned supreme, and I always found it a bit awkward to operate compared to WordStar.
WordStar 7, the last ever DOS version, is re-released for free
Before WordPerfect, the most popular work processor was WordStar. Now, the last ever DOS version has been bundled and set free by one of its biggest fans. wordstar 7 on macos Wordstar 7 on macOS - click to enlarge WordStar 7.0d was the last-ever DOS release of the classic word processor, and it still has admirers today. A …
COMMENTS
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 10:44 GMT Philip Storry
Re: WordStar
One of the great things about software from this period is that just a few years before, the hardware had been barely adequate for most purposes.
These days when we think of "good user experience" we're usually thinking about layout, iconography, and workflow.
Back then the test for a good user experience was "can it keep up with a typist who can do at least 100 words per minute?"
It was surprising just how difficult it seemed to be for some software to do that in the early and mid 1980s.
This is why tools like WordStar and the community around it made much of "being written in assembly" for higher performance. As did many other programs and their communities.
Eventually hardware surpassed the minimum requirements for moderate typing (50 words per minute), and responsiveness became regarded as a "solved problem". This idea may be one of the more common lies we tell ourselves as an industry, but has become so pervasive nobody seems to want to challenge it.
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 09:33 GMT DJO
Re: WordStar
We have computers with multi-core CPUs running at GHz
I was just issued a new laptop with 10 cores to replace one with a paltry 2 cores. Both are i7s and 8 of the cores on the new machine are the same speed as the 2 on the old one. The upshot is that a process running on a single core is no faster and given the higher overhead and the way the "efficiency" cores slow down if they are not being used by a foreground process means that unless I muck about increasing a processes priority many programs actually run slower on the new machine.
In days of yore new processors were always a significant improvement, the jumps from 286 to 386 to 486 made significant changes but now we've had various "i" processors from Intel for over 10 years with little change apart from increasing the core count and some core optimisation.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 09:53 GMT parrot
Re: WordStar
Responsiveness should be valued more.
I find unresponsive systems stressful to use. I’ve used plenty of systems where the latency is so bad I find myself watching the words write to the screen several seconds after typing them. The cloud based CRM and ticketing system we currently have can sometimes take minutes to load pages or submit information. I’m convinced this has an adverse effect on productivity and mental health. You’re trying to get through your workload as quickly as you can but the system is a bottleneck. It just keeps making you wait.
My sense is that decision makers see a loss of responsiveness as acceptable if it allows them to access the benefits of using the cloud (mainly just shifting liability/responsibility off themselves). But if you asked the user, responsiveness would be their number one priority. In my opinion systems should be responsive enough for the user never to think about it.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 09:01 GMT keithpeter
Re: WordStar
The wikipedia page for WordStar has a paragraph on the 'WordStar Command Emulator for Microsoft Word' by Mike Petrie. This appears to be downloadable and updated. The existence of such an add-in suggests that MS Word by itself does not have a WordStar compatibility mode built in.
If you have access to WSL or a Linux box, the joe text editor (as mentioned in the OA) in its 'jstar' mode might work ok. I used jstar to understand the keyboard commands of the classic WordStar out of interest some time ago.
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 14:31 GMT big_D
Re: WordStar
I first used WordStart on an Apple IIe... With a Z80 co-processor and CP/M. I worked at a shop that refurbished computers bought from the liquidators. I got to work on around 2 dozen different types of CP/M systems, this was 1981/82,
Later I used it DOS, it was great, although my all-time favourite was Arnor's ProText on the Amstrad CPC6128, Amiga and DOS.
During the 80s, I got to use a range of different WPs, including WordStar to WordPerfect (DEC VMS, Amiga, DOS and Windows) and IBM DisplayWrite IV, Wordsworth, Microsoft Word for DOS and several others.
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 10:14 GMT AJ MacLeod
I would challenge the assertion that Wordstar 2000 abandoned the keyboard-centric UI - it no doubt had a different UI to previous versions but it was all still keyboard-centric and pretty logical as far as I remember. We still have a big (really big!) box copy - those were the days when you actually got proper documentation for your money. I used it on Dad's by then cast-off PC1512 for all my schoolwork throughout secondary school... by then he'd migrated to WordPerfect which is what I used through university. I have to say I found WordPerfect far superior, and though I did try NewWord briefly I didn't find it as good as WS2K - muscle memory probably as much as anything else.
These days the muscle memory is vi(m) - I dare say permanently embedded now after all these decades! I use LaTeX for the occasional letter I need to write, Zim for most documentation and libreoffice to open abominations deposited on me by others.
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 13:56 GMT yetanotheraoc
high class trolling
I didn't downvote anybody, but the last sentence was practically inviting the downvotes: "I use LaTeX for the occasional letter I need to write, Zim for most documentation and libreoffice to open abominations deposited on me by others."
Also inflammatory: "For nearly all writing needs, vim more than suffices."
Not to knock LaTeX, Zim, or vim. I have used them all, but suggesting they would be good for everybody is just a joke. My own preferences are markdown, plain-text + ls, and nano, anything complicated goes through an awk script, but if someone approached me for advice on tools my first recommendation (as most likely not to be hated) would be LibreOffice Writer.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 09:42 GMT Martin Gregorie
Back in the day, i.e, mid '80s and before Windows 3.11 I rated Word for DOS 7 as my favourite word processor, if only because its assignment of formetting functions to keys was so intuitive. IMO Word for DOS 7 was easily M$'s best word processor ever - never liked Word for Windows.
