A writer leaves Microsoft Word(stevenpoole.net)
stevenpoole.net
A writer leaves Microsoft Word
http://stevenpoole.net/blog/goodbye-cruel-word/
35 comments
You're right about Excel. It is the corporate behemoth that may never be slayed.
I'm thinking of getting a Mac, but can the Mac version of Excel do keyboard shortcuts like on Windows? (E.g. "alt, o, h, r" to rename a sheet, or "alt, i, w" to insert a sheet). From my experience, it doesn't. Losing shortcuts would put a heavy drag on my productivity.
I'm thinking of getting a Mac, but can the Mac version of Excel do keyboard shortcuts like on Windows? (E.g. "alt, o, h, r" to rename a sheet, or "alt, i, w" to insert a sheet). From my experience, it doesn't. Losing shortcuts would put a heavy drag on my productivity.
Excel is 99% of the reason I run virtualized windows.
Excel's basic math errors are 99% of the reason I do my stats with python.
Best of both(ish) worlds: use python in LibreOffice.
Care to elaborate?
That's not a math error, that's a display error. I'm no fan of Office, but that would not be a reason to fear Excel's ability to calculate correctly.
During the whole OOXML debacle, there were many examples discovered of ambiguous or flat-out wrong behavior in various versions of Excel over the years, the kind of wrong behavior that could easily have altered the outcome of financial transactions that were managed using spreadsheets. You can probably find some if you hunt for them on Groklaw. I seem to remember one related to a date basis parameter, so that might be a good first keyword set to try.
Rob Weir has pointed out a lot of OOXML-problems over the years:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/fractured-yearfrac-and-d...
Excel only adds up to about 6 decimals. I worked on a project of an Endowment Fund (billions) and Excel was flat out wrong when computing billions over decades.
The worst part is: Excel is the Dogma. If your results do not match with Excel, make it.
The worst part is: Excel is the Dogma. If your results do not match with Excel, make it.
1 + 1 = 3
Not a maths error, only a display error.
Not a maths error, only a display error.
I was guessing that's what pstephens was referring to, but he hasn't elaborated.
No - Mac Excel cannot do the old Windows shortcuts. It was the reason I held out for years, but once the useless ribbon turned up on Windows the shortcuts became a sloppy reverse compatibility addition. When Visual Basic arrived back on the Mac there was no reason to keep windows excel.
It's interesting, because Visicalc was originally dominant. And then Lotus 1-2-3 was dominant. And now Excel is. Each could read the format of the previous one, but improved features/performance. The switchover appears to be related to platform changing, to IBM-PC, to GUIs. Which is how it usually goes. One would expect an Excel-slayer to emerge from a platform that replaces Windows - such as the web or the iPad (or some new GPU/many-core architecture that gives us speed equivalent to extrapolated clock rate increases if they hadn't stopped at 3GHz about 10 years ago), if it somehow invades the enterprise. i.e. a Windows-slayer.
http://dssresources.com/history/sshistory.html --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet#History
http://dssresources.com/history/sshistory.html --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet#History
I'm not sure what you do with Excel, but another major downside for the Mac version is it doesn't have statistical analysis like its Windows counterpart does.
Not a big issue unless you're doing psychological research or work in finance.
Not a big issue unless you're doing psychological research or work in finance.
I really hope markdown is developed enough to take off, or someone develops something similar on firmer ground (since there's a lot of ambiguity in the definition). Whenever I use word or to a lesser extent mediawiki I feel like a lot of my effort is wasted in fiddling around just to get the formatting right. Sometimes this is bad enough to break my flow and significantly affect productivity.
Overall I feel as though the fiddling tax with markdown is only a small increment, maybe say 5 or 10% of total effort on average.
Overall I feel as though the fiddling tax with markdown is only a small increment, maybe say 5 or 10% of total effort on average.
asciidoc http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/
very little markup (high signal to "tag" ratio)
can produce all sorts of output (HTML and PDF, for example)
I use the asciidoc -> docbook -> latex -> pdf chain for the most part.
Very flexible -- you can tweak things at the docbook or latex level if you really want to, but mostly it just works. Good stuff.
very little markup (high signal to "tag" ratio)
can produce all sorts of output (HTML and PDF, for example)
I use the asciidoc -> docbook -> latex -> pdf chain for the most part.
Very flexible -- you can tweak things at the docbook or latex level if you really want to, but mostly it just works. Good stuff.
That's excellent! Thanks for the pointer.
I love John MacFarlane's extension of Markdown: [pandoc](http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/)
This, and the fact that gitit is really good, and has math support (which I desperately need,) are the reasons I'm considering finding a hosting solution for happstack and moving all my stuff there…
This, and the fact that gitit is really good, and has math support (which I desperately need,) are the reasons I'm considering finding a hosting solution for happstack and moving all my stuff there…
How does Markdown compare to LaTex? I wrote in LaTex most of my career and only the past 10 years with Word. I generally liked LaTex, except I didn't like the fact that the doc I edited was not the doc distributed (dvi, pdf, ps). But its hard to beat the typesetting in LaTex.
Oddly, I find PowerPoint to be a great app. In fact, if I need to quickly draw something, I'm more likely to do it in PowerPoint than Illustrator or Design or anything. Why do standard drawing programs suck so much at doing quick sketches (at least for people like me who can't draw)?
Oddly, I find PowerPoint to be a great app. In fact, if I need to quickly draw something, I'm more likely to do it in PowerPoint than Illustrator or Design or anything. Why do standard drawing programs suck so much at doing quick sketches (at least for people like me who can't draw)?
In my experience, Markdown is easier for just words and for things eventually going online. But as soon as I need tables, references, non-trivial layout and especially equations, I pull out LaTeX.
Markdown compiles to a subset of HTML, whereas LaTeX is able to express pretty much anything that can possibly be put in pages of PDF.
As such, Markdown is very clean and focused. You can figure out all features of Markdown in a few minutes. As you know, LaTeX can be excruciatingly complex but astonishingly powerful
As such, Markdown is very clean and focused. You can figure out all features of Markdown in a few minutes. As you know, LaTeX can be excruciatingly complex but astonishingly powerful
Markdown focuses on getting anything that isn't content out of the way. LaTeX defines it, rather explicitly.
I use both. I used to use LaTeX for everything, but I realized I didn't really need the power. Now I use Markdown, and have a custom style sheet for the html it creates (for printing, using the awesome Marked.app).
