| Re: Old word processors [message #365312 is a reply to message #365271] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 16:43   |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:16:45 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> On 2018-03-17 22:13, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>
> Cost.
>
> You needed a good printer plus a computer, so not cheap at that time.
> And also you needed to train the typist on using a computer and the
> software.
Of course before the 80s word processors would only exist in large
enterprises. They had one mainframe and a few printers, while the typists
would sit on dumb and relatively cheap terminals. Should not take long to
train a typist for the new technology.
The advantages of editing on a CRT over a "direct printout" like with
typewriters should have been clear since the 60s already.
--
Andreas
My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365313 is a reply to message #365280] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 16:54 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18 Mar 2018 01:02:49 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:56:34 +0000, danny burstein wrote:
>
>> In <87d1024d2r.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Andreas Kohlbach
>> <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
>>
>>> I seem to recall some newer fully formed character printers could do
>>> bold by movie the paper just a little but and print the same character
>>> "almost" over itself again. Didn't some matrix printers employed this
>>> method too to print bold if their character set wasn't made up for this?
>>
>> Available in the Decwriter II.
>>
>> We used one with a TRS-80, and I still remember some of the codes:
>>
>> "Escape", aka chr$(27), then "B" chr$(66) for Bold...
>>
>> other options included underscore, shrunken text,
>> and I think italics, too.
But that is system depended. Early word processors like Wordstar had
shortcuts. For example Ctrl-B to get the next characters in bold. And a
library for common printers of the day that for example Ctrl-B would we
translated with chr$(27) for your TRS-80 printer. If your printer was not
in the library would could "write" one yourself if you were skilled and
know the codes of your printer.
> Not to mention the 'Near Letter Quality' dot matrix printers. I bought a
> Canon PW1080A printer in 1984 that had that. 9 pins (I think). The
> printer did a line using the 9 pins, then reversed the carriage and moved
> the paper up by a fractional amount. It then printed back the other way,
> filling in the gaps between the dots. There was a separate bold function.
At school around 1982 we got these strange smelling (almost like alcohol)
copies handed out by the teacher. One day a rich kid asked to have his
essay get copied. He printed the original on NLQ. While most students
didn't care or noticed I was wowed. Am sure he did this by intention only to
brag with it for the nerds in class noticing it. :-)
--
Andreas
My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365314 is a reply to message #365269] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 16:59 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:17:44 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> On 3/17/2018 11:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> An interesting video about Mergenthaler's typesetter is:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVxeuwlvf8w
Lovely. Reverse engineering. I watched it already. Got to love Professor
Brailsford. There should also be a video suggested where he talks about
the Apple Laser Writer with barely enough RAM to do the calculations in
the first place.
--
Andreas
My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365315 is a reply to message #365270] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 17:03 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:20:40 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> On 3/17/2018 3:09 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> 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.
DTP also has images. (Early) word processors did not handle them.
I think DTP came along around 1985 although first developed by Xerox PARC
in the 1970s.
I remember a pal with a Commodore 64 had one of the first DTP programs
(unfortunately I forgot its name) around 1986. It took eons to finally
render the page, but it was exciting what you could do.
--
Andreas
My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365317 is a reply to message #365300] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 17:09 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@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/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365318 is a reply to message #365282] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 17:17 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@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.ivie@gmail.com <roger.ivie@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!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365319 is a reply to message #365199] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 17:17 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 09:41:24 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> I seem to recall some newer fully formed character printers could do bold
> by movie the paper just a little but and print the same character
> "almost" over itself again. Didn't some matrix printers employed this
> method too to print bold if their character set wasn't made up for this?
The standard in one mainframe shop in which I worked was to overprint
heading and total lines on our line printer. This was less effective
when the ribbon was fresh, but since we were trying to wring every bit
of ink out of a ribbon it usually looked pretty good. Whether it was
good enough to slow our printer down to 1/3 speed while doing it was
a matter for discussion. (Yes, one-third speed: our printer used an
oscillating typebar, and you had to send it a blank line image between
the two copies to be overprinted. If the bar wasn't going the same
direction when printing the two copies, the result would look smudged.)
--
/~\ 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!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365320 is a reply to message #365199] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 17:17 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365326 is a reply to message #365314] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 18:01 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/18/2018 3:59 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:17:44 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> On 3/17/2018 11:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> An interesting video about Mergenthaler's typesetter is:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVxeuwlvf8w
>
> Lovely. Reverse engineering. I watched it already. Got to love Professor
> Brailsford. There should also be a video suggested where he talks about
> the Apple Laser Writer with barely enough RAM to do the calculations in
> the first place.