Consequently I thought we'd taken a huge step backwards the company decided to standardise on Word Perfect, which I hated because of its vast set of function keys spread randomly over three shifts and needing a template to make sense. The frequent need to use what was effectively a debug screen when editing a formatted text file didn't help either.
These days, as a long term Linux user, I'm happy to use Libre Office for my (infrequent) word processing requirements and to write HTML documents with gedit and tidy.
-
Friday 9th August 2024 10:36 GMT Liam Proven
[Author here]
> I rated Word for DOS 7 as my favourite word processor,
There never was a Word for DOS 7.
The last ever version was Word 6 for DOS.
https://winworldpc.com/product/microsoft-word/6x
All subsequent versions were Windows or Mac only.
MS released Word 5.5 for DOS as freeware as a Y2K fix. It is still out there.
But if, as I suspect, you're thinking of Word 6 for DOS, then I agree. It was a fine WP and that version harmonised the UI, keystrokes, file format, etc. with the Windows version. It was fast, had one of the best UIs for any DOS WP, and could run in both graphics and text mode, and if the display adaptor supported it could show bold, underline and italics in text mode. (E.g. on Hercules.) Much preferable to WordStar or WordPerfect using colour for this.
-
-
-
Thursday 8th August 2024 09:28 GMT Liam Proven
[Author here]
> I would challenge the assertion that Wordstar 2000 abandoned the keyboard-centric UI
Well, it abandoned *the* keyboard-centric UI that the world knew for a whole *new* keyboard centric UI that was different, so incompatible that the 10% of overlap was no help, and thus didn't so much shoot itself in the foot as blow both legs off...
But you're right, it did have *a* keyboard centric UI.
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 10:17 GMT Philip Storry
Admirable
I admire the work that went into this, and the ethos behind it.
Personally I was a WordPerfect user and fanboi - as far as I'm concerned WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS is the acknowledged pinnacle of word processing software throughout the civilised universe (and also in Bracknell). WordStar - in any version - never quite gelled with me.
But I could never be so churlish as to take away someone else's cherished and productive tools, especially not from one of the "high eras" in computing history.
Kudos to Mr. Sawyer for providing this service!
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 10:31 GMT mfalcon
Re: Admirable
I agree that WordPerfect was better for the production of documents, especially if a laser printer was to be involved and I did use it quite a bit for that. However if I was editing code or straight text I always went for something with WordStar control codes. As they say each to their own :-)
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 13:47 GMT NickHolland
Re: Admirable
I started with WordStar on a pre-PC system, and my fingers got very good at "just doing" what I needed. But..I did start a process of transitioning to "something else" in the PC world. I never got to the level with WordPerfect 5.1 that I was t with WordStar, but I can say with confidence, WP5.1 was a better tool. I think that says something about just how good WP was -- experienced WS user becomes a novice WP convert and says, "this is better".
To this day, I use vi with some .exrc macros to do some WP5-like stuff with the function keys in my Unix life -- mostly HTML tags.
-
Thursday 8th August 2024 01:23 GMT An_Old_Dog
WordPerfect Versions
My mum was a typist in a solicitors' office. She loved WordPerfect 4.2, but hated v5.1. This was because WP Corp had changed their program overlay organisation in 5.1 such that accessing her most-oft-used features required loading an overlay from her IBM (8086-based) PS/2, which was .... slow.
In WP 4.2, most features she used were RAM-resident.
-
Friday 9th August 2024 10:15 GMT Liam Proven
Re: WordPerfect Versions
> She loved WordPerfect 4.2, but hated v5.1.
The late great Guy Kewney once wrote something on the WP 4.2 -> 5.1 transition to the effect of:
"It's as if the WordPerfect management sat down and said: 'What we have here is a great bicycle. Everyone agrees that it's the best bicycle ever made. So what we're going to do is, we're going to put 11 more wheels on it.'"
Now, everyone hails 5.1 as the classic. I was skilled with WordPerfect but not a fan. The F-key based UI was cumbersome to me. (It was designed for the original IBM PC keyboard, with the function keys down the left side in two columns.) At least 5.1 had CUA pull-down menus so you could find the less-often-used functions without remembering Ctrl+Shift_F8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 2, B.
That's why I reckon 6.2 is better still. It has a WYSIWYG GUI mode, a bit more polish and integration, and while it was slow in 1994 or something, 30 years later it's blisteringly fast.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 10:17 GMT mfalcon
WordStar keyboard controls - if it ain't broke don't fix it
Started with WordStar on CP/M and later moved to MS-DOS. Borland wisely selected WordStar control keys for the Turbo-C integrated environment. Spent years using that. On Unix and Linux systems I use Vi for editing system files but Joe when coding or writing documents. At the start of the year I ran up a Cray supercomputer emulator running Unicos and compiled Joe for that. Thanks for the pointer to WordTsar I'll have a look at that.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 11:48 GMT mfalcon
Why am I running Unicos?
The obvious answer is because I can and old Cray's are just fundamentally cool. The slightly more practical reason is that since the Cray is a 64 bit machine that uses word memory addressing instead of byte addressing its C compiler has to be a bit special and so is a great platform to find unwise assumptions in a C code base.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 12:04 GMT captain veg
Re: WordStar keyboard controls - if it ain't broke don't fix it
> Borland wisely selected WordStar control keys for the Turbo-C integrated environment.
Ctrl+Y to delete a line survived all six iterations of classic Visual Basic. I was most annoyed that it didn't make it into Visual Studio.
-A.
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 10:23 GMT Bebu
All I recall...
was cursing when opening code files with wordstar and later realizing that it wasn't in non-document mode. :(
I fairly quickly got a hold of a copy MKS Vi which removed that provocation.