I use both. I used to use LaTeX for everything, but I realized I didn't really need the power. Now I use Markdown, and have a custom style sheet for the html it creates (for printing, using the awesome Marked.app).
If you use pandoc to convert your markdown to tex, it will pass through any TeX commands embedded in the document, so you can get the best of both worlds.
Why Markdown AND Textile? I like both and use Textile often as Textpattern is my CMS of choice and I'm curious why you would use both?
My last two jobs have shown me that Excel is really what you need to kill if you want to break the Office stronghold.
May I ask what specifically you think an Excel-killer would need to do to succeed? And why you think the web-based spreadsheets haven't been able to do it so far?
May I ask what specifically you think an Excel-killer would need to do to succeed? And why you think the web-based spreadsheets haven't been able to do it so far?
I worked in medical and banking...these industries seem to run on Excel. Performance is an issue, and the amount of "legacy" code running in macros/vba is staggering. You are talking about thousands of excel spreadsheet which is each like it's own little application.
I recall talking to someone at MS about .NET 4.0 and I asked what were the big scenarios -- and I was surprised to hear that Office programmability was one of the top scenarios. He didn't know exact numbers, but he said that there may be more lines of .NET Office code (VSTO and VBA) than ASP.NET.
Go and ask your random analyst friend if they know VBA, and you'd be surprised how many know it (and with it know things like dynamic typing, implicit arguments, event handlers, etc..).
Go and ask your random analyst friend if they know VBA, and you'd be surprised how many know it (and with it know things like dynamic typing, implicit arguments, event handlers, etc..).
Just another super important point about this, you are talking about two industries who, for the most part, haven't bought into the public cloud yet.
I'm not gonna say "most", because, I really don't know, but I'd bet that most (oopps!) of these companies have firewalls that block google docs and the likes. Their idea of "cloud" is to run virtualization on their own servers in their own data centers and call it a day.
There's huge security (mostly made up), regulatory (mostly made up) reasons for them not to move to the cloud.
I'm not gonna say "most", because, I really don't know, but I'd bet that most (oopps!) of these companies have firewalls that block google docs and the likes. Their idea of "cloud" is to run virtualization on their own servers in their own data centers and call it a day.
There's huge security (mostly made up), regulatory (mostly made up) reasons for them not to move to the cloud.
I assume you say "mostly made up" in the derogatory sense - how come? I'm basically okay with the spirit of what HIPAA is trying to accomplish, which is not sharing my medical information with anyone I don't explicitly authorize, accidentally or otherwise.
I'm no expert, but from what I've seen, both medical and financial regulation aren't nearly as detailed and absurd as IT-Risk/Compliance make them out to be. They don't say that you can't host with AWS (or AWS private cloud), but both those departments will insist that you can't.
It really comes down to being an unknown and it being easier (and perceived as safer) to "just say no". It isn't the regulation that I dislike, it's that said regulations are used to keep large organizations in the stone age. And, to be honest, from what I've observed, it really comes down to people not wanting to learn/work and having a powerful excuse (REGULATIONS!!) to avoid doing so.
It really comes down to being an unknown and it being easier (and perceived as safer) to "just say no". It isn't the regulation that I dislike, it's that said regulations are used to keep large organizations in the stone age. And, to be honest, from what I've observed, it really comes down to people not wanting to learn/work and having a powerful excuse (REGULATIONS!!) to avoid doing so.
Absolutely correct. Anyone who tells you that HIPAA requires you to do XYZ is full of shit. The difficulty with HIPAA is that it sets a very basic framework that you have to fill in with your own policies and procedurs. How strictly you follow your own procedures is what will get you in hot water.
"And why you think the web-based spreadsheets haven't been able to do it so far?"
A huge number of business and engineering applications integrate with Excel - all the way from supporting easy data import and export (and not just through CSV files, which Excel actually handles really badly) up to fully fledged "live" integration through local web services.
Until a web-based application can reach in through the firewall and pull data from a LOB, ERP or finance app and display it as well as Excel can then web-based spreadsheets aren't going to make that much headway.
A huge number of business and engineering applications integrate with Excel - all the way from supporting easy data import and export (and not just through CSV files, which Excel actually handles really badly) up to fully fledged "live" integration through local web services.
Until a web-based application can reach in through the firewall and pull data from a LOB, ERP or finance app and display it as well as Excel can then web-based spreadsheets aren't going to make that much headway.
Ok, say Google sold their spreadsheet for installation on corporate servers. That would address the firewall problem. Would it be enough to kill Excel? What more would they have to do?
I doubt it - the spreadsheet in Google docs, even at a casual glance look to be missing some key features that are incredibly useful (Trace Precedents/Trace Dependents being one that jumps out at me).
There is also the fact that there are an awful lot of "mission critical" spreadsheets out there with huge amounts of VBA in them - I can't see Google supporting that (and you probably couldn't as a lot of these things call client side objects through COM).
To be honest, I don't think users want an Excel killer. Yes it has weaknesses (why it still can't handle Unicode CSV files properly is still a mystery) - but overall most people just see it as part of the standard corporate computing landscape.
You could perhaps make the whole model more interesting (e.g. by having better support for the hierarchical multi-dimensional data that finance people in particular just love) but then you'd probably lose the wonderful simplicity of the basic 2D sheet.
[NB I've spent a lot of time building finance apps that have Oracle Hyperion as a backend - which is a specialized 12 dimensional hierarchical database that is the market leader in its particular niche].
There is also the fact that there are an awful lot of "mission critical" spreadsheets out there with huge amounts of VBA in them - I can't see Google supporting that (and you probably couldn't as a lot of these things call client side objects through COM).
To be honest, I don't think users want an Excel killer. Yes it has weaknesses (why it still can't handle Unicode CSV files properly is still a mystery) - but overall most people just see it as part of the standard corporate computing landscape.
You could perhaps make the whole model more interesting (e.g. by having better support for the hierarchical multi-dimensional data that finance people in particular just love) but then you'd probably lose the wonderful simplicity of the basic 2D sheet.
[NB I've spent a lot of time building finance apps that have Oracle Hyperion as a backend - which is a specialized 12 dimensional hierarchical database that is the market leader in its particular niche].
Note: Scrivener supports Markdown.
TL;DR -- another book-writer discovers the thing of beauty that is Scrivener. I've written one book 100% in it, and used it to refactor three others (when their multiple plot threads were threatening to get out of hand). It's not that it does anything magical at the word processing level, but it makes the structure of a book-length work transparent.
