Jim Fox was a key programmer for WordStar. He never got much credit. I guess because he was just an employee. Jim thought, and talked about WordStar up until his death a few years ago on the streets of San Rafael. I’m posting this because he would want it. Jim was so proud of his contributions to WordStar, and told anyone who was within speaking distance. Jim was pretty happy guy, but couldn’t find work, and wasn’t n…
WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
81–90 of 96 posts
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> WordPerfect. (Heck, WordPerfect even made lawyers have an opinion of their own) IIRC, WordPerfect is only still a thing because Word still does not do footnotes the way lawyers like (and courts require).
Oh, french court room I helped last summer does indeed use WordPerfect 12 .. it might very well be due to this sort of arguments.
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> WordPerfect. (Heck, WordPerfect even made lawyers have an opinion of their own) IIRC, WordPerfect is only still a thing because Word still does not do footnotes the way lawyers like (and courts require).
It's much more than footnotes. Courts have a lot of very picky formatting requirements, plus lawyers care a lot about presentation. Reveal codes is the thing about WordPerfect that lawyers love the most, because it gives you fine grained control over that stuff on a character/word level without having to pray to the Word Styles god.
Someone said once, a legal contract is a program that you run on a judge. So the formatting is as important as it is in a whitespace-sensitive language like Python.
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, french court room I helped last summer does indeed use WordPerfect 12 .. it might very well be due to this sort of arguments.
or the lack of public funding to modernize justice...
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your rambling is very much appreciated. I'm terribly sorry to hear about Jim Fox, it is often those who are the real knowledge behind development that get lost or left behind for a multitude of reasons, which, more often than not, are problems or a fallout with financial backers, entrepreneurs or it's the work of ruthless competitors. Unfortunately, this happens not only in programming and IT but in every endeavor im…
To your list of misfits contributing greatly whilst treated poorly, I'd add Ian Murdoch.
When one takes a moment to look one finds that there are far too many brilliant minds that fall into this misfit category. Often they are their own worst enemy and the world doesn't respond kindly to the fact.
Another worth noting is Oliver Heaviside. He's almost forgotten these days and much of the fact was of his own making (his name really should be more prominent). Yet he reformulated Maxwell's equations into the four that we know and use today; he gave us coaxial cable, figured out impedance matching on telephony lines, essentially invented vector calculus (along with Josiah Willard Gibbs who did so independently on the US side of the Atlantic), and much, much more. Essentially, Heaviside put the finishing touches on mathematics and classical electromagnetic theory just in time and ready for the quantum mob to take over.
That said, he had little idea how to handle the scientific establishment and he was always the outsider. It's worth taking a moment to read his Wiki bio:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
Another tragic case is this damn, damn stupid boy (he was hardly more than one and clearly acted like one):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89variste_Galois
Galois was dead at the age of just 20 through his own utter stupidity. To have such a great mind to leave the planet at this age is almost incalculable - in fact, he died 15 years younger than did Mozart (and we continually lament his death at such a young age).
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think you're right, it rings bell (albeit faint). Did the Wang wordprocessor use it too? (I used a Wang WP a few times long ago but I've no idea now. In fact the Wang was the very first WP I used — except for KP26/29 card punches with an IBM-360.) :-)
The Wang WP didn't use the Wordstar diamond. It used function keys heavily, copied later (or ported) by a program called Multimate to the IBM PC.
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#87I don't have a deep personal affectation for WordStar, although I do appreciate it's keyboard layout, but what I do miss is writers having opinions about these things. These days it seems that it's mostly "whatever version of Word that came with my Laptop/Times New Roman 12". We programmers still have our "holy wars" (although I see a decrease of passion here, too, with safe choices like VSC or IntelliJ being more an…
> WordPerfect. (Heck, WordPerfect even made lawyers have an opinion of their own) IIRC, WordPerfect is only still a thing because Word still does not do footnotes the way lawyers like (and courts require).
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#88Jim Fox was a key programmer for WordStar. He never got much credit. I guess because he was just an employee. Jim thought, and talked about WordStar up until his death a few years ago on the streets of San Rafael. I’m posting this because he would want it. Jim was so proud of his contributions to WordStar, and told anyone who was within speaking distance. Jim was pretty happy guy, but couldn’t find work, and wasn’t n…
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#89This is where the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' ideology with lead you.
What do you mean?
It's a very old, very primitive program. It predates cursor keys, printers that could use proportional fonts and a lot of other things we take for granted today. Its handling for things like printer drivers was astonishingly primitive.
For decades, this was enough: it was the best-known word processor in the world. So the company got complacent and did not improve it much.
Then WordPerfect came along, which had superb printer and font handling, and was much richer in a lot of ways. WordStar dithered while WordPerfect took over: there were several new, incompatible WordStar apps, and if you had to learn a new UI anyway, why not switch to the leading competitor?
Then the market switched to Windows and largely rendered WordPerfect irrelevant, too.
Re: WordStar: A Writer's Word Processor (1996)
#90If that's too long there are several short ones, but they omit a lot of important detail.
E.g. https://history-computer.com/wordstar-complete-history-of-wo...
or
http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/timelines/inventors/ht...
or in a little more depth: http://www.computernostalgia.net/articles/wordstar.htm