I think the the text IDE in early Borland products (I recall Turbo-Prolog) was pretty much wordstar in non-document mode.
The key bindings were pretty universal pre windows I think. The editor included with Dave Moore's MSDOS FTL Modula-2 compiler (ME.com) had those default bindings.
FWIW Back then I used Vi and a hacked* up version of nroff to prepare documents under MSDOS and hacked* version of format from Software Tools in Pascal earlier under CP/M+.
* mostly [Epson dot matrix] printer control eg typeface, italic/bold/underline, vertical/horizontal motion.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 11:29 GMT Ken Moorhouse
Re: All I recall...
That reminds me of the secretary my boss employed. The boss was out most of the time. I spent most of the day coding in one room and the secretary was in the adjacent room filing.
She had beautiful nails.
One day she was unusually quiet. So much so that I wandered in to see what she was doing. "I'm deleting all these nonsense files on the boss's pc." I asked her to show me the criteria she used for determining if a file was nonsense or not. She was doing a dir, picking out a file, then entering "type <filename>" at the DOS prompt. Anything with smiley faces was fair game according to her. "Noooo" I told her. I mentioned it to the boss next time I saw him, but he wasn't too bothered.
He was a gemini.
The relevance of that was one day the secretary was reading Cosmopolitan where there was an article on Your Boss's Star Sign. For Gemini it said that this boss would not care what you were doing for days, weeks on end - the particular example given was that you could be growing mustard and cress in your Intray and he would be oblivious to it. But then, one day he would come in and totally reorganise everything, micromanaging to the n'th degree, until he returned to normal. This description was very accurate.
(For those upset about political correctness, this was in the previous century, when this was how things were).
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 16:13 GMT Mage
Re: Interesting, but ...
Outline view and Styles is needed, otherwise it's a glass typewriter with invisible correction and direct formatting (which is evil).
WS was fine for letters, or a draft manuscript, and I preferred it to Wordperfect. I'm sure I have several DOS versions of Wordstar and NewWord, as well as CP/M NewWord.
Now Notepad++ or KATE, nano, Jota (Android) and Libre Office Writer.
I've used vi, emacs and LaTex.
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 11:04 GMT Ken Moorhouse
I personally hated WordStar...
When I worked for a company on Brunel campus my boss insisted on it though. I was already a WordPerfect user, which to me was more intuitive, plus the stand-out selling point of Reveal Codes.
One day I set about configuring a WordPerfect keyboard template to emulate WordStar to prove to him how versatile WordPerfect was. The boss was not impressed.
Nevertheless Wordstar did get me business when I started my own business: A woman (whose late husband was one half of a famous comedy duo*) rang me up one day who wanted me to maintain her system and train her properly on the word processor that was installed on her pc. Apparently she'd been right through Yellow Pages and not found anyone owning up to being familiar with WordStar.
*This was many years before Truss/Kwarteng.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 11:08 GMT AndrueC
The keystrokes were great for letting your keep your fingers on the keyboard. And delete-to-end-of-line (^QY) was used surprisingly often. I also found that moving around documents (I used the keys for controlling various Borland Editors so it was mostly source code) was more convenient.
I have heard that the keys make more sense on really old keyboards because apparently the CTRL and CAPS LOCK keys used to be the other way around.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 17:58 GMT ThomH
Swapping the meaning of your modifiers — including caps lock to control — is, astoundingly, a layout configuration option that Apple still offers directly in its own settings UI. Though possibly because Apple has occasionally put control where caps lock is now, though inconsistently and not at all since 1990 as far as I can make out.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 13:16 GMT Alan Bourke
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than Word
Hey all the millions of you worldwide using Word for years very successfully - what if I told you Excel is a better word processor! I've lifted the veil from your eyes!
By no sane metric are either WP for DOS or Excel a better word processor trhan Word.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 13:34 GMT Arthur the cat
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than Word
By no sane metric are either WP for DOS or Excel a better word processor trhan Word.
Do sane metrics apply to Word? Enquiring minds etc …
[This all seems like a variant of the Markdown vs reStructuredText debate going on in other parts of the net.]
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 14:41 GMT NickHolland
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than Word
here's a simple metric -- time between hitting a key and it showing up on the screen.
Windows and other GUI applications absolutely suck at this. And yet, WP and WS and other DOS applications were doing just fine on 16MHz procs 30+ years ago.
And I'd call that both a sane and important metric. One that our modern computing world REALLY sucks at.
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 10:52 GMT keithpeter
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than Word
This chain of comments has been quite funny.
The original article is about a professional author who produces continuous prose - I'm guessing very few graphics objects or tables in science fiction novels - and it looks like that author is topping a couple of million words lifetime production. OF COURSE he is going to stick to a favourite program. It is the program he knows so well that he does not consciously have to think about the actual program and can compose his text at the keyboard.
I'm guessing that people who produce text for a living, sometimes against deadlines, have their preferred production methods. Have a look at the non-fiction writers Robert Caro and John McPhee for contrasting examples. In the case of Mr Caro, the concept of a deadline takes on a rather special meaning.
More casual producers of documents will use what they have on their device: MS Word is what it will be at any of the places I work in. LibreOffice is fine for knocking out a quick handout at home - especially since my stuff would usually include mathematical formulas, a table or two and some diagrams. I too have the bad habit of composing the words at the keyboard. Response time is unimportant for me compared to the thinking time.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 18:12 GMT ThomH
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than Word
> I had to try this. I don’t know how I would time the microseconds but the delay on locally installed Word is imperceptible.
