[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

From: James Freer
Subject: Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 20:12:01 +0100

On 30/05/2014, Emanuel Berg <> wrote:
> James Freer <> writes:
>> Ws keybindings were the most efficient requiring less
>> movement across the keyboard.
> Yeah, but that's what I always say about the Emacs
> bindings. They are close and short, except a few, which
> I have redefined :)

You could well be right - I'm just experimenting with emacs. Using WS
keys could well conflict with others... I have read this but yet to
test it for myself. I noticed how having installed Org that certain
menu bars 'grey out' so I wonder what conflicts there are to show
their face.

>> DOS Word is popular too with writers it seems
>> e.g. George Martin.
> A friend sent me this interview with GRRM:
> - I have two computers, one for email, taxes, surfing,
> etc. And I have a writing computer, a DOS-machine, not
> connected to the internet.
> - A DOS machine?
> - Yeah, remember DOS?
> - I'm curious to why you would stick with this old
> program?
> - I use WordStar 4.0 (DOS) I like it, it does
> everything I want a word processing program to do, and
> it doesn't do anything else. I don't want any help, you
> know, I hate some of these modern systems where you
> type a lower case letter and it becomes capital. I
> don't want it capital, If I wanted it capital, I would
> have typed it capital, I know how to work the shift
> key! I hate spell check, especially since I write about
> the realm of 'Orbitor'.

LOL - I quoted incorrectly... you're right he uses Wordstar not Word.
I had read that and I was quoting from memory.

> That's absolutely right but I suspect that has to do
> with the color scheme (bright-on-dark), much less
> distractions and movements (none, unless you type), and
> no mouse use where you have to squeeze your eyes and
> "aim", move you hand back and forth (look down to
> "reset"), and such things.
>> another reason for me considering emacs, the console
>> version will fit in with my console email client.
> Yeah, I use Gnus, the other guy use RMAIL, that's very
> common and a huge advantage.

I tried setting up Gnus and abandoned it with the intention of trying
again. Mh is the other one. Thing is I like to use an email client to
read (in my case) the imap server rather than downloading all the
headers... remote use I believe it's called. Use Alpine and like it...
tried Mutt but took too long to set up (for me anyway!). Gnus canbe
set up the same way and I'll give it another go sometime.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]