(If you don't write books for a living, the best metaphor I can give you is this: imagine you've been writing code for years using just a text editor. (If your editor is Emacs, congratulations: that's the MS Word of text editors -- kitchen sink included, but not everything ideally placed unless you do a lot of customization.) Then someone shows you an IDE. That's Scrivener: it's basically an IDE for books.)
(If you don't write books for a living, the best metaphor I can give you is this: imagine you've been writing code for years using just a text editor. (If your editor is Emacs, congratulations: that's the MS Word of text editors -- kitchen sink included, but not everything ideally placed unless you do a lot of customization.) Then someone shows you an IDE. That's Scrivener: it's basically an IDE for books.)
> If your editor is Emacs, congratulations: that's the MS Word of text editors -- kitchen sink included, but not everything ideally placed unless you do a lot of customization.) Then someone shows you an IDE.
That analogy doesn't stand at all. Most of the people whose editor of choice is Emacs(mine is Vim) have known about IDEs all along, have used them at some point of time, or may be still use it for languages which are too verbose to do without IDE code generation. They chose not to use it, or use it sparcely. There is no someone showing you an IDE.
That analogy doesn't stand at all. Most of the people whose editor of choice is Emacs(mine is Vim) have known about IDEs all along, have used them at some point of time, or may be still use it for languages which are too verbose to do without IDE code generation. They chose not to use it, or use it sparcely. There is no someone showing you an IDE.
The beauty of emacs/vim is that they are a. highly optimised to enable quick editing of any text document, not just a specific subset of languages, and b. highly customisable - the customisation isn't an annoying overhead, rather it lets you define exactly how you want the environment to be whereas an ide tends to be harder to customise to that degree.
Horses for courses.
As an aside - I think the analogy fails purely in terms of quality, word is a horrible mess and a nightmare to work with, emacs is a (sometimes clunky) thing of beauty.
Horses for courses.
As an aside - I think the analogy fails purely in terms of quality, word is a horrible mess and a nightmare to work with, emacs is a (sometimes clunky) thing of beauty.
> If your editor is Emacs, congratulations: that's the MS Word of text editors -- kitchen sink included, but not everything ideally placed unless you do a lot of customization
I won't deny Emacs has everything, but the analogy to Word shows you don't use it. By not being an IDE with all the fluff that comes in IDEs, it allows me to focus on the code I write (I use Eclipse and NetBeans when writing Java code because so much of the work is boilerplate code generation) and nothing else. My hands don't need to leave the keyboard and there are no overlapping windows to shuffle around. And it's endlessly customizable - the "configuration files" are executable programs and, while its dialect of lisp is somewhat anachronistic, it's much better than writing Eclipse plugins in Java (or Word macros in VBA).
I won't deny Emacs has everything, but the analogy to Word shows you don't use it. By not being an IDE with all the fluff that comes in IDEs, it allows me to focus on the code I write (I use Eclipse and NetBeans when writing Java code because so much of the work is boilerplate code generation) and nothing else. My hands don't need to leave the keyboard and there are no overlapping windows to shuffle around. And it's endlessly customizable - the "configuration files" are executable programs and, while its dialect of lisp is somewhat anachronistic, it's much better than writing Eclipse plugins in Java (or Word macros in VBA).
You took it backwards. Modern programmers usually start with an IDE. Then some of them switch to Emacs for most things.
Perhaps a better analogy (and one that's a little less likely to cause a holy war) be - you were using RC to back up your program file. Then somebody showed you git (or hg).
book processing?
But honestly, your comment on IDEs being superior to emacs (vim user here) casts doubt on your other opinion. It's like saying congratulations for using bash, then someone showed you Windows. (That said, being Charles Stross casts confidence on your other opinion.)
But honestly, your comment on IDEs being superior to emacs (vim user here) casts doubt on your other opinion. It's like saying congratulations for using bash, then someone showed you Windows. (That said, being Charles Stross casts confidence on your other opinion.)
I got IDE to simple text editor from the blog post. Am I not comprehending it correctly? You are the top comment...
I feel like he went from eclipse to textmate.
I feel like he went from eclipse to textmate.
Ah: I wish I could leave Word for good. But my family's business does grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies (see http://blog.seliger.com if you're curious), which means we routinely have to exchange documents with other people. In that world, Word still rules, especially for complexly formatted documents.
How so? You can open Word docs in LibreOffice and save them as well...
Every day I open, edit and share legal contracts and other Word documents. They're usually up to about 120 pages long, with reasonably simply formatting. They usually have marked up changes from about 2 to a dozen people.
Every six months or so I check out OpenOffice/LibreOffice to see whether the documents I'm being sent survive the open/edit/save cycle.
Every time so far I end up with a document with widely differing formatting from the original.
So at least for me, LibreOffice isn't suitable for my usage patterns.
I imagine other people are the same.
Every six months or so I check out OpenOffice/LibreOffice to see whether the documents I'm being sent survive the open/edit/save cycle.
Every time so far I end up with a document with widely differing formatting from the original.
So at least for me, LibreOffice isn't suitable for my usage patterns.
I imagine other people are the same.
This is why I just STFU whenever I'm tempted to suggest "hey, why don't we use LO/OO?"
It's one thing to be able to open a foreign doc without an error/exception, be able to edit it, and then save it without an error/exception and even then be able to open it (without error/exception) with the foreign (Word) program. Etc, edit, back and forth, "look Ma, no exceptions."
It even looks really good, in isolation.
It's quite another thing to get exactly the same results from everyone using different programs (or versions of the same program) and then hope that everything matches up.
Above some size, it just doesn't happen, and I don't want to have to be the one that slinks away when the shouting starts.
It's one thing to be able to open a foreign doc without an error/exception, be able to edit it, and then save it without an error/exception and even then be able to open it (without error/exception) with the foreign (Word) program. Etc, edit, back and forth, "look Ma, no exceptions."
It even looks really good, in isolation.
It's quite another thing to get exactly the same results from everyone using different programs (or versions of the same program) and then hope that everything matches up.
Above some size, it just doesn't happen, and I don't want to have to be the one that slinks away when the shouting starts.
This.
In addition, many funders require that submitted proposals be .doc files. Sure, one could play roulette with other programs, but when thousands to millions of dollars are on the line, it's easier to simply use Word.