Grab your phone, set it to record in 'slo-mo' or whatever your handset's name for 240fps mode is. Put your keyboard and screen in shot, press a key. Count the frames in between.
I mean, just if you're curious. And whatever the average number is, it'll probably be the no-brand Bluetooth accessories that most people use that contribute most. It's just not a big enough problem for most people to think it worth optimising for.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 15:35 GMT Pete Sdev
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than Word
By no sane metric are either WP for DOS or Excel a better word processor trhan Word.
Aside that the joke icon from the the comment you replied to appears to have whooshed over your nogin, there's a plethora of modern minimalist word processors for authors. Due to the fact that for people who actually write for a living, Word is shit.
Word is (arguably) OK for people who hardly ever write (the odd letter or occasionally knocking out a "wet paint" sign) or businesses who want corporate templates, mail merge, embedded charts, and all that bull.
I fire up libreoffice Write about twice a year these days.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 20:08 GMT heyrick
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than Word
Does Word still automatically
fuck uprepaginate the entire document if you select a printer with different (smaller?) margins than those in use prior?Okay, I'm going back to like Word 97 and whatever the following one was called, but between the
intentionally breaking the documentrepagination and the fact that Word often had trouble opening it's own documents meant I've not looked at or touched that abomination since.-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 07:13 GMT Binraider
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than
Yes!
Attempting to use any of the content organisation features in word; headings, body text, etc has seen me have to reformat by copy-paste to plaintext entire documents; when said feature inevitably breaks down. Its latest trick was to turn 80+ pages of material into numbered bullets for the sake of inserting one line.
I’d use something fit for purpose but this is the work PC so you get what you’re given.
Thankfully we have notepad++ packaged so I can use that for most stuff.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 08:16 GMT LybsterRoy
Re: Came here for the absolute loons saying it's better than
This is why I loved WordPerect and Reveal Codes - if I (not who/what I'm blaming) screwed up I could sort it out fairly quickly. I even went as far as creatin a macro to strip all codes from a document - mainly used in anger when I had to load a Word document.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 09:07 GMT rg287
Re: Owner
No. I think you're getting confusing with trademark protection.
And even there, it's not "required by law", it's still a choice.
Not OP, but trademark defence is somewhat "required by law" in use-it-or-lose-it terms since it requires active registration. You obviously have the choice to allow it to lapse. But if you don't want it to lapse, you don't really have a choice about defending it.
Obviously noone is going to prosecute you for not defending your trademark, but if you allow widespread infringement then courts will raise an eyebrow if you do then go after somebody. It's important that usage is always licensed - even if you licence it for free or a nominal £1.
By contrast, Copyright terms are set out in law and automatic. Even if you allow widespread infringement for a decade, there's nothing to stop you cracking down later on.
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 18:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I think the official definition of abandonware is
Does not care is very possible. I once contacted the current owners of the system ROMs for an 8-bit computer from the 1980s about permission for redistribution and got the off-the-record response: nobody here cares that we own that stuff, it's not something we were ever interested in owning, don't charge for it and it won't be a problem.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 11:57 GMT Fred Daggy
Abandonware ...
Abandonware should be a legal term.
If one makes reasonable attempts to find copyright holders, (and there should be a legal requirement to re-register the copyright every "x" years during its NON-EXTENDABLE term), then one should be able to get a reasonably priced tribunal to rule abandonment of copyright.
One can debate whether copyright's original purpose "Encouragement of Learning" (Wikipedia, History of copyright) is encouraged or discouraged, but neglecting a creation is removing a creation from human knowledge. It just creates a vacuum.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 20:18 GMT heyrick
Re: Abandonware ...
"and there should be a legal requirement to re-register the copyright every "x" years during its NON-EXTENDABLE term"
This might be a thing in the US, but elsewhere copyright is automatic and specifically does not need registration (the US is the anomaly here, look at the Berne Convention). Plus some countries, such as France, have a slightly different approach that may be incompatible with a need to register.
I think a far simpler approach: Has this product been officially commercially available in the past X years? Because copyright is about controlling what is done with the product in order to restrict losses, but if the product hasn't been sold in three decades and has long since been forgotten about, arguably there won't be any tangible losses to go after.
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 12:20 GMT Missing Semicolon
Shame it's not original Wordstar
That was designed to run on any terminal environment - especially a serial-connected one. As such, when editiing, it prioritised updating what you were typing, and then , when there was a gap in the keystrokes, moving the cursor around to update the surrounding text to match. If you watch a touch-typist using it over a 300 baud connection, you see that when text is inserted in the middle of a line, pushing the rest of the line off to the right and re-wrapping the tail-end of the paragraph, only happened in the background.
All on a 3Mhz Z80!
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 19:36 GMT Jonathan Richards 1
Re: Speed
> a way to make it run as slowly as it did on my Z80 based CP/M machine?
Yes, there is. Well, maybe not quite as slow as CP/M on a Z80. I've just compiled and installed dosbox-x in order to have a play with the WordStar archive, and there is a CPU>Emulate CPU speed menu setting, the lowest of which is an 8088 XT 4.77MHz.
We may have slashdotted Sawyer's site at sfwriter.com, though. Currently downloading the WS7 archive at less than 200 KiB/s - unless that's all part of the retro vibe, of course!
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 09:57 GMT BenDwire
Re: Speed
Given that Slashdot has linked to this story, perhaps Slashdot did the Slashdotting !
IIRC my Z80 was clocked at 1MHz, and a 4.77MHz IBM XT ran at light speed in comparison. I could still only type at the same speed though (and probably faster than I can type in my advancing years ...)