>
Brailsford is interesting alright, but sometimes plays "fast and loose"
with the facts. Watch his video on punch card programming and count the
errors!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG2M4ttzBnY
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365327 is a reply to message #365320] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 18:20 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/18/2018 4:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-03-17, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365328 is a reply to message #365327] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 19:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
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 <ank@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365329 is a reply to message #365317] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 19:51 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>>> <peter_flass@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365330 is a reply to message #365318] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 19:51 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@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.ivie@gmail.com <roger.ivie@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365334 is a reply to message #365318] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 20:55 |
Richard Thiebaud
Messages: 222
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 03/18/2018 05:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@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.ivie@gmail.com <roger.ivie@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.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365335 is a reply to message #365330] |
Sun, 18 March 2018 20:56 |
Richard Thiebaud
Messages: 222
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 03/18/2018 07:51 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@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.ivie@gmail.com <roger.ivie@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.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365341 is a reply to message #365300] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 01:38 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:38:49 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365345 is a reply to message #365316] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 04:23 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-18, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Print Shop, by any chance?
I had a pirated copy AFAIRemember, It gave one lots of time to think
of other things.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365348 is a reply to message #365270] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 05:43 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:20:40 -0500
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 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.
Desktop publishing software was generally about making single pages
with as much sophistication as possible.
Word processing software was generally about making short documents.
Typesetting software was generally about making books.
Each job had its own specialisations, DTP software didn't do
pagination but could fit text to curves, WP software didn't grok chapters
or facing pages but did do mailmerge, ...
These days word processors are supposed to do it all AFAICT.
Personally if it looks like DTP I use dia or xfig[1], otherwise
troff or LaTeX but my needs are simple.
[1] If it needs more sophistication than that it needs someone better at it
than me.
--
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/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365350 is a reply to message #365342] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 08:04 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:43:52 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:16:45 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Also the "personal computer" boom started in the 80s.
>
> Mid '70s.
>
> IBM joined in after the market had been established.
In 1980 personal computer sales were around a million units a year. In
1990 they were around 20 million units a year and most of it IBM and
clones.
The _boom_ happened in the '80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365352 is a reply to message #365334] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 09:28 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> writes:
> On 03/18/2018 05:17 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-03-18, Richard Thiebaud <thiebauddick2@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.ivie@gmail.com <roger.ivie@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....
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365354 is a reply to message #365313] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 10:36 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:54:16 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2018 01:02:49 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:56:34 +0000, danny burstein wrote:
>>
>>> In <87d1024d2r.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Andreas Kohlbach
>>> <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I seem to recall some newer fully formed character printers could do
>>>> bold by movie the paper just a little but and print the same character
>>>> "almost" over itself again. Didn't some matrix printers employed this
>>>> method too to print bold if their character set wasn't made up for this?
>>>
>>> Available in the Decwriter II.
>>>
>>> We used one with a TRS-80, and I still remember some of the codes:
>>>
>>> "Escape", aka chr$(27), then "B" chr$(66) for Bold...
>>>
>>> other options included underscore, shrunken text,
>>> and I think italics, too.
>
> But that is system depended. Early word processors like Wordstar had
> shortcuts. For example Ctrl-B to get the next characters in bold. And a
> library for common printers of the day that for example Ctrl-B would we
> translated with chr$(27) for your TRS-80 printer. If your printer was not
> in the library would could "write" one yourself if you were skilled and
> know the codes of your printer.
>
>> Not to mention the 'Near Letter Quality' dot matrix printers. I bought a
>> Canon PW1080A printer in 1984 that had that. 9 pins (I think). The
>> printer did a line using the 9 pins, then reversed the carriage and moved
>> the paper up by a fractional amount. It then printed back the other way,
>> filling in the gaps between the dots. There was a separate bold function.
>
> At school around 1982 we got these strange smelling (almost like alcohol)
> copies handed out by the teacher. One day a rich kid asked to have his
> essay get copied. He printed the original on NLQ. While most students
> didn't care or noticed I was wowed. Am sure he did this by intention only to
> brag with it for the nerds in class noticing it. :-)
The earliest WP I used was on an Apple ][+ at junior college. I was
glad to find one, as before I had used a mechanical typewriter. I did
write out my essay, or homework, long hand before typing. But I
sometimes looked and then typed in the wrong paragraph.
Doing that on a computer, I could just move the paragraph to the
correct location on the page, instead of having to retype the entire
page.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365356 is a reply to message #365312] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 11:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2018-03-18 21:43, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:16:45 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-03-17 22:13, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Cost.
>>
>> You needed a good printer plus a computer, so not cheap at that time.
>> And also you needed to train the typist on using a computer and the
>> software.
