Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "hobbyists" (was: From Windows/wordperfect to Macbook Pro)

Expand Messages
  • John Rethorst
    ... Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their antique value, you re clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you subscribe to the
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "George B. Richardson" <gbr@...> wrote:

      > By the way, Joe, I don't know that folks who simply prefer WP to
      > other word processing programs would appreciate being characterized
      > as "hobbyists".

      Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
      antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
      subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
      sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
      simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.

      If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
      hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
      than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
      not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.

      Newer ain't always better. I switched from MS Word to WP because
      it was the best writing tool I could find. I still think so.

      John R.
    • Rick Albright
      I know I m drifting off-topic a bit here, but can t resist making a few connections. 1) Recent news stories report a steady increase in sales of vinyl LPs and
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 27, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I know I'm drifting off-topic a bit here, but can't resist making a
        few connections. 1) Recent news stories report a steady increase in
        sales of vinyl LPs and turntables over the past few years. 2) There's
        one place where the term "tube amp" is not an anachronism: most
        electric guitarists still prefer the sound of tube amps, which
        continue to be made. (In fact the whole world of vintage guitars
        seems to be in opposition to our culture's desire for the latest and
        greatest, with the 1950s seen as the Golden Age). 3) I still
        regularly use my 1976 Nikon F2 and 1969 FTN, because I prefer their
        picture quality, though I do make a concession to modernity by
        getting photo CDs from Kodak--and I'm laboriously scanning and color
        correcting thousands of fading slides to try to preserve them. I
        don't consider myself a Luddite.

        BTW, closer to the topic at hand: I'm finishing up a book manuscript
        in WordPerfect. (It's an academic book.) Much as I love the program,
        I had been giving serious thought to doing future academic writing in
        Word, just because it seems so inevitable and universal; but all the
        previous drafts of this book were in WordPerfect, so I figured I may
        as well continue for the time being. My attitude was, okay, I'll do
        this one in WordPerfect, and then think about changing over. Now I'm
        less sure. Part of it is the comfort level; I'm more familiar with
        the WP way of doing things, and, yes, I can usually do it in Word,
        but it takes me longer and seems harder to do. And WP's amazingly
        powerful macro language, and John Rethorst's sets of macros, seem
        unparalleled. As one example, I was able to do some things that gave
        me a level of control over the formatting of my endnotes that just
        didn't seem possible (or easy) In Word. I don't want to rekindle that
        old Word vs. WordPerfect debate here. (And no doubt, Word experts
        would say that I could do everything I needed to in Word.) I'm just
        bringing this up to say that working so intensely with WP again has
        made me realize anew just how unique it is. And because I had to
        reformat almost the entire document in a different style, I can't
        even calculate how much time I saved by using Reveal Codes, because I
        was able to completely eliminate any unexpected wacky formatting by
        knowing just where to position the cursor when I made a change. All
        stuff that has been said before, but worth repeating, I guess.

        Thanks to John and all the knowledgeable, helpful people on this list.

        Rick Albright

        On Jun 26, 2008, at 7:59 PM, John Rethorst wrote:
        > Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
        > antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
        > subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
        > sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
        > simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.
        >
        > If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
        > hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
        > than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
        > not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.
        >
        > Newer ain't always better. I switched from MS Word to WP because
        > it was the best writing tool I could find. I still think so.
        >
      • Diane Mettam
        Well put, Rick! Diane ... From: Rick Albright To: wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 6:14:50 AM Subject: Re:
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 27, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Well put, Rick! Diane


          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Rick Albright <logres@...>
          To: wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 6:14:50 AM
          Subject: Re: [wpmac] Re: "hobbyists" (was: From Windows/wordperfect to Macbook Pro)


          I know I'm drifting off-topic a bit here, but can't resist making a
          few connections. 1) Recent news stories report a steady increase in
          sales of vinyl LPs and turntables over the past few years. 2) There's
          one place where the term "tube amp" is not an anachronism: most
          electric guitarists still prefer the sound of tube amps, which
          continue to be made. (In fact the whole world of vintage guitars
          seems to be in opposition to our culture's desire for the latest and
          greatest, with the 1950s seen as the Golden Age). 3) I still
          regularly use my 1976 Nikon F2 and 1969 FTN, because I prefer their
          picture quality, though I do make a concession to modernity by
          getting photo CDs from Kodak--and I'm laboriously scanning and color
          correcting thousands of fading slides to try to preserve them. I
          don't consider myself a Luddite.