In addition, many funders require that submitted proposals be .doc files. Sure, one could play roulette with other programs, but when thousands to millions of dollars are on the line, it's easier to simply use Word.
Is there any good reason for this requirement, or is it just inertia?
If I'm submitting something read-only, PDF seems like the obvious choice. If you're going to edit it, maybe .doc is the solution, but really, Google Docs would make collaboration easier.
What does a Word file have that other solutions don't, other than mindshare?
If I'm submitting something read-only, PDF seems like the obvious choice. If you're going to edit it, maybe .doc is the solution, but really, Google Docs would make collaboration easier.
What does a Word file have that other solutions don't, other than mindshare?
>In addition, many funders require that submitted proposals be .doc files. Sure, one could play roulette with other programs, but when thousands to millions of dollars are on the line, it's easier to simply use Word. //
Which version? If they don't specify the version of Word to use for the files you're still playing roulette. The chances of getting an exact formatting match, for even a small document, across versions of Word use to be approaching zero.
Did they fix it?
Which version? If they don't specify the version of Word to use for the files you're still playing roulette. The chances of getting an exact formatting match, for even a small document, across versions of Word use to be approaching zero.
Did they fix it?
not very related, but once i submited a post script resume (renamed as .pdf) for a webdev position, instead of the spify HTML that i usually send. (call it bucket testing:)
The hiring manager, who appeared to be clueless to any web technology or coding, complimented me by saying that my resume was the only one 'normal' without a bunch of code garbled in.
what a waste of time...
The hiring manager, who appeared to be clueless to any web technology or coding, complimented me by saying that my resume was the only one 'normal' without a bunch of code garbled in.
what a waste of time...
exchanging word for libreOffice is like saying <insert analogy for lesser of two evils here>
Both give incentives to the user to highlight every title and select Times new roman, 24pt, click the B button for bold etc.
Files generated with both applications get to you with tabs to simulate left margin! weirdly different fonts on each paragraph and other hellish things.
the whole concept of word is wrong. libreoffice is just a little better on following standards for the internal stuff. the part exposed to the user, is still a version of purgatory.
Both give incentives to the user to highlight every title and select Times new roman, 24pt, click the B button for bold etc.
Files generated with both applications get to you with tabs to simulate left margin! weirdly different fonts on each paragraph and other hellish things.
the whole concept of word is wrong. libreoffice is just a little better on following standards for the internal stuff. the part exposed to the user, is still a version of purgatory.
Only for some definitions of 'open'. There are many cases where layout gets garbled or where Word users cannot open docs exported from other software. Anyone advocating switching a business that needs to exchange document with the rest of the world to OpenOffice/LibreOffice or similar has no experience working with real-world Word documents (i.e., documents more complex than an undergraduate term paper).
Word is still a great Word processor. It actually has a full screen mode that eliminates all the distractions just as the programs used by the author. Word's biggest problem is that all its power increases its complexity and there really isn't a good user manual or resource to train people. I find that most people that switch to something like GoogleDocs don't use the advanced features of Word and probably would have been just as happy using WordPad.
What would be 'advanced features' of Word that are neither completely unnecessary nor could be replaced by (more or less) simple LaTeX macros?
I'm actually curious - I've heard a lot of people raving about the 'power of MS Word', yet no one was really able to name any meaningful features that would justify calling it 'powerful'.
I'm actually curious - I've heard a lot of people raving about the 'power of MS Word', yet no one was really able to name any meaningful features that would justify calling it 'powerful'.
I use LaTeX for most of my writing, and I'm not a big fan of Word. That being said, I think the advantage probably is that it significantly lowers the barrier of entry to those advanced features. Hence, you'll get 'secretaries' doing fancy stuff, who might not be otherwise inclined to learn LaTeX (and let's admit it, writing TeX macros is not particularly nice).
I have to admit I haven't learned LaTeX myself yet, but I've been using LyX for a while now, which basically spits out compilable TeX. Processors like LyX (are there even any processors like it?) take care of exactly that barrier of entry.
I agree fully that advanced features in LaTeX are most likely more difficult to learn, but if the argument in the first place is the 'power' of the features, then LaTeX will win out regardless. It's like comparing vim/emacs to nano (in terms of 'power').
I agree fully that advanced features in LaTeX are most likely more difficult to learn, but if the argument in the first place is the 'power' of the features, then LaTeX will win out regardless. It's like comparing vim/emacs to nano (in terms of 'power').
Emacs users intrigued by the idea of an always centered cursor might like to try this mode out. http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/centered-cursor-mode.el
On a similar note, I'm always a bit amused whenever WriteRoom gets lots of praise, because it's actually not so much different from good old Emacs running in a terminal (no X). Back to the future!
I've not used WriteRoom, so I don't know just how configurable it is, but I often find myself in Emacs getting distracted from my original task by accidentally discovering new features, or deciding to automate something in elisp.
"The art of spending 3 hours to complete a 1 hour job in 5 minutes"
And this is after using it for nearly a decade already :)
"The art of spending 3 hours to complete a 1 hour job in 5 minutes"
And this is after using it for nearly a decade already :)
Don't worry... it'll pay off in only three times using it :)
If you want the same "distraction free" environment, there's also darkroom mode, which gives you a similar look. I really cannot understand why would writers get so distracted by using an editor with more features and vastly more editing power. It's not like you have to hack complex elisp functions to open up a text file, write some text, and save it.
> why would writers get so distracted by using an editor with more features and vastly more editing power.
Because most of the features are useless for writers who only want to write prose where formatting doesn't matter that much (or will be done by people who specialize in that.
As far as "editing power" goes, I don't write much prose (I keep telling myself I should submit an article every once in a while to warrant my press passes) but I am quite sure I don't use much more than what WordStar gave me 25 years ago.
Because most of the features are useless for writers who only want to write prose where formatting doesn't matter that much (or will be done by people who specialize in that.
As far as "editing power" goes, I don't write much prose (I keep telling myself I should submit an article every once in a while to warrant my press passes) but I am quite sure I don't use much more than what WordStar gave me 25 years ago.
>Because most of the features are useless for writers who only want to write prose where formatting doesn't matter that much (or will be done by people who specialize in that.
And how is having the features available (as in, say, Emacs or Vim) cause the user to get distracted? If you don't need fancy commands, you just don't use them. The day you need them, they'll be there waiting for you.
> As far as "editing power" goes, I don't write much prose (I keep telling myself I should submit an article every once in a while to warrant my press passes) but I am quite sure I don't use much more than what WordStar gave me 25 years ago.
