George RR Martin: 'Why I still use DOS'

[fjtorres]

I wonder if he's a recovering minesweeper adict.

[DiapDealer]

I picture him as more of a Commander Keen kinda guy.

[FatDog]

An Artist gets used to his tools and is loath to change - I can respect this.

If an author was writing techno-thrillers or SciFi and was not using modern tools, this would be more controversial.

"Method Acting" has an actor immerse himself in a role even outside the stage. If GRRM was writing his novels with a quill on parchment by candlelight to help remind himself of the pre-industrial world his characters live in, it might make me respect his commitment. Perhaps using outdated tech is a variation of this.

Authors are ... strange. They build worlds inside their heads. Since this is their job - they may not want to pay too much attention to the real world around them for fear that outside social, political or technical concepts would creep in.

Would anybody enjoy some of the banquet meals in George's books if it included references to Kale or gluten-free recipes?

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Yep. And WordStar is a great word processor -- although I liked WordStar 5.5 instead of 4.0. I did more writing with WordStar than I've ever done since. It was not just the screen, it was the keystrokes (which are still hard-wired into my fingers). It kept your fingers on the Home Keys, instead of having to search for the Function Keys, etc. I still run WordStar (now 7) in DosBox under Linux sometimes -- but I don't write much anymore.

I also use the Joe variant -- Jstar for most of my editing in Linux.

Martin is not alone in using WordStar in the SF writing world -- Robert J. Sawyer and several others also use WordStar.

http://www.sfwriter.com/wordstar.htm

Thanks for posting the article. I found it a very interesting read and it backed up my own feelings about the structure of Wordstar's commands. Related to this, another thing that was great about Wordstar were the help levels. You could adjust them to appear when you need it, and not when you don't. I usually worked at Help Level 2 (no primary menus, but the secondary menus would appear if you waited too long to complete the command).

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by theducks

Wordstar DOS did not use rich text, it used Markup (those dot codes in the source
(I still have my WS5.5 5.25" floppies and manuals, just no surviving drives/equipment )

If I remember correctly, in addition to the dot commands (such as ".pa" for a page break), Wordstar used some of the high-bit ASCII characters (those above ASCII 127 such as the double exclamation point) for it's markup. It bore a similarity to HTML except there was no "off" command. As an example, you inserted a code for bold (^b) and everything was bold from that point on until it encounter another bold code.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by FatDog

An Artist gets used to his tools and is loath to change - I can respect this.

If an author was writing techno-thrillers or SciFi and was not using modern tools, this would be more controversial.

I can't buy that. First, several SF writers do (or did) use WordStar. Second, writers rely on research, not on being the characters they're writing about. It's like saying a writer would have to be an addict to write about an addict. Mel Gibson (who, despite his problems, was (is) a pretty decent actor) was asked about one of the "method actors" who had to lose weight or live on the street to "get into his part." His response, "hasn't he ever heard of acting?"

Again, whatever works, I guess. But I don't think any word processor gets words down any faster or slower than WordStar -- so it really doesn't matter which is more "modern."

[Iskariot]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

What's silly about having a comfortable workflow, free of distractions which is robust and inexpensive to maintain / duplicate?

Nothing wrong with that at all.
It´s just that the objections he utters concerning modern word processors are obviously based on ignorance.
But he is free to write his books any which way he likes.
He likes to stick with what he knows, which is fine by me. It is just a little bit comical reading the nonsensical justification for it.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

Does Scrivener have an option to support Wordstar key commands? If it does, I'm interested.

If not, what extant software does? Other candidates include:

http://joe-editor.sourceforge.net/
http://www.editpadpro.com/manual/pre...dwordstar.html

What's so amazing about Wordstar keyboard shortcuts that someone will run DOS to use? Please, tell me. If it's that good, I might try it myself.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by Rizla

What's so amazing about Wordstar keyboard shortcuts that someone will run DOS to use? Please, tell me. If it's that good, I might try it myself.

Wordstar's command structure is designed with touch typists in mind. All of the commands can be accessed without having to take your hands off of the keyboard. With practice you eventually get to the point where you can just think of doing something and your fingers will move to hit the appropriate keys. Other word processors of the time required you to use the Function Keys, menus, and/or the mouse to access the commands (although some did provide keyboard shortcuts as an alternative), forcing you to take your hands off of the keyboard.

Wordstar's command structure made sense once you got into the program. As an example, Control-K (for blocK) allows you to access commands that deal with moving text in any way, while Control-P (for Print) allowed you to access commands that affect how the text will print on paper (such as Control P-B, which inserted a Bold code into the document).

In addition, Wordstar had an excellent help system that allowed you to see the available commands right on the screen rather than having to refer to the instruction manual. At Help Level 3 all of available commands were displayed on screen at all times, when you select a command another list of available command appears. I usually used it at Help Level 2 which displayed the submenus, but not the main menu. Also, the menus wouldn't appear if I hit the commands fast enough.

Many Wordstar formatting commands could be typed directly into the document rather than having to enter a command or use a menu. As an example, for a page break you just entered ".pa" at the beginning of the line and hit return.

While it wasn't a WYSIWYG word processor, as you used Wordstar you got a feel for what the final document would look like even without a page preview function. This is because all of the formatting codes were visible in the document itself (example: "^b" in the document showed where bold text would begin and end).

Finally, there are a few functions in Wordstar that I don't think I've seen in any other word processor. One is on-the-fly mail merge, where you can design a document so that when you print the document it will first ask you a series of questions and then automatically insert your answers into the document and print it.

[DiapDealer]

So which of those would be the most handy for novel-writers?

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So which of those would be the most handy for novel-writers?

Probably the ability to:

- Access the commands without having to take your hands off the keyboard.

- Actually see the format codes within the document itself.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

Probably the ability to:

- Access the commands without having to take your hands off the keyboard.

- Actually see the format codes within the document itself.

Yep, what I especially liked about WordStar was the first in your list -- keeping your fingers on the home keys at all times. When DOS WordStar and WordPerfect were the big sellers, I couldn't see how anyone could get used to using Function Keys. (Not that I'm running it down -- it's just that I (personally) was used to doing everything without them.)

[DiapDealer]

When did the ctrl key become part of touch-typing?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

When did the ctrl key become part of touch-typing?

Circa 1977 and the early word processors.
People used to complain about the layout of the enhanced 101-key that is now the PC standard because it moved ctrl from above the left shift to below, which meant a bigger stretch for their left pinky.
We had to buy a programable layout keyboard for the secretary. It took her years to switch over. Windows and the need to take the hands off the keyboard for the mouse did the trick. That and the corporate switch from Word Perfect to MS Office.

Lots of people still like it above.

Edit: Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control...ion_of_the_key

[DiapDealer]

Just curious. I'm not touch-typist myself.

But I still have to wonder if the whole "WordStar keyboard commands were the bomb" thing isn't mostly due to the fact that it's what you (rhet) learned first and it worked, and you're loathe to learn something new. You know ... nostalgia.

There's certainly nothing wrong with not wanting to learn anything new, but I've yet to really hear anything that doesn't have an equivalent in modern word-processing software (while staying completely away from function keys and the mouse). There's standard ctrl editing codes, and alt-key menu shortcuts that today's touch-typists can manipulate just as efficiently (after learning them, of course) I think. Not to mention the ability to SEE the exact results of your efforts on the screen. *shrug*