
I still use WordPerfect 6.2 for DOS - newducks
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24411333
======
systemvoltage
It is amazing how much we regress as software gets bloated with feature creep.

Modern web apps are so much more inferior in certain areas when speed,
immediacy and efficiency is required. They do have their upsides but more
often than not, it is just a mess. I recently logged into my medical insurance
website and the fucking thing ajaxing all day and I have no idea what part of
the page is waiting to load. I don't have a speedy internet connection. I
actually prefer the page to refresh than some small segment of it reload
without any indication. Sometimes spinners are fixed in place to indicate
"loading" but it is just a frustrating thing to look at.

I've used IBM AS400 and a bunch of factory management software - it is an
absolute pleasure to use. Yet, most operators on the factory floor complain
"We are just stuck with this old archaic system". Every single day. I feel
like one of these days some asshole consultant company is going to convince
our upper management for a web-based MRP.

Large percentage of people do not appreciate old pieces of software. They look
at the aesthetics of it and write it off. I really think an average joe off
the streets can be completely bedazzled by a modern React app with animations
and frivolous bells and whistles that takes 5 seconds to load. Joe does not
know the difference between aesthetics and functionlism. Jill on the other
hand is a linux aficionado and goes out of her way to make things hard. Spends
ages perfecting her vim config file, and looks down on anyone that doesn't use
Arch Linux and some form of a window manager.

Perhaps there is a sweet spot between Joe and Jill's philosophy towards
useful, easy to learn and efficient software that doesn't require an obsessive
linux nerd to use. Like WordPerfect 6.2.

The world is really a sad place. :-(

~~~
Fej
The beauty of the web as we know it has nothing to do with its efficiency. For
applications, it is, as you wrote, inferior in speed, as well as many other
attributes (memory usage, CPU usage, plenty of others). That is not the point.
The point is that web apps are distributed instantly to users, on demand,
anywhere, extremely cheaply, with no middlemen necessary. (The web is not the
only technology with these traits, but in practice it is the only widespread
one.)

Back before the web was prominent, software had to be distributed via physical
media, usually floppies and later CDs. This inherently limited the reach and
complexity of software - physical media is expensive, especially floppies - so
it required either the mailing of software by the creator(s) to users, who
would have to pay a fee, or a substantial investment by a publisher, which
again incurs a (larger) cost to the end user. Almost any widespread software
would require a middleman (publisher) and the end user having to go to a store
to purchase it.

Allowing anyone to create and distribute software in a format simple enough to
be used easily by anyone has democratized this system. With more programmers
who might not practice the craft professionally, and a desire for speedy
development, higher-level languages and frameworks sprung up to fill the
knowledge gap and enable even easier development.

That's not to say that we should not appreciate older software - as you wrote,
the aesthetics ought not belie the challenge and art of software which had to
fit into tight spaces, and the constraints required usually forced developers
to place function over form. It's a different, not necessarily better or
worse, software development paradigm, and older software can be as impressive
as or even more so than newer software. But we shouldn't write off the new
things either, even if they're worse in areas.

(I don't think all of it looks completely ugly, either: Windows 3.1, for
example, exhibits a number of traits of modern flat design - single colors,
mostly a lack of shadows, many simple icons and interface elements. Windows
1.0 even used the hamburger menu icon. What's old is new again.)

~~~
chongli
_For applications, it is, as you wrote, inferior in speed, as well as many
other attributes (memory usage, CPU usage, plenty of others). That is not the
point. The point is that web apps are distributed instantly to users, on
demand, anywhere, extremely cheaply, with no middlemen necessary. (The web is
not the only technology with these traits, but in practice it is the only
widespread one.)_

Apart from the speed and convenience of clicking a link to visit a web app,
those attributes all sound to me like tradeoffs that benefit the developer at
the expense of the user.

The software I remember, from the 90’s and earlier, put the user in control.
Licenses were one time costs and they were perpetual. Software was much more