          BTW, closer to the topic at hand: I'm finishing up a book manuscript
          in WordPerfect. (It's an academic book.) Much as I love the program,
          I had been giving serious thought to doing future academic writing in
          Word, just because it seems so inevitable and universal; but all the
          previous drafts of this book were in WordPerfect, so I figured I may
          as well continue for the time being. My attitude was, okay, I'll do
          this one in WordPerfect, and then think about changing over. Now I'm
          less sure. Part of it is the comfort level; I'm more familiar with
          the WP way of doing things, and, yes, I can usually do it in Word,
          but it takes me longer and seems harder to do. And WP's amazingly
          powerful macro language, and John Rethorst's sets of macros, seem
          unparalleled. As one example, I was able to do some things that gave
          me a level of control over the formatting of my endnotes that just
          didn't seem possible (or easy) In Word. I don't want to rekindle that
          old Word vs. WordPerfect debate here. (And no doubt, Word experts
          would say that I could do everything I needed to in Word.) I'm just
          bringing this up to say that working so intensely with WP again has
          made me realize anew just how unique it is. And because I had to
          reformat almost the entire document in a different style, I can't
          even calculate how much time I saved by using Reveal Codes, because I
          was able to completely eliminate any unexpected wacky formatting by
          knowing just where to position the cursor when I made a change. All
          stuff that has been said before, but worth repeating, I guess.

          Thanks to John and all the knowledgeable, helpful people on this list.

          Rick Albright

          On Jun 26, 2008, at 7:59 PM, John Rethorst wrote:
          > Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
          > antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
          > subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
          > sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
          > simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.
          >
          > If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
          > hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
          > than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
          > not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.
          >
          > Newer ain't always better. I switched from MS Word to WP because
          > it was the best writing tool I could find. I still think so.
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Joe Edgell
          Sorry it s taken me so long to respond, George, but I ve been out of the Country. As for hobbyist term, I don t see anything derogatory about it at all. I
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 30, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, George, but I've been out of
            the Country. As for "hobbyist" term, I don't see anything derogatory
            about it at all. I bicycle quite a bit. I'm not a professional
            cyclist, and I'm not a casual cyclist. Seems "hobbyist" probably
            describes me well, and I would not be offended to be called such. In
            fact, Apple's included Dictionary utility which pulls from the Oxford
            American Dictionary, among others, lists this definition:



            How bad can that be?

            Joe



            On 26 Jun 2008, at 17:34, George B. Richardson wrote:

            > By the way, Joe, I don't know that folks who simply prefer WP to
            > other word processing programs would appreciate being characterized
            > as "hobbyists".



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Joe Edgell
            According to the dictionary I cited in a prior post, an activity done regularly in one s leisure time for pleasure is a hobby and a person who pursues that
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 30, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              According to the dictionary I cited in a prior post, "an activity done
              regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure" is a "hobby" and a
              person who pursues that activity is a "hobbyist." So, I think both of
              your examples, each person clearly would be a hobbyist. That is,
              unless the really don't like doing those activities or they don't do
              them in their leisure time.

              Joe



              On 26 Jun 2008, at 19:59, John Rethorst wrote:

              > Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
              > antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
              > subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
              > sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
              > simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.
              >
              > If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
              > hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
              > than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
              > not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Joe Edgell
              Odd. Apparently the text from my earlier message with the definition was deleted. Here s that definition of hobbyist: a person who pursues a particular
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 30, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Odd. Apparently the text from my earlier message with the definition
                was deleted. Here's that definition of hobbyist:

                "a person who pursues a particular hobby: a computer hobbyist."

                And the definition of hobby:

                "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure"



                On 30 Jun 2008, at 06:19, Joe Edgell wrote:

                > Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, George, but I've been out of
                > the Country. As for "hobbyist" term, I don't see anything derogatory
                > about it at all. I bicycle quite a bit. I'm not a professional
                > cyclist, and I'm not a casual cyclist. Seems "hobbyist" probably
                > describes me well, and I would not be offended to be called such. In
                > fact, Apple's included Dictionary utility which pulls from the Oxford
                > American Dictionary, among others, lists this definition:
                >
                > How bad can that be?
                >
                > Joe
                >
                > On 26 Jun 2008, at 17:34, George B. Richardson wrote:
                >
                > > By the way, Joe, I don't know that folks who simply prefer WP to
                > > other word processing programs would appreciate being characterized
                > > as "hobbyists".
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
              • Edward Mendelson
                I ve been using Microsoft Word for Windows to do exactly that for many years. A web search will show the method easily. I used to print booklets in WP, but
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  I've been using Microsoft Word for Windows to do exactly that for
                  many years. A web search will show the method easily. I used to
                  print booklets in WP, but then I needed to use some accented
                  letters that WP only supported in its generic international fonts,
                  so I switched my booklet printing to Word.

