From: John T. Chapman <jtc1@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Word 5 recommendations? (Re-post)
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 19: 39:33 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: jtc1@cornell.edu
Organization: Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:29:52 GMT

In article <bernardo-151092104929@126.10.4.41> Marcelino Bernardo,
bernardo@erevax.bitnet writes:
>> uses. (Hey - there's an idea - shared resources!!!)
>Not really that original.  Claris has been using shared Help systems for
>MacDraw Pro, CAD and MacWrite II to name a few.  I think MacDraw Pro and
>MacWrite II even shares the same dictionary, thesaurus, hyphenation files
>and file translators.

Sorry about the smilie-free sarcasm. Next time I'll be more careful.
Seriously, though, the idea of shared resources has been around since the 
introduction of the Mac. In fact, the Mac is based on that idea, with 
fonts, sounds, windows and basic 'toolbox' routines all stored in the ROM 
or System and shared by applications. Granted, Claris pushed out their 
shared dictionaries and such long before Microsoft, but that doesn't make 
them 'early'. This is a feature of the Macintosh that should have been 
used by applications designers *years* ago.

>How do you add features and not increase the size of the code and the
speed
>of execution?  Don't worry, the hardware will catch up to it.

I've seen a he** of a lot of applications that have been trimmed down 
really well through the use of efficient coding and design and that work 
extremely fast. (Look at WriteNow or Nisus, for example. Unfortunately, 
they don't quite meet my needs, but Microsoft's added features don't 
explain the huge overheads in speed and size).
Even if you don't feel like playing around with assembly or optimization, 
you can still compress resources. Ever play around with an archiving 
program and compress some Microsoft products? Generally get a pretty huge 
savings. Then try compressing WriteNow or similar. Much smaller 
percentage saved.

As far as hardware catching up, that's hardly an excuse. If I put a few 
thousand into a computer, I don't expect to have to exchange it for the 
newest model every time a new software upgrade comes out. Features don't 
(or at least *shouldn't*) add that much overhead. Frankly, most of the 
time, I'm not drawing or graphing or tabling or whatever in Word, I'm 
just typing, sorting, or spell-checking. Things that other programs do 
about 10 times faster. If I'm not using added features, why should I 
suffer a performance reduction?

Sorry. I should jump out of this discussion. I use Word and am generally 
happy about it. I own an older version of WriteNow and was very impressed 
(and still am), but have outgrown it. I have played with a demo of Nisus 
and was impressed, but bugged by some of its quirks and things that it 
lacked in comparison to Word. But even though I think Word is the best 
for what I do, I think it has a long way to go before it can be 
considered the best. (As, IMHO, do WriteNow, Nisus, etc.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  John T. Chapman                                     jtc1@cornell.edu
  Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
  Cornell University - College of Human Ecology
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe the word you're looking for is 'Aaaaaaaaaaaaa'."
                                             - Penguin, Batman Returns
-------------------------------------------------------------------------