>
> Of course before the 80s word processors would only exist in large
> enterprises. They had one mainframe and a few printers, while the typists
> would sit on dumb and relatively cheap terminals. Should not take long to
> train a typist for the new technology.
>
> The advantages of editing on a CRT over a "direct printout" like with
> typewriters should have been clear since the 60s already.
Yes, obvious to many; but I knew typists than even on the mid nineties
balked at using a computer.
What happened instead, I think, is that companies stopped hiring typists
and had normal people typing their own letters.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365357 is a reply to message #365350] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 11:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2018-03-19 13:04, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:43:52 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:16:45 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Also the "personal computer" boom started in the 80s.
>>
>> Mid '70s.
>>
>> IBM joined in after the market had been established.
>
> In 1980 personal computer sales were around a million units a year. In
> 1990 they were around 20 million units a year and most of it IBM and
> clones.
>
> The _boom_ happened in the '80s.
Maybe on some countries started mid 70s? On mine it was rather mid 80s.
Not with IBMs, but clones, at half price or less.
Me, I count the PC as starting with the IBM. Nothing earlier was used
significantly.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365358 is a reply to message #365199] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 11:09 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2018-03-18 19:24, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 3/18/2018 8:51 AM, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>
>> At a PPOE the secretaries had to use PC's with DisplayWrite (I,II, 3, 4 )
>> It was 'oribble to a simple programmer like me, used to a program editor.
>> Text saved in EBCDIC. The only feature that appealed was "cursor-draw".
>>
> The DisplayWriter was a fine WP station. It had a Selectric-quality
> keyboard, a good (albeit monochrome and character) display, and could
> keep up with the fastest typist. There obviously wasn't any
> "cursor-draw", since there was no mouse, but a typist doesn't need that
> anyhow. The software was solid, saving was pretty much automatic, and I
> don't think I ever saw a D'wr crash.
>
> DisplayWrite was their attempt to recreate that experience for a PC. It
> was pretty klunky, and having what was usually a crappy keyboard and a
> monochrome monitor (CGA for WP would rot your eyeballs out) that
> couldn't handle the symbol characters didn't help. IBM obviously didn't
> know what to do when they no longer had control over the hardware.
> WordPerfect did things much better (aside from the tendency to assign
> functions to F, shift-F, ^F, and alt-F keys in what seemed to be random
> order).
WordStar on the other hand was designed for touch typists. But they
undid that when they designed new versions with different keys (wordstar
2000?)
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365359 is a reply to message #365357] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 11:31 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The IBM PC was from 1981; before it, the Apple ][, CP/M systems, and 8-bit
home computers like the Commodore 64, the Atari 400, and the Radio Shack
TRS-80 were popular. The microcomputer era, at least in
wealthy North America, started even earlier, around 1977 with the Altair 8800.
There were even earlier microprocessor-based computers, like
the 8008-based Mark-8, but they received only very limited attention.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365360 is a reply to message #365357] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 11:32 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-19, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-03-19 13:04, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> In 1980 personal computer sales were around a million units a year. In
>> 1990 they were around 20 million units a year and most of it IBM and
>> clones.
>>
>> The _boom_ happened in the '80s.
>
> Maybe on some countries started mid 70s? On mine it was rather mid 80s.
> Not with IBMs, but clones, at half price or less.
>
> Me, I count the PC as starting with the IBM. Nothing earlier was used
> significantly.
>
The Amiga, i have always been available for Local groups, no matter
how crazy, to do a bit of Dtp. The Amiga could do it.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365362 is a reply to message #365328] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 11:37 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-03-18, Bob Eager <news0006@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 <ank@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!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365363 is a reply to message #365359] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 12:11 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> The IBM PC was from 1981; before it, the Apple ][, CP/M systems, and 8-bit
> home computers like the Commodore 64, the Atari 400, and the Radio Shack
> TRS-80 were popular. The microcomputer era, at least in
> wealthy North America, started even earlier, around 1977 with the Altair 8800.
>
> There were even earlier microprocessor-based computers, like
> the 8008-based Mark-8, but they received only very limited attention.
I bought wp software for my Amiga A3000, but while it made nice
documents. Its printing speed was awful. I had a 24-pin dot matrix
printer and a letter size page could take over 5 minutes to print. It
was only text.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365364 is a reply to message #365359] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 12:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer
On 19/03/2018 15:31, Quadibloc wrote:
> The IBM PC was from 1981; before it, the Apple ][, CP/M systems, and 8-bit
> home computers like the Commodore 64, the Atari 400, and the Radio Shack
> TRS-80 were popular. The microcomputer era, at least in
> wealthy North America, started even earlier, around 1977 with the Altair 8800.
>
> There were even earlier microprocessor-based computers, like
> the 8008-based Mark-8, but they received only very limited attention.