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 16:00 GMT Gary Stewart
Re: Speed
The original Z80 ran at 2.5 MHz. After a few years it was bumped up to 4 MHz. There are now variants that run much faster. As I have noted before, I worked at Mostek which as far as I know manufactured all of the first Z80s before Zilog had fab capabilities. My duties at Mostek was to maintain the Fairchild Sentry testers which were used to test Z80s as dies and after they were packaged. We also employed a tester that I have forgotten the name of that tested some Z80s that failed the Fairchild test. This tester was a functionality tester that used a "golden" Z80 to compare against the devices under test. These Z80s were sold to Radio Shack for TRS-80s and had a less than sparkling reputation for reliability.
P.S. does anybody know if this WordStar runs under FreeDOS?
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 13:35 GMT Eecahmap
A 680MB download. . . .
Back in the day, my favorite word processor was Wordstar something-dot-something (maybe 2.x) on my TRS-80 Model I. Clearly a port of the CP/M version, it was the only word processor I used on an 8-bit computer that could handle files bigger than memory (48KB, in my case). I ran it on both floppy disks and HDD - my first was 5MB.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 18:31 GMT Rich 2
Re: A 680MB download. . . .
I did laugh at the 680M download bit. You could package WS, a copy of DOS, and a copy of windows 95 for good measure and it would still be a fraction of 680M.
What the hell are the rest of the megabytes doing??? I think I know the answer - it’s the emulators. Modern software is really crap
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 18:32 GMT ThomH
Re: A 680MB download. . . .
> What the hell are the rest of the megabytes doing???
There's about 1,000 pages of _scanned_ documentation included.
Approximate breakdown, after decompression to around 970mb:
* 437mb: manuals;
* 136mb: DOSBox-X;
* 54mb: vDosPlus;
* 46mb: assorted conversion tools;
* 36mb: reference documentation;
* 33mb: PrintFilePrinter, a to-PDF conversion tool;
* 24mb: various printer drivers;
* 21mb: Word for Word, seemingly another file conversion tool;
* 19mb: the CompuServe WordStar Forum library;
... etc, etc ...
So almost 20% of it is emulators, but they're not the largest contributor.
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 03:12 GMT RAMChYLD
Re: A 680MB download. . . .
I had WordStar 4.0j, got it from school. It fitted in a Double-Sided, Double Density 320KB disk. Sure, the only printer driver on there was for the Epson FX-80 (which did jack all when your printer is a salvaged Apple Dot Matrix, which is in turn a rebranded C.Itoh) but it's either that or Professional Write which took 2 minutes to start on my Sharp PC-7000A.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 14:28 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
No f-n interruptions
The worst about MS-Word, worsening with every generation, is being so pushy, constantly interrupting with its know-it-better interuption, and if you are on O365 constantly those "new feature here" notifications. Microsoft is SO rude.
WordTsar, btw, has an alpha native 64 bit windows build avail! And I've already found a bug in that alpha (Edit: and latest release) :D... Still better than MS.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 08:14 GMT localgeek
Re: No f-n interruptions
Maybe a year ago, I stumbled upon the free FocusWriter word processor. I have it running on both a Windows and two Linux machines, and in each case have it configured to use a black background with amber text - just like my first monochrome monitor back in the mid-90s.
If you're looking for an unobtrusive program that just does what it's supposed to do without making constant unwanted suggestions, it's worth checking out.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 14:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
Where do you start with the convoluted history of MicroPro. Why Wordstar died
Anyone who spent any time in the building off San Pedro / San Pablo across from the Marin Civic Center will have stories. Boy will they have stories.
The Wordstar code was actively developed from 1978 to 1990/91. What was acquired by SoftKey in 1993 was pretty much just the i.p, trademarks and source code. Everyone who had made WordStar WordStar was long gone. So many ended up on Marinship at Autodesk it was called MicroPro south. Great guys.
In fact pretty much everyone below senior management was very good / some of the best and everyone in senior management were some of the most batsh*t crazy / incompetent people in the business. And that's a very high bar to reach in a business not known for good management. Or even sane management. Seymour was borderline nuts in his own way but unlike absolutely everyone in senior management put in by the VC he actually had a modicum of real business skills. He knew how to sell. He made the company. The revolving door senior management the VC kept parachuted in eventually killed the company. He was ousted I might add after a death bed board-room coup. As I said MicroPro's business history was beyond the excesses of drug induced hallucinatory fiction. And this was Marin County. The EST period anybody?...
Both NewWord and WS2000 were the result of true head shaking levels of incompetence by senior management. How they came about. Fixed (for a short time) by the next batch of senior management. Until they were gone sooner rather than later. A good example was WS for Win was pretty much finished a good year before Win 3.0 shipped. This was the version developed inhouse. But the next batch of bone-headed senior management decided to acquire a third party product and by the time it had be fixed to look like the version of WS that that had already been running in early 1989 it was now 1991. So not only missed the boat for the Win3.0 launch the year before but they then had to do another release because now Win3.1 was out and it broke stuff.
And so on and so on.
In defense of MicroPro it took a lot of really terrible decisions by the revolving door senior management over an extended period of time to eventually kill the company. Almost a decade. While it only took a single bone-headed decision by the senior management at WordPerfect to blow them up and force the bale out by Novell. So there is that.
As for the "better than Word" comment above. Both WS and WP were much better than Word. Far better. In fact I was shown a bug in 1988 in MS-DOS Word 4.0 that was still easy to reproduce in WinWord 2000 running on Win2K. A really simple style run bug. So yeah, MS-Word was always crap. And will always be crap.