Wordstar was much more of a text processor than Writeroom seems to be. I was thinking more about stuff like regex searches and replacements, being able to see different parts of a buffer/file in different windows, etc. Again, having those features available do not make people spend hours pushing buttons, but when you do need them, they're pretty handy to have.
Just as an aside: this is Emacs with darkroom mode enabled. What exactly would be 'distracting' about it? http://i.imgur.com/hWyJJ.png
And how is having the features available (as in, say, Emacs or Vim) cause the user to get distracted? If you don't need fancy commands, you just don't use them. The day you need them, they'll be there waiting for you.
> As far as "editing power" goes, I don't write much prose (I keep telling myself I should submit an article every once in a while to warrant my press passes) but I am quite sure I don't use much more than what WordStar gave me 25 years ago.
Wordstar was much more of a text processor than Writeroom seems to be. I was thinking more about stuff like regex searches and replacements, being able to see different parts of a buffer/file in different windows, etc. Again, having those features available do not make people spend hours pushing buttons, but when you do need them, they're pretty handy to have.
Just as an aside: this is Emacs with darkroom mode enabled. What exactly would be 'distracting' about it? http://i.imgur.com/hWyJJ.png
I was wondering about what editing power meant. It's now clear you were not talking about Word. That's what I get for not having coffee in the morning. I apologize.
Oh... And thanks for the darkroom mode tip.
Oh... And thanks for the darkroom mode tip.
No need for apologizing, it's just a civil discussion :)
Have a nice day! (and good coffee as well!)
Have a nice day! (and good coffee as well!)
Two interesting thoughts here, that are general to application development.
1 - The reason Windows lost it's way was a lack of simplicity. This is a broad comment about software in general. It is tough to be everything for everyone. And most software starts this way.
2 - There was a great line hidden in the footnotes. This speaks to the importance of collaboration amongst great programmers.
"As Scrivener’s creator relates, he emailed Jesse Grosjean, Writeroom’s author, wondering how he did the block-cursor thing; very generously, Grosjean just gave him the code, and even recommends Scrivener on his own website."
Very good read!
1 - The reason Windows lost it's way was a lack of simplicity. This is a broad comment about software in general. It is tough to be everything for everyone. And most software starts this way.
2 - There was a great line hidden in the footnotes. This speaks to the importance of collaboration amongst great programmers.
"As Scrivener’s creator relates, he emailed Jesse Grosjean, Writeroom’s author, wondering how he did the block-cursor thing; very generously, Grosjean just gave him the code, and even recommends Scrivener on his own website."
Very good read!
For a person working alone, the question of the format is largely irrelevant - Word support saving in plain text too. The problems exists when we need to interact with open people, and most of us can't tell them "What the fuck".
Most people wouldn't know what a .doc file is if their lives depended on it.
So take advantage of it and send them a .rtf file -- nobody has to know and you get excellent compatibility.
So take advantage of it and send them a .rtf file -- nobody has to know and you get excellent compatibility.
But only for very simple documents - no cross references, working image formatting/layouting, watermarking, shabby table support, footnotes, embedded styles, ...
>WriteRoom has a “typewriter-scrolling mode”, so that the line you are typing is always centered in the screen, not forever threatening to drop off the bottom...
That's the one thing I hate most about every modern editor: When I page down, my cursor appears at the bottom of a page I can't even see. What the hell is that?
That's the one thing I hate most about every modern editor: When I page down, my cursor appears at the bottom of a page I can't even see. What the hell is that?
I used Scrivener to write my 2010 Nanowrimo entry. It's a great piece of software, and I can't recommend it enough.
I'm not sure it will be useful to most people, for reasons tangentially related to this post: http://jseliger.com/2010/11/12/scrivener-or-devonthink-pro-w... on Scrivener and Joyce.
The main reason I say is because I think a lot of people, based on the amateur writing I've seen, don't need a fancier way of arranging words so much as they need to focus on 1) the quality of their sentences and 2) how one event drives another in their plots. I worry especially regarding point 2) that Scrivener lets people work in parallel when they should be working in serial, with one event driving another organically. Too much amateur writing I see is, for lack of a better term, plotless: meandering around feelings, or random encounters, or designed to show how deep the author is—instead of telling a story.
Scrivener will help with some things, as I've written elsewhere, but I'm not sure it's really enough for the vast majority of what writers and would-be writers are working on.
The main reason I say is because I think a lot of people, based on the amateur writing I've seen, don't need a fancier way of arranging words so much as they need to focus on 1) the quality of their sentences and 2) how one event drives another in their plots. I worry especially regarding point 2) that Scrivener lets people work in parallel when they should be working in serial, with one event driving another organically. Too much amateur writing I see is, for lack of a better term, plotless: meandering around feelings, or random encounters, or designed to show how deep the author is—instead of telling a story.
Scrivener will help with some things, as I've written elsewhere, but I'm not sure it's really enough for the vast majority of what writers and would-be writers are working on.
In other words:
If you want to be a good writer, concentrate on your craft instead of your tools.
If you want to be a good writer, concentrate on your craft instead of your tools.
This is a silly dichotomy. A craftsman's skill lies in using his tools, so tool choice is important. it's important for a chef to have a high quality knife that they feel comfortable using, but a high quality knife will no more make a person a good chef than a good text editor, build and language tools, etc. will make someone a good programmer. But good programmers, like good chefs or good writers, will nevertheless spend a goodly amount of money and effort ensuring they have the highest quality tools they feel they need.
For writing (and programming, for that matter) getting a really good tool should be pretty easy. Give me a credit card and google.com and I can buy any number of quality text editing/word processing programs in about 5 mins.
Writers figure out what works for them and stick with it (my wife used AppleWorks forever; George R.R. Martin still uses WordStar on a DOS machine.) Programmers similarly establish their preference (which is why over-30-year old text editors like emacs and vi have such strong adherents).
The original off-topic message in this thread was about how people continue to write poorly, even after they have great tools.
That doesn't surprise me at all. The hard part is learning the craft. For most people, it's also not a lot of fun. It's a lot more fun to "look for the right tool."
Writers figure out what works for them and stick with it (my wife used AppleWorks forever; George R.R. Martin still uses WordStar on a DOS machine.) Programmers similarly establish their preference (which is why over-30-year old text editors like emacs and vi have such strong adherents).