>
The RAIR Black box< for which amazing multi-user calims were made for
an ISTR, single 8085?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365367 is a reply to message #365359] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 13:54 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> The IBM PC was from 1981; before it, the Apple ][, CP/M systems, and 8-bit
> home computers like the Commodore 64, the Atari 400, and the Radio Shack
> TRS-80 were popular. The microcomputer era, at least in
> wealthy North America, started even earlier, around 1977 with the Altair 8800.
>
> There were even earlier microprocessor-based computers, like
> the 8008-based Mark-8, but they received only very limited attention.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#94 Old word processors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2018b.html#100 Old word processors
old posts with article with on market share graphs,
75-80, 80-84, 84-87
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007m.html#63 The Development of the Vital IBM PC in Spite of the Corporate Culture of IBM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#76 Why Didn't Digital Catch the Wave?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#5 What if the computers went back to the '70s too?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#68 The Rise and Fall of Commodore
Total share: 30 years of personal computer market share figures
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars
and has graph of personal computer sales 1975-1980
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/3
and graph from 1980 to 1984 ... with the only serious competitor to PC
in number of sales was commodore 64
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/4
and then from 1984 to 1987 the ibm pc (and clones) starting to
completely swamp
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/5
.....
then 87-90
https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/6/
90-94
https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/7/
94-2001
https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/8/
2001-2004
https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/9/
the 75-80 graph
https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/3/
shows trs80 starting 75 and dominates through 1980.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365368 is a reply to message #365350] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 14:24 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:04:14 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:43:52 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:16:45 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Also the "personal computer" boom started in the 80s.
>>
>> Mid '70s.
>>
>> IBM joined in after the market had been established.
>
> In 1980 personal computer sales were around a million units a year. In
> 1990 they were around 20 million units a year and most of it IBM and
> clones.
>
> The _boom_ happened in the '80s.
_A_ boom happened in the '80s.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365371 is a reply to message #365199] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 14:35 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:46:46 -0500
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> WordPerfect was very popular with
> business in the US, in part due to their exceptionally good telephone
> support and aftermarket add-ons for the medical and legal professions.
> The F-key orientaton slowed me down, but I never used it for
> production typing.
Wordperfect (5.1 anyway) was pretty good provided the keyboard had
function keys to the left in a block, it was a disaster with function keys
in a row over the top.
--
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/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365372 is a reply to message #365199] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 15:41 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/19/2018 12:46 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 3/19/2018 10:09 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> WordStar on the other hand was designed for touch typists. But they
>> undid that when they designed new versions with different keys (wordstar
>> 2000?)
>>
> I personally thought WordStar 4 was the acme of perfection for PCs,
> though the Displaywriter was better. WordPerfect was very popular with
> business in the US, in part due to their exceptionally good telephone
> support and aftermarket add-ons for the medical and legal professions.
> The F-key orientaton slowed me down, but I never used it for production
> typing. In the Windows era all of them deteriorated, and required taking
> your hand off the keyboard to (which slows touch typists down a lot, and
> occasionally resulted in entire paragraphs of gibberish due to their
> hand ending up one key off of where it should be) to use the mouse. I
> think that the people who marketed and wrote software were hunt-and-peck
> typists, and probably correctly assumed that the people who purchased
> the software were as well. The people who had to use it, not so much,
> back then.
>
Once there was a "rumor" that the company that owned WordPerfect...
actually *lost* the source code for it!!! The whole source code for
the program had to bw re-written.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365373 is a reply to message #365359] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 15:43 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/19/2018 10:31 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> The IBM PC was from 1981; before it, the Apple ][, CP/M systems, and 8-bit
> home computers like the Commodore 64, the Atari 400, and the Radio Shack
> TRS-80 were popular. The microcomputer era, at least in
> wealthy North America, started even earlier, around 1977 with the Altair 8800.
>
The Altair 8800 dates from late 1974 or early 1975...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Altair 8800 [was Re: Old word processors] [message #365374 is a reply to message #365373] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 16:27 |
Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> On 3/19/2018 10:31 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> The IBM PC was from 1981; before it, the Apple ][, CP/M systems, and 8-bit
>> home computers like the Commodore 64, the Atari 400, and the Radio Shack
>> TRS-80 were popular. The microcomputer era, at least in wealthy North
>> America, started even earlier, around 1977 with the Altair 8800.
> The Altair 8800 dates from late 1974 or early 1975...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800
Cover of the January 1975 _Popular Electronics_, which landed in my mailbox
mid-December 1974. My current place of employment is a direct result of the
article.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Old word processors [message #365376 is a reply to message #365329] |
Mon, 19 March 2018 17:47 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:51:23 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:15:01 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@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/
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