RIP WS. It was so much fun while it lasted. Good memories of some very good people.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 21:28 GMT Dickie_Mosfet
Re: Where do you start with the convoluted history of MicroPro. Why Wordstar died
MicroPro gets a mention in the book "In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters"...
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/in-search-of/9781590597217/ (see table of contents)
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 23:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Where do you start with the convoluted history of MicroPro... not exactly
Just had a look at the MicroPro chapter in "In Search of Stupidity:". One slight problem. Thats not even close to what actually happened at MicroPro. Chapman like all marketing dudes does not let the facts get in the way of a good story. No matter how "detached" the story he tells might be from what actually happened.
Many key parts of the story are missing.
The Sperry guys and the great Modula II re-write fiasco. Which is why there were no new releases for years and they eventually shipped WS2000 as a stop-gap act of desperation.
And there was Seymores ousting by Fred (I'm Fred Adler, I own this company and I'm an asshole ) Adler, the VC, and the resulting long running lawsuits. Which Seymore eventually won but too late to save the company. Adler made himself very rich but killed every company he touched. He had a perfect track record. The management Adler parachuted in killed every company he had a major interest in.
The NewWord story was the usual senior devs treated like shi*t by new management. Devs give a "you'll never ship without us" ultimatum. Management says no-one is indispensable - f*ck off. It turns out they were indispensable as nothing shipped until they were bough out and brought back a few years later. Management long gone.
Then there was the great "Customer Reduction" marketing fiasco. Which sounds like it happen around the time Chapman was in Marketing. Well 20% of our customers buy 80% of our product by $ value. So lets get rid of 80% of our customers who dont buy much. Not realizing that this years low unit purchaser is next year big unit purchaser. Sales $ volume then does a very good lemmings off a cliff impression ..
Plus his printer driver story does not pass the smell test. Sounds a bit like self-justification why for he might have got canned. Although he sounds more like a jump before he was pushed guy. Pre Win32 printer drivers were a really big deal. All WP's etc shipped with a huge number of printer drivers. Hundreds of them. If a SKU shipped with 3 disks at least one disk was just printer drivers. Products often shipped two or three disks (or more) of just printer drivers. QA depts had hundreds of printers sitting on shelf after shelf, row after row. Sounds like the dev team decided they needed something like a simple ISAM to manage all the drivers. Which sounds reasonable. Instead of adhoc code thrown together. His story does not make any sense given who the devs were at the time. Plus there was no "dev center". And so on.
So the book has lots of great stories. Some of which might actually be mostly true(ish). But the stories in the book read more like the sort of stories you heard in the bars at trade shows after they had closed the floor for the night and all the public had left. That's all. I really liked trade shows. They were a lot of fun. The DOS/Win world shows were often fun but the Mac trade shows during the first decade, mid 1980's to mid 1990's were by far the best. The only shows were it was a lot more fun to work the stand than walk the floors. Good times.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 14:48 GMT martinusher
First used in on CP/M
I did a lot of useful work on WordStar, using a daisy wheel printer for the output (looks more professional than a dot matrix in those pre-laser days). If you're focused on content rather than form then its a very powerful tool that ran reliably in 6K of memory. Like many people I've had to use Word on and off (corporate) starting with v2.0 and its always been a resource hog of a labyrinth even in its pre-Windows days.
I might give this version a spin. Its not nostalgia, I don't like things just because they're old, but its always rankled that I have to use the equivalent of a high performance supercomputer from the CP/M era to read my mail and look up things on the web. Most consumer software really is BS.
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 17:09 GMT tsprad
Re: First used in on CP/M
"focused on content rather than form"
I've always thought of those as two very different tasks, but then I've never done much "word processing". I was a manufacturing engineer for the very first Word Processor, the Xerox 810 that coined the term. The daisy wheel printer made the prettiest print I've seen to this day. The only other one I actually used was Ventura Publisher. I wrote the text using vi and then fed plain ASCII into it to make it pretty.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 10:02 GMT BenDwire
Re: +1
Quattro Pro was simply the best spreadsheet around at that time, and looked great when put into its graphic mode on a colour EGA monitor. I seem to recall running the GEM desktop at one point, and I'm fairly sure that Quattro Pro was one of the few programs that seemed to integrate well. Of course I may have got my neurons mixed up (I was also running a Sun Sparcstation at that time) but those days were a blur of innovation.
-
-
-
Tuesday 6th August 2024 15:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Whatever became of WordPerfect and WordStar
Summary of Microsoft Applications Strategy (Feb 1988)
“Word processing. WordPerfect is the dominant product, selling approximately 35K units per month in the US, or ~3 to 1 over PC Word. DisplayWrite is losing ground though it continues to be strong in corp accts due to the direct selling of the IBM sales force. Multirmate from AshtonTate and WordStar (the latest version is rated very highly) are also players in the market.”
“Word processing. Microsoft Word is the leader, and WriteNow and MacWrite have been battling for second. However, two formidable competitors are entering the market: Ashton-Tate’s FullWrite, and Mac WordPerfect.”
--
WordPerfect. “The time has never been better to seize WordPerfeet’s traditional franchise” (Feb 1994)
-
Thursday 8th August 2024 22:18 GMT This is my handle
Re: Whatever became of WordPerfect and WordStar
I forgot about MultiMate! I ran it on my Eagle MS-DOS luggable. Lovely machine, for the time. Apple-level styling, but with a usable keyboard (no mouse; they had barely been invented yet) and a color screen as I recall. I have to admit that I abandoned it for WordPerfect after a bit, due to the latter's WYSIWYG accuracy: What you typed, what you saw, what got printed all pretty much matched, which seemed a miracle at the time.
