George RR Martin: 'Why I still use DOS'

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So why is this any skin off anyone else's nose? What difference does it make? Or do you think everyone has to do everything the same way? WordStar is (mostly was) a great word processor -- some people still love it. And DosBox is really not that difficult to set up.

It's no skin off anybody's nose, and it doesn't make one bit of difference what you use ... provided, of course, that you don't go on national television and claim exclusive, practical and functional advantages (that don't hold up to scrutiny) for doing so.

The mistake was not in proclaiming a love of Wordstar 4.0, but rather in wasting time trying to justify that love with anything other than "because I like it."

Why do you care if people don't respect WordStar?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Obviously, if people are using old applications they've found a way to make them work, haven't they? (I use dBase for DOS 5.0 and WordStar 7.0 in DosBox -- both a bit over 20 years old, not 30, but still ...) So why is this any skin off anyone else's nose? What difference does it make? Or do you think everyone has to do everything the same way? WordStar is (mostly was) a great word processor -- some people still love it. And DosBox is really not that difficult to set up.

So given the context of the remarks I was responding to I have to ask - what skin off your nose is it if kacir wants to use Vim or XEmacs with Latex?

Because otherwise I agree with you - to each their own.

[sirmaru]

The government agency I used to work for until retirement still uses Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS. All new hires are sent to a 30 day training course to learn how to use it and to write macros in it.

They still don't trust Windows or the internet for security reasons. That has made them 100% immune from hackers, viruses, worms and key loggers.

[Solitaire1]

rcentros wrote the following as part of a post:

Originally Posted by rcentros

The reason I still like WordStar (at least remember it fondly) is because it was fast and efficient, both in the way you formatted with it and in the way you navigated in it. Where the newer WYSIWIG word processors excel is in formatting your documents -- but that also can get in the way of writing. You start fretting about the way your writing looks, rather than worrying about getting the words down. Presentation can become more important than the substance.

I strongly agree about the temptation to "fiddle with formatting" as a disadvantage of WYSIWIG word processing. That's the reason that I've purposely limited my formatting options when I do my writing (for example, when I send e-mails I only send plain text so that I concentrate what I'm writing rather than what it looks like). When formatting my documents I take a little time to decide what works for me and then I stick with it unless there's a good reason to change.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Really? Do you actually use any 30 year old software? If you do then you've either managed to install it on modern hardware - which can be a challenge - or have kept old hardware going, or have had to install an emulator. In addition you'll probably have to be very careful to keep an installable copy of the media around, which actually means not the original media itself unless you're willing to rely on old floppy drives. And of course you have to live with any bugs that may exist, including ones that were not relevant at the time but are exposed by fast multitasking multi-cpu systems.

vi and emacs, both of which predate wordstar by several years, are still in use by many people. They may not come pre-installed so much any more, but they are trivial to install on any decent OS.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

vi and emacs, both of which predate wordstar by several years, are still in use by many people. They may not come pre-installed so much any more, but they are trivial to install on any decent OS.

I totally agree. The first thing I install in my computer is gvim. I don't use Windows editor, or notepad, or notepad+. And, for formatted tex, I still miss FrameMaker.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

vi and emacs, both of which predate wordstar by several years, are still in use by many people.

And I'm one of them. I use Vim every day in my job coding on software which was first released in the 80s - so I know all about using software with a long lineage.

Anyway the point is not that vi & emacs pre-date Wordstar it's that they have outlived it.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

rcentros wrote the following as part of a post:



I strongly agree about the temptation to "fiddle with formatting" as a disadvantage of WYSIWIG word processing. That's the reason that I've purposely limited my formatting options when I do my writing (for example, when I send e-mails I only send plain text so that I concentrate what I'm writing rather than what it looks like). When formatting my documents I take a little time to decide what works for me and then I stick with it unless there's a good reason to change.

Oh, for heaven's sake. "Fiddle with formatting?" Man, if someone is that easily distracted, they probably haven't got the skills of concentration required to write something in the first place. And, as mentioned often in this line of discussion, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of options for people to use what is relatively plain text. They can write in NoteTab, NotePad, WordPad, RTF, etc. They can write in WORD, and save it as RTF. They could write in Evernote, if it came down to it (or good ol' XYWriter).

What I suspect is far, far more distraction-inducing is the ability of all those over-hyped "writer's programs" (LSB XE, Scrivener, et al) and their ability to create galleries, surf the net, links to "inspirational material" on websites, etc. Not being connected to the Net would probably save more wasted hours for an author than worrying about formatting. I must say, if the examples we get in my shop are any indication, worrying about formatting is absolutely, positively the LAST thing that a huge number of writers worry about. What I do see--a lot--are links from words or phrases, chapters, whatever, to myriad websites. A high percentage of those links are directly to pictures, not research material (although we do get that).

{shrug}. As Diap said, to each their own, but I have to agree with him that standing up in the middle of a crowded Internet and yelling about how you still use Wordstar is kinda...well, pitiable. Why even mention it in the first damned place? You're enormously successful, your book(s) is/are runaway hits, you have a huge TV show...man. Does anyone here care how Rowling wrote the first HP? Or how Frank Herbert typed Dune? I don't. I'm leaning toward the idea that this is somehow a preemptive strike on "why my next book is late." I'm not following the books, myself, but I understand that the fans are worried that he'll die before he finishes the series.

Hitch

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by latepaul

So given the context of the remarks I was responding to I have to ask - what skin off your nose is it if kacir wants to use Vim or XEmacs with Latex?