The original off-topic message in this thread was about how people continue to write poorly, even after they have great tools.
That doesn't surprise me at all. The hard part is learning the craft. For most people, it's also not a lot of fun. It's a lot more fun to "look for the right tool."
> George R.R. Martin still uses WordStar on a DOS machine.
So that's why it takes a decade to turn out a new book.
So that's why it takes a decade to turn out a new book.
I know hyperbole is trendy, but it took five years to get "Feast for Crows" out and six years to get "Dance with Dragons" out.
That's 1800 best-selling pages in 11 years. Not too shabby.
That's 1800 best-selling pages in 11 years. Not too shabby.
I'd rather not rush art. If I want crap to read I can go to a Borders, it's crammed full of every variety of crap at deep discount.
Well, not anymore they're not. Borders is out of business now. But I get your point.
I think the more important tools in this case though are language, grammar, and punctuation.
Agreed. In the case of computer tools, I think the difference between someone productive using Word and someone using Scrivener is going to be pretty small in most instances. For the novel I'm working on now, multiple people are speaking (like Tom Perrotta's Election or Anita Shreve's Testimony), for which Scrivener is pretty useful. But for anything else I've written, I don't think Scrivener would've been a huge advantage. I'm not even sure it would've been a small advantage.
Still, if you're curious about this sort of thing, I wrote in more depth about it here: http://jseliger.com/2011/08/11/how-to-be-a-faster-writer-don... .
Still, if you're curious about this sort of thing, I wrote in more depth about it here: http://jseliger.com/2011/08/11/how-to-be-a-faster-writer-don... .
To carry this too far, I think the analogy demands that language/grammar/punctuation are the ingredients. They end up in the customer's mouth. The tools, be it edlin or a pear peeler, only make the chief/writer's job easier. You have to use good ingredients, but the tools are a matter of efficiency.
That pretty much depends on the craft. For writing, the tools come definitely far behind the writing. You can do great writing with pen and paper, people have done so for centuries.
You see the same pattern with amateur photographers, who think buying a nicer camera will get them better pictures.
Many good programmers do very well with old, free tools that have been time-tested and improved. You don't need Visual Studio Ultimate-mega-edition, though it will certainly make your life easier in some situations.
You see the same pattern with amateur photographers, who think buying a nicer camera will get them better pictures.
Many good programmers do very well with old, free tools that have been time-tested and improved. You don't need Visual Studio Ultimate-mega-edition, though it will certainly make your life easier in some situations.
A good piece of advise which does not in any way invalidate putting some effort into getting good tools.
To use the chef analogy again, you wouldn't say "sharp knives don't make you a good chef, therefore use dull knives."
You'd say, "focus on learning to cook. Don't spend 4 hours a day looking for the world's sharpest and most durable knives. But yes, do get some reasonably sharp knives. Then carry on with the chopping."
To use the chef analogy again, you wouldn't say "sharp knives don't make you a good chef, therefore use dull knives."
You'd say, "focus on learning to cook. Don't spend 4 hours a day looking for the world's sharpest and most durable knives. But yes, do get some reasonably sharp knives. Then carry on with the chopping."
That's like saying a programmer should just concentrate on programming instead of finding a good text editor.
I would argue that the gap between programming tools, languages, and platforms is vastly, vastly greater than the gap between various ways of processing words.
I'm saying that you can have the greatest text editor in the world and still be a crap programmer.
So what are you arguing against then? All we're saying is that Scrivener is a good tool.
Who is arguing? I'm summarizing an important fact: the tools are not as important as the craft.
I'm not sure how your post or the one above it invalidates anything. For writers, managing plot, keeping tidbits and scraps, being able to quickly organize, link, and search, it's pretty damn helpful.
Tools don't substitute for skill, but skill with the wrong tools is wasted.
Tools don't substitute for skill, but skill with the wrong tools is wasted.
+1 for Scrivener.
I just finished a novella using it. I didn't use all it had to offer, but the combination of index cards for simple and quick outlining and the full screen mode make it essential for me.
I just finished a novella using it. I didn't use all it had to offer, but the combination of index cards for simple and quick outlining and the full screen mode make it essential for me.
I can honestly recommend Scrivener for both technical and non-technical writing. I use that application regularly and have nothing but respect for the developer. From an engineering point of view, it is a great example that demonstrates the developer's understanding of the problem domain. Little things that make all the difference.
re: "Many people agree that revision 5.1a, specifically, was the best version of Word that Microsoft has ever shipped."
Fortunately, my Ancient Powerbook still runs version 5.1. Eminently usable, and far less annoying than the Office 2008 version. Among other travesties, the current version will often refuse to select a single word, obstinately selecting another word, next to the word you want to select (and delete) and thus deprecating one's deletion experience to repeated tapping of the Delete key.
As a side benefit, the Powerbook won't load almost all web sites, thus removing one obvious procrastination temptation.
Fortunately, my Ancient Powerbook still runs version 5.1. Eminently usable, and far less annoying than the Office 2008 version. Among other travesties, the current version will often refuse to select a single word, obstinately selecting another word, next to the word you want to select (and delete) and thus deprecating one's deletion experience to repeated tapping of the Delete key.
As a side benefit, the Powerbook won't load almost all web sites, thus removing one obvious procrastination temptation.
alt + delete doesn't work?
Ahhh! I wasn't aware of that shortcut, thanks. But the selection snafu remains. Blast you, Office 2008!
(Note: that's option + delete for Mac.)
(Note: that's option + delete for Mac.)
The author really sets his screen to yellow text on a black background? Makes my eyes tired just thinking about it. Anywayz... on a Mac you can flip the colors of your monitor by holding down ctrl-option-command and pressing 8, if you like that sort of thing.
I write all my code with a black background and green text (well except for syntax that's highlighted). Much better than staring at the sun(white screen) for hours ;p
I used to do this. I could write at 4am with no lights on and I wouldn't get eye strain. Now I'm married and there's much less application for being able to write in the wee hours.
Or even better, use something like Flux[1] to subdue the tones of that glaring white screen just enough to reduce eye strain.
[1]: http://stereopsis.com/flux/
[1]: http://stereopsis.com/flux/
Oh wow, thanks for this one. Immediately noticed a reduction in eyestrain. If you're found the GUI buggy (as I did), try the command line interface (xflux). The CLI app works fine for me.
I need to try out the linux version of flux, but the mac version is seriously awesome.