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 03:09 GMT RAMChYLD
Ah yes, WordStar
Less sophisticated than Professional Write, but was definitely the industry standard next to Lotus 1-2-3 and Harvard Graphics back in the days before Office Suites.
Had to learn that during computer classes alongside BASIC and UCB LOGO back in school, so I definitely remember it more fondly.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 03:42 GMT md56
A huge step up!
WordStar came on my first Osborne 2, and it was a massive step up from Teco->Runoff on the DEC 8 I had then -- the latter was always a fingers crossed thing, like when I once printed out the whole of a paper I wrote in Greek, having neglected to turn off Greek in the first few lines. The Greek journal I submitted it to seemed not to be able to make any sense of it. Anyway, WordStar on one floppy, files on the other. I was totally smitten, and remained so for many years up until my co-authors could no longer read my work. It now takes me considerably longer to write in MS365 Word, just because the things I always want to do are hidden deep behind the things I never want to do--and what I write is too big for those huge floppies. The world has become obese.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 05:41 GMT Jakester
I have fond memories of Word Star for the PC Jr. It was the solution to writing source code for the PC because every text editor from Microsoft would periodically put in a <cr><cr><lf> instead of just a <cr><lf> which basically commented out the next line of code. The code changes to WS for PCjr were well documented to fit on the regular PC screen (PC Jr had only 56 characters per line, as I recall). I believe Egghead sold the WS for PC Jr for $30. That solved all the problems of skipped lines of code during compilation.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 09:37 GMT HorseflySteve
DOS WordPerfect 5.1 spellchecker
I used WordPerfect 5.1 back in the late 80s\early '90s to write the production test specs for our products.
As my fingers couldn't keep up with my brain, I quite often typed 'sytem' instead of 'system'.
Usually, I just fixed it immediately but, one day, I though I'd leave it & invoke the spellchecker when I'd finished as I was going to use the word quite a lot.
When the spellchecker ingested the word 'sytem', it offered me three alternatives:
1. system
2. systems
3. sodomy
To this day, I can't figure out what kind of algorithm could come up with alternative 3 from that input...
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 11:32 GMT Cliffwilliams44
The time I was nearly hung by angry women.
I remember back into day, circa 1990, when we were installing new computers in an advertising firm. The publishing and art directors pushed the owner hard to install Macs throughout the company.
s we started replacing the DOC PCs on all the PAs desks, the uproar began. You see all these women where highly skilled WordStar jockeys! They were screaming "what am I supposed to do with this "mouse thing! This is just s,owing me down"! Needless to say, the uproar forced us to take back many of the Macs and replace them with new IBM PCs.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 15:51 GMT TonyJ
My one and only encounter with Wordstar...
...was back in the very early 90's (around 1990-1991).
As part of of thesis, I had the task of building a plotter, but it had to have a function and the one chosen was to read a barcode and reprint it. Oh I had to design and build the barcode wand, as well.
I mean... really... of all the use cases, this was effectively an overcomplicated photocopier, but I digress.
The kit we were programming on was some esoteric all in one device that had a hexadecimal keypad, a series of 7 segment displays and a few limited ports - a serial and parallel if my memory serves, as well as an edge connector that exposed one of the buses.
We did have the luxury of being able to write the code on a PC which allowed us to use assembly language, then generate the hex output, and print it, but then manually input it on the keypad.
My first hurdle was the sheer size of the program itself. It wouldn't fit - the lookup table alone ran to something like 4x the available RAM on the board, so I had to design and build a memory expansion. That went onto the edge connector. I seem to recall from memory (no pun intended) that the system itself could recognise up to an additional 32kB of RAM as long as you got things like the timing and trigger circuits correct.
The next issue was that the program wouldn't fit in the application we used to code on the PC (I forget what it was - it was over 30 years ago!). So... I was given a copy of Wordstar and told to write it in that... which was kind of useless given it had none of the compile-to-hex capabilities I needed.
But given that I now had a ton of RAM spare, I decided in my infinite youthful wisdom that it would be easier to transfer the program straight from the PC rather than coding it in manually every time so I reverse engineered the original program and made it read in the Wordstar file, strip out the bits it didn't need and pipe the output into the board via serial cable. Which also meant of course I had to write the program to transfer it. I think that I burned that to an EPROM in the end to save having to type it in manually each time, which meant I kind of had my own kit.
Every character from A-Z (upper and lower case) and the numbers 0-9 was in a lookup table that was simply a series of commands for driving the stepper motors in the plotter (which was very simply an x/y and a relay to lift and lower the pen).
It all worked and it was an excellent learning experience for projects in later life and how they have a tendency to grow out of all proportion if you don't get the details right from off the bat.
I learned more about barcodes than anyone needed to know. It was actually fun for the most part - just a series of ever expanding challenges to get it working but other than being a learning exercise it was otherwise utterly pointless in practice. :-)
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 16:40 GMT Tron
Your preference may depend upon your machine and what you are writing.
I wrote a 3 vol. thesis using Word 4 for the Mac. When Apple became tiresome I switched to the PC and have written four novels, several plays/scripts and stacks of other stuff using LibreOffice. For shorter stuff I still use Notepad. For HTML, NoteTab.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 18:49 GMT Kev99
I can't blame RR Martin. My first word processor was pfs:Professional Write. I my opinion, that almost 40 year old program runs circles around mictosoft word. You press the keys and it interprets the signals to the screen and RAM with no bovine excrement on capitalization, auto-correct, web address, and the like. I still don't know why ANY business would want the grunts in the trenches to be able write directly to the bunch of holes held together with string/vapor. And Quattro Pro 4 for DOS beat excel then and probably would still it today.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 19:12 GMT This is my handle
As has been hinted at but not explicitly mentioned (unless I missed it) ....