Because otherwise I agree with you - to each their own.

I think I need to apologize. I thought you were being sarcastic. Sorry.

Personally I like joe (and its jstar variant) as my text editor in Linux. But I know I'm in the minority there.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Oh, for heaven's sake. "Fiddle with formatting?" Man, if someone is that easily distracted, they probably haven't got the skills of concentration required to write something in the first place.

Okay. I'll pass your message on to the professional writers (mentioned in an earlier post). I guess they don't know what they're talking about.

BTW, have you ever used WordStar or a non-WYSIWIG word processor of any brand? Just curious.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I think I need to apologize. I thought you were being sarcastic. Sorry.

Thanks I appreciate that, no need really though. I didn't take it personally - just a bit of robust debate

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Okay. I'll pass your message on to the professional writers (mentioned in an earlier post). I guess they don't know what they're talking about.

BTW, have you ever used WordStar or a non-WYSIWIG word processor of any brand? Just curious.

Yes. I started out on computers in the 80-column punch-card era, then tapes. As I thought I'd mentioned in this thread--perhaps it was another--we built our first "desktop PC," which was an 8086 (and we've built every computer I've used since then). I used (math) programs like Visi-calc, and then of course, Lotus 1-2-3. Hell, Excel didn't EXIST until '85. Before that, my first brush with word-processing, after the Selectrics, was the IBM OS/6.

I honestly don't remember how many DOS-based, non-WYSIWYG "word processing" programs I used from '73-forward, (originally on mini-computers, then desktops), nor most of their names, but I bloody well do remember when Wordperfect came along, which, in my opinion, was the best of the lot, and "should have" won the WP wars, but didn't. (Nor do I remember all the spreadsheet/math programs, either. Sorry, but I don't.) I vaguely recall Electric Pencil; Wordstar for the Epson was, I think, next up. I did use WordStar, BTW...it was okay, but it certainly wasn't Wordperfect, which was far, far superior to it, IMHO.

I used them all, pretty much, over the years. Which answers what question of yours, exactly?

I find that people who get stuck "futzing around with the formatting" are those that haven't bothered to really learn whichever program it is that they are using. We see this constantly in Word, as well as Pages--we get books that are memoirs, or what-have-you, with a gazillion images, charts, diagrams inserted in about 30 different ways, because the person never bothered to take a short tutorial in how to do it correctly. Ditto captions. Ditto ANY type of styling AT ALL.

Considering I still see--regularly--people who get to the end of the line and hit "enter," on every single line, my level of "understanding" about people who have to "futz around with the formatting" is pretty thorough. They never bothered to learn the programs they are using, so, yes, they struggle with worrying about how it looks, particularly if the look is relevant to the content (like blockquotes, other indented material, and the like). This is particularly true because most people never understand that "formatting" is about STRUCTURE, far more importantly than "what it looks like."

Anyone who wants to can write in markdown, or use Textile, or use an HTML editor/text editor with tags of some kind to indicate what's what. They choose not to. Just as they choose whether to learn the tool they are using, or not. If someone's "creative genius" requires that they not get distracted by formatting, whatever. For all I know, someone needs to have green jelly beans in a jar next to their keyboard to ensure that their "creative processes" work correctly. That doesn't mean that I need to know about the green jelly beans, nor use that process myself, nor, for that matter, do I CARE about them and their green jelly beans.

Actually, the whole discussion is starting to feel like a water-cooler conversation after an episode of some peeping-Tom reality TV show. I'll say it again: don't care what Martin, or any other author, does, uses, doesn't use. Don't care if someone wants to entertain themselves by "sticking with" a DOS-based program. {shrug}. It's no skin off my nose. If people don't want to change, that's their business. {shrug}. Given Martin's age, good for him that he knows how to use a computer at all, but even my 95-y.o. FIL can bang along quite merrily on an upgraded, up-to-date computer with modern programs.

Hitch

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Actually, the whole discussion is starting to feel like a water-cooler conversation after an episode of some peeping-Tom reality TV show. I'll say it again: don't care what Martin, or any other author, does, uses, doesn't use.

I'm happy to leave it at that. Fortunately, not everyone is the same and some people (me included) worry about formatting all the time when typing into WYSIWYG word processors. That is why I prefer WordStar for serious writing. That and the keyboard commands ... and the fact that a blue screen with white letters is easier on the eyes. (And yes, I've tried changing the background colors of WYSIWYG word processors -- it's not the same.)

To each their own.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm happy to leave it at that. Fortunately, not everyone is the same and some people (me included) worry about formatting all the time when typing into WYSIWYG word processors. That is why I prefer WordStar for serious writing. That and the keyboard commands ... and the fact that a blue screen with white letters is easier on the eyes. (And yes, I've tried changing the background colors of WYSIWYG word processors -- it's not the same.)

To each their own.

I've done the color-changing too (in WordPerfect I set up a macro that would instantly change the colors to what I prefer and then change them back to the default for everyone else), and have found that black text on an orange background is very easy on the eyes.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I must be the last human on planet MR that remembers that you can run almost everything in Word from the keyboard. Seriously, just because people adopted using the mouse doesn't mean that it's the House of Mouse. It just means, some people like typing over mousing, and vice-versa.

You sure they didn't break the keyboard shortcuts with the change to the new UI back in '07 or so? I remember ctrl-P not giving me a print dialog the last time I used it, although that was admittedly many years ago.

Either way, the OP makes me feel a lot better about writing in a text editor instead of a "modern" word processor.