Has helped fix me off of getting off the computer at night with the color/gamma changes.
Has helped fix me off of getting off the computer at night with the color/gamma changes.
F.lux is indispensable on Mac and PC (when I still had a PC.) Absolutely required if you code at all during evening/nighttime.
Unfortunately I couldn't get it to work* on my Ubuntu box and found another app, Redshift, that seems to jive better with Linux: http://jonls.dk/redshift/
-----
* Ran without errors, but didn't tint my screen. I chalked it up to oddities of video card drivers on Linux.
Unfortunately I couldn't get it to work* on my Ubuntu box and found another app, Redshift, that seems to jive better with Linux: http://jonls.dk/redshift/
-----
* Ran without errors, but didn't tint my screen. I chalked it up to oddities of video card drivers on Linux.
The solarized color scheme is great too.
Gold text on black background is very, very readable and easy on the eyes.
It's been my standard for well over a decade. Preferable even to green-on-black.
The only downside is that a colorized 'ls' output is typically difficult to read (the blues used for directories are typically too dark).
It's been my standard for well over a decade. Preferable even to green-on-black.
The only downside is that a colorized 'ls' output is typically difficult to read (the blues used for directories are typically too dark).
You can customize ls' colours. Look into the environment variable LS_COLORS.
I usually just configure the terminal to brighten up the blue a little.
That's the trick.
You need to configure the colors as presented by the terminal, and I haven't mucked with that yet. Given that you're working with variations based on the ANSI color set, your initial set of values is limited.
There's a similar trick for vim color highlighting, though I've found the different color settings all involve tradeoffs, not all favorable.
You need to configure the colors as presented by the terminal, and I haven't mucked with that yet. Given that you're working with variations based on the ANSI color set, your initial set of values is limited.
There's a similar trick for vim color highlighting, though I've found the different color settings all involve tradeoffs, not all favorable.
That's the trick.
You need to configure the colors as presented by the terminal, and I haven't mucked with that yet.
You need to configure the colors as presented by the terminal, and I haven't mucked with that yet.
Amber text on black has been reported by studies as the most readable and least fatiguing to your eyes. I loved amber CRTs though they were less common than green.
Nice article - I downloaded a trial copy of Scrivener to try tomorrow.
A couple of years ago, Apress wanted Word files and I discovered Pages: really pretty good, good Word compatibility, and fun enough to use.
That said, I really prefer Latex for writing because I spend a very small amount of time thinking about formatting compared to writing.
A couple of years ago, Apress wanted Word files and I discovered Pages: really pretty good, good Word compatibility, and fun enough to use.
That said, I really prefer Latex for writing because I spend a very small amount of time thinking about formatting compared to writing.
Funny timing for this - a few hours ago, I decided I needed more of a minimal word processor (although I'm not going as far to delete Word.) I stumbled across WriteMonkey (http://writemonkey.com/) and so far, I love it.
Note: this only runs on Windows
Note: this only runs on Windows
I found parts of WM like the giant context menu with icons for every entry, ability to enable typewriter noises and other little features detracted from the overall experience but it's still a solid app.
Since switching to OS X I've used Byword but recently tried out iA Writer and am considering a purchase.
Since switching to OS X I've used Byword but recently tried out iA Writer and am considering a purchase.
iA Writer is great!
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/en/ia-writer-for-mac/
...and another starts to use it
http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=13077
I do everything besides screenplays in plain text. Compatibility wins here. Between Google Docs, Word 2010, Word for Mac, Pages and Open Office, it seems even basic documents get mangled. RTF is only reasonably better.
MS Word's greatest sin is mixing up content and layout into a strange binary format. Whether it was a devious scheme to lock in users or bad design is anyone's guess but it sure crashed a lot when uou mixed tables and diagrams. Formatting was a nightmare too and sometimes the changes were irreversible. I wish I saw the light and went with plaintext/markdown earlier.
About the binary file format : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
I'll let you set your own opinions.
I'll let you set your own opinions.
Scrivener blows the pants off of monolithic WPs like Word for large structured writing (books or longer articles). I have a pretty detailed analysis on my blog as to why:
http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/25/scrivener/
http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/25/scrivener/
I too had been using MS Word for years to write the various articles and reviews that I do. But for my last article (http://www.smallcloudbuilder.com/apps/articles/410-crossing-...) I switched over to Google Docs. For my use, it worked fine. The feature I missed most was the live word count that like the author, I had come to depend on when writing articles of a designated length. Google, are you listening? :-)
You can extend the functionality of google apps using apps script. I thought it was already in use and there were libraries of extensions, but I don't see any. But I'm guessing they will be coming soon..
Number one deterrent to me using Word: no support for emacs navigation keystrokes, which are near-universal on the Mac. I don't use actual emacs, but I've come to rely heavily on those keystrokes.
I have never tried this, but apparently you can set key binds in Word. See: http://emacsblog.org/2007/02/18/emacs-key-bindings-in-ms-wor...
Apparently Steve Brust writes using emacs.
http://dreamcafe.com/words/2009/04/11/help-us-dr-internet-em...
http://dreamcafe.com/words/2009/04/11/help-us-dr-internet-em...
I was going to suggest this. Religious themes and issues of learning curve aside, I find emacs is the perfect text-editor for my needs. (Emphasis on my needs).
I have disabled the scrollbar, menubar, and toolbar. Full screen it and you have black and white. Nothing else. Combine that with some really great text manipulation features/shorcuts and you have an awesome text editor for anything you want.
And it can even do spell-checking and all that other fancy stuff.
As for the whole "what about sending documents to non techies" issue: It doesn't seem to apply for this article since he can write the whole thing in emacs and then send the final copy to his editor after copying and pasting into Word.
I have disabled the scrollbar, menubar, and toolbar. Full screen it and you have black and white. Nothing else. Combine that with some really great text manipulation features/shorcuts and you have an awesome text editor for anything you want.
And it can even do spell-checking and all that other fancy stuff.
As for the whole "what about sending documents to non techies" issue: It doesn't seem to apply for this article since he can write the whole thing in emacs and then send the final copy to his editor after copying and pasting into Word.
The mention about the Psion PDA is spot on. I also used to do a lot of writing with those in the 90s. Relatively small device, almost laptop-quality keyboard, and battery life of several days with AAs that you could buy anywhere.
I haven't seen devices like that in last ten years or so. Undistracted, small, great text input.
