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

Re: [wpmac] Re: Sheepsaver

Expand Messages
  • John Kaufmann
    ... Yes, have it your way has always been a WP theme, of which key binding is one aspect. That s why I said default keyboard. ... Yes, different - as are
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 13, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 2008.07.12 03:10 -0500, Geoff Gilbert wrote:

      >>> If you want "WP back" you may be disappointed. WPMac is a
      >>> very different program from WP for DOS or WP for Windows.
      >>
      >> While there is some truth to that - examples: you can't run macros
      >> cross-platform; default keyboards are different ...
      >
      > The default keyboard is different, but like WP on every platform, you
      > can customise...

      Yes, 'have it your way' has always been a WP theme, of which key binding is
      one aspect. That's why I said "default" keyboard.

      > All that having been said, if you used WPWIN with a standard Windows
      > keyboard and you're used to the WPWIN button bars, pull down menus
      > etc., then WPMac will be different. ...

      Yes, different - as are WP/DOS 5.1 and WP/Unix 5.1 (almost identical) from
      WP/Windows 5.1 (to compare across a common popular version) - but IHMO all
      are recognizable as WP. As I said, I don't know why WP/Mac was the only
      platform version rewritten rather than ported - and I wish it had been
      otherwise - but I don't think the rewrite resulted in a version that will
      grievously disappoint a WP fan from another platform.
      --
      John
    • ted_m_p_lee
      ... I vaguely recall (decades ago!) that somehow I talked them into letting me be a beta tester for WP on the Apple II GS. I think the II GS version was
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 14, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, John Kaufmann <kaufmann@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > Yes, different - as are WP/DOS 5.1 and WP/Unix 5.1 (almost
        > identical) from WP/Windows 5.1 (to compare across a
        > common popular version) - but IHMO all are recognizable as
        > WP. As I said, I don't know why WP/Mac was the only
        > platform version rewritten rather than ported - and I wish it had
        > been otherwise - but I don't think the rewrite resulted in a version
        > that will grievously disappoint a WP fan from another platform.
        > --

        I vaguely recall (decades ago!) that somehow I talked them into
        letting me be a beta tester for WP on the Apple II GS. I think the
        II GS version was probably the genesis of what ended up on the Mac,
        but I'm not sure. That might explain why it had to be rewritten
        rather than ported.

        Ted Lee
        Minnetonka, MN
      • Christopher Brown
        WP on the IIgs seemed to be virtually identical in function with the older Apple II WP (which was similar to DOS, with some missing features) only with menus
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 14, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          WP on the IIgs seemed to be virtually identical in function with the
          older Apple II WP (which was similar to DOS, with some missing
          features) only with menus and a scroll bar added. It was not WYSIWYG
          any more than the DOS version was so far as font display was
          concerned. I recall that even in the 1.0 version, Mac WP was
          substantially different. I guess I could dust off the emulators and
          see...

          I think the Amiga version (e.g.) was also closely based on the common
          code base rather than being a rewrite, but there I 'm entirely beyond
          my own experience.

          Christopher


          On Jul 14, 2008, at 11:39 AM, ted_m_p_lee wrote:

          > --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, John Kaufmann <kaufmann@...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Yes, different - as are WP/DOS 5.1 and WP/Unix 5.1 (almost
          > > identical) from WP/Windows 5.1 (to compare across a
          > > common popular version) - but IHMO all are recognizable as
          > > WP. As I said, I don't know why WP/Mac was the only
          > > platform version rewritten rather than ported - and I wish it had
          > > been otherwise - but I don't think the rewrite resulted in a version
          > > that will grievously disappoint a WP fan from another platform.
          > > --
          >
          > I vaguely recall (decades ago!) that somehow I talked them into
          > letting me be a beta tester for WP on the Apple II GS. I think the
          > II GS version was probably the genesis of what ended up on the Mac,
          > but I'm not sure. That might explain why it had to be rewritten
          > rather than ported.
          >
          > Ted Lee
          > Minnetonka, MN
          >
          >
          >



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