Wordstar served as a text editor as well as a word processor on CP/M. It was a far sight better word processor than the PerfectWriter that came with my 1st computer (Kaypro II running CP/M) unless (as one of my consulting clients was) you were publishing an academic book.
PW supported much larger documents (Virtual Memory was not a forte of CP/M and actual RAM maxed out at 64K) as well as endnotes / footnotes. Even indexing, as I recall. For most documents I'd write Wordstar was more than sufficient and quite snappy, thank you, once I upgraded to a Kaypro 10 with a hard drive, so the 5.25" diskette didn't spin constantly fetching something or other. Sure, WordPerfect was much more WYSIWYG and an all around a better word processor once MS/PC-DOS came around and we had 16 bits (well sort of; with 8-bit addressable RAM segments) and yes -- arguably better than Word is today, and certainly not any slower. It also had a mode which displayed the embedded formatting codes with the toggle of an F-key; something I still miss trying to figure out why Word wants to indent something, or won't let me do so, or whatever.
Yes, as a text editor it was no vi (which BTW I still use to this day when I don't need something language-aware like VS code or a Java IDE) but for CP/M it worked fine -- as long as you remembered to put it in plain text ("Document"?) mode [and yes, I too got irritated when I didn't...], but I don't think CP/M came with a full-screen editor so short of writing your own we used what we had.
When I did get to use vi BTW, finally getting to use "real computers" running Unix then later Linux, there was a more programmable alternative I was often encouraged to check out, in case I liked it better. I didn't. Anyway, it was a little thing called EMACS and funnily enough, the default key binding on the version I learnt was ... you guessed it: same as Wordstar. (Or maybe same as PW...; it's been awhile) ... Still I have always preferred vi. EMACS was open source though when very little else was so I've hacked on it a few times to allow users to edit text fields in a database, e.g. Ah, the good old days.
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 21:45 GMT JimC
Re: As has been hinted at but not explicitly mentioned (unless I missed it) ....
And I for one can't remember a code editor I liked better then Wordstar. Especially the ability to move copy and paste blocks rather than lines, which I was particularly fond of. And most of all, of course, never having to take hands off the keyboard to grab the damned mouse.
-
Thursday 8th August 2024 20:24 GMT jake
Re: As has been hinted at but not explicitly mentioned (unless I missed it) ....
Note that it's (nearly) always been fairly easy to tell both vi and EMACS to emulate most of the keystrokes of WordStar or WordPerfect or pretty much any other word processor, if you like. Also note that Wordstar was 1978. EMACS & vi were both 1976.
-
-
Wednesday 7th August 2024 23:43 GMT FelixReg
Best Wordstar clone on Windows/Linux - The Semware Editor
It's at:
https://www.semware.com/
I've been using it for close to 40 years. Muscle memory matters. Especially when CAPS LOCK is remapped to Ctrl. And ~` is swapped with ESC. And with this is added to ~/.inputrc
Control-e: history-search-backward
Control-x: history-search-forward
Control-r: previous-history
# Control-r: dynamic-complete-history
Control-y: kill-whole-line
# Control-u: yank
Control-f: forward-word
Control-a: backward-word
Control-d: forward-char
# Too bad it's XOFF
Control-s: backward-char
Control-g: delete-char
Control-t: kill-word
# No - this is also the tab key
# Control-i: tab-insert
Control-p: quoted-insert
Control-j: menu-complete
-
Friday 9th August 2024 14:16 GMT webcliq
Wordstar that is actually NewWord 3
Just remember Guys, WordStar is NOT WordStar. That died with WordStar 2000. WordStar is and always will be NewWord 3 to us - Bill, Alex and myself, Mark.To our friends in the Reg who helped bring it to prominence, bring back 1987. Remember, I still have the framed Reg. articles and the first ever NewWord 3 manual .....
To all of you from all of us at NewStar and SoftStar. Just remember that the show is not over till the fat lady sings!
The next thing is bring back CCPM, CDOS and even Digital Research.
-
Tuesday 13th August 2024 07:21 GMT SteveTM
A fun nostalgia trip but inferior to modern wp software
I use LibreOffice Writer, it does everything Wordstar does and more, but better. I cannot see any reason to use Wordstar in 2024, except for some kind of nostalgia trip.
What we are actually dealing with here is various elderly writers refusing to learn a new thing!!
-
Tuesday 13th August 2024 08:20 GMT Jou (Mxyzptlk)
Re: A fun nostalgia trip but inferior to modern wp software
One younger commenter here has not yet learned how much slower a mouse as input device can be.
As for "and more": Of course, you have machines literally 3000 times faster per CPU core, and you have four, quite often more, at hand. It is like comparing CGA against 8k.
-
Tuesday 13th August 2024 09:03 GMT jake
Re: A fun nostalgia trip but inferior to modern wp software
Consider that I (and you!) can create documents and spreadsheets and databases to run a business using Wordstar and Lotus and dBase on DOS 3.3 easier and quite a bit faster than with LO, or with anything that Redmond or Cupertino is currently pushing, for that matter.
Yes, I use LO when I need that kind of thing ... but I do most of my actual writing with vi on a Model M keyboard. Nothing I've tried to date gets ASCII from brain into the computer faster and with fewer errors.
-