                  --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Diane Mettam <dmettam@...> wrote:

                  > I've made a few concessions. I only use WP for
                  > booklets - WP is the ONLY word processor that could
                  > subdivide pages and then logically print the pages so
                  > that you could come out with a book with pages 1 and
                  > 8, and 2 and 7 on opposite sides, for instance.
                • Michael
                  ... Thanks Diane. He doesn t have Word for Windoze. He has a MAC. Mike
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Mendelson" <emendelson@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I've been using Microsoft Word for Windows to do exactly that for
                    > many years. A web search will show the method easily. I used to
                    > print booklets in WP, but then I needed to use some accented
                    > letters that WP only supported in its generic international fonts,
                    > so I switched my booklet printing to Word.
                    >
                    > --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Diane Mettam <dmettam@> wrote:
                    >
                    > > I've made a few concessions. I only use WP for
                    > > booklets - WP is the ONLY word processor that could
                    > > subdivide pages and then logically print the pages so
                    > > that you could come out with a book with pages 1 and
                    > > 8, and 2 and 7 on opposite sides, for instance.

                    Thanks Diane. He doesn't have Word for Windoze. He has a MAC.

                    Mike
                  • Bruce Rogers
                    Hello. I m a new member of this discussion group. I m currently a WordPerfect for Windows user, contemplating replacing my Dell laptop and considering an Apple
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello. I'm a new member of this discussion group.

                      I'm currently a WordPerfect for Windows user, contemplating replacing
                      my Dell laptop and considering an Apple product for that replacement.

                      My firm uses WordPerfect as the word processor of choice (on Windows
                      machines). So I am wondering whether there is an implementation of
                      WordPerfect for a current generation of Apple laptop that would allow
                      me to remain integrated with the Windows-based group I work with.

                      I suppose one option is to run windows on a partition on the Apple
                      laptop, and to install WordPerfect for Windows and run it from that
                      partition. However I was kind of hoping to get away from the
                      perpetual operability hassles I have had to put up with since I
                      stopped using a Mac 15 years ago. Maybe that's just not a practical dream.

                      Any suggestions?

                      Bruce Rogers
                      Dallas/Fort Worth
                    • Joe Edgell
                      The oft quoted solutions, Bruce, are either the separate Windows partition and running WordPerfect under Windows using Bootcamp, the more elegant solution of
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 3, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The oft quoted solutions, Bruce, are either the separate Windows
                        partition and running WordPerfect under Windows using Bootcamp, the
                        more elegant solution of running Windows within your Mac using
                        Parallels desktop or VMWare's Fusion, or converting the documents
                        using Dataviz's MacLinkPlus Deluxe. The easiest solution, if the most
                        expensive, is the VMWare or Parallels solution.


                        On 2 Jul 2008, at 12:20, Bruce Rogers wrote:

                        > Hello. I'm a new member of this discussion group.
                        >
                        > I'm currently a WordPerfect for Windows user, contemplating replacing
                        > my Dell laptop and considering an Apple product for that replacement.
                        >
                        > My firm uses WordPerfect as the word processor of choice (on Windows
                        > machines). So I am wondering whether there is an implementation of
                        > WordPerfect for a current generation of Apple laptop that would allow
                        > me to remain integrated with the Windows-based group I work with.
                        >
                        > I suppose one option is to run windows on a partition on the Apple
                        > laptop, and to install WordPerfect for Windows and run it from that
                        > partition. However I was kind of hoping to get away from the
                        > perpetual operability hassles I have had to put up with since I
                        > stopped using a Mac 15 years ago. Maybe that's just not a practical
                        > dream.
                        >
                        > Any suggestions?
                        >
                        > Bruce Rogers
                        > Dallas/Fort Worth
                        >
                        >
                        >



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.