Back then I'd connect the Psion with infrared to my cell phone to FTP stuff to our processing system that would eventually convert the document format on the device to HTML and post it online.
I haven't seen devices like that in last ten years or so. Undistracted, small, great text input.
Back then I'd connect the Psion with infrared to my cell phone to FTP stuff to our processing system that would eventually convert the document format on the device to HTML and post it online.
"Eventually the Psion broke, and nothing as good has replaced it as an ultramobile writing tool. So much for progress."
There is definitely a market for a device with a Psion quality keyboard and maybe an e-ink based screen (not sure they can react fast enough to feel snappy actually...) It would make a top notch writing platform... Smartphone keyboards are a joke when they have one and e-reader are even worse...
There is definitely a market for a device with a Psion quality keyboard and maybe an e-ink based screen (not sure they can react fast enough to feel snappy actually...) It would make a top notch writing platform... Smartphone keyboards are a joke when they have one and e-reader are even worse...
http://celtx.com/index.html is a very good, free and open source writing package that may be of interest to anyone who wants good writing software.
It has a lot of that sort of index-card functionality like in Scrivener.
It's often listed as a competitor for final draft (the screenplay software).
It's been built for Windows, Mac and Linux
It has a lot of that sort of index-card functionality like in Scrivener.
It's often listed as a competitor for final draft (the screenplay software).
It's been built for Windows, Mac and Linux
This might be taking a step back toward fluff from programs like WriteRoom, but I really like typing up blog posts with OmmWriter: http://www.ommwriter.com/en/
It's just relaxing.
Edit: The site makes it look like it's only for iPad at first glance, but it's also available for Mac/PC
It's just relaxing.
Edit: The site makes it look like it's only for iPad at first glance, but it's also available for Mac/PC
[deleted]
Anyone else fondly remember Interleaf? I now have a love/hate relationship with OOWriter but expect I would pay a lot for a working clone of Interleaf on Linux. I used it both on Apollo workstations and on PCDOS.
I used Interleaf on a VaxStation in the late 1980s. It was great at handling the huge (thousands of pages) government documents we had to produce.
Love it. He had me at: "Scoured of Word, my computers feel clean, refreshed, relieved of a hideous and malign burden."
Could have walked into the sunset right there. But I understand his need to fully skewer MSFT.
Could have walked into the sunset right there. But I understand his need to fully skewer MSFT.
I really like the simplicity idea behind WriteRoom.
I think it would be great for this kind of apps to auto-save directly to Evernote API or iCloud instead of the file disk.
I think it would be great for this kind of apps to auto-save directly to Evernote API or iCloud instead of the file disk.
Pages has full screen writing mode, can open doc, and can export in doc and/or PDF. I never understood why it wasn't more popular than.
Pages' full-screen mode is relatively new -- as far as I'm aware, it wasn't added until the Lion update. Scrivener et. al. have had the market to themselves up until now.
That being said, the fullscreen mode in Pages actually seems like a pretty nice compromise between features and non-distraction. Apple's obviously been taking some notes. :)
That being said, the fullscreen mode in Pages actually seems like a pretty nice compromise between features and non-distraction. Apple's obviously been taking some notes. :)
Not sure when it was introduced, but I know I had it with iWork 2009 on Snow Leopard.
I started getting annoyed with Word when it couldn't even force the caret to black when typing. Watch your caret, it's flashing, now type and it stays black.
If a "Word Processor" can't even manage such a basic thing, it's lost the plot. I think this was likely Word 6.0 that did this, and was also about where they brought the Mac and PC code-bases into alignment, though others may know better.
Word 2.0 on Windows is for sure my favorite PC version, after the 'just right' Word 5.1 on the Mac.
If a "Word Processor" can't even manage such a basic thing, it's lost the plot. I think this was likely Word 6.0 that did this, and was also about where they brought the Mac and PC code-bases into alignment, though others may know better.
Word 2.0 on Windows is for sure my favorite PC version, after the 'just right' Word 5.1 on the Mac.
It can be totally irrelevant to this discussion, but I think the screenshot is from Word 6. 5, IIRC, had flat controls.
This is how I remember it:
http://school.anhb.uwa.edu.au/personalpages/kwessen/web/soft...
Guess I'll have to fire my Mac SE (and the Word 5 disks) to be sure...
http://school.anhb.uwa.edu.au/personalpages/kwessen/web/soft...
Guess I'll have to fire my Mac SE (and the Word 5 disks) to be sure...
So, people are writing adverts* for discovering full screen editors?
c'mon, i remember my editors of choice doing that since the late 80s. even under windows. under linux it's not even fair play to mention this.
Those people will have their heads blow away when the find out that /modern/ text-editors not only have full screen but better way to navigate the text and perform auto correction. ...just let them catch up with the progress made on the 90s. heck, vim can have word count on the status bar since what? the 70s?
* i consider the article to be an advertisement for the mac editor, even if unintentional
c'mon, i remember my editors of choice doing that since the late 80s. even under windows. under linux it's not even fair play to mention this.
Those people will have their heads blow away when the find out that /modern/ text-editors not only have full screen but better way to navigate the text and perform auto correction. ...just let them catch up with the progress made on the 90s. heck, vim can have word count on the status bar since what? the 70s?
* i consider the article to be an advertisement for the mac editor, even if unintentional
WriteRoom uses a standard Mac OS X text field IIRC, and as such uses Mac OS X's built-in auto correction and spell check...
exactly my point. the guy makes a living writing, and never bothered to look for better text editors.
he is chanting about the progress of default text editors when all that was available from day one of his career.
it's like a developer with 30yr of experience just finding out version control
he is chanting about the progress of default text editors when all that was available from day one of his career.
it's like a developer with 30yr of experience just finding out version control
The design of this website is uncomfortably close to Khoi Vinh's subtraction.com.
Thanks. I did actually look for something like this, but I was looking for it under 'about'.
I still personally think the resemblance (not just the monochrome, but the overall look - the layout, the individual entries, the top nav, the bottom nav) is pushing the limits of good taste, but oh well.
I still personally think the resemblance (not just the monochrome, but the overall look - the layout, the individual entries, the top nav, the bottom nav) is pushing the limits of good taste, but oh well.
I've always really liked Word, it's a great product, but for 99% of people it just does way too much and is thus way too expensive. Office is worse...gmail is better than outlook, anything is better than powerpoint or access.
My last two jobs have shown me that Excel is really what you need to kill if you want to break the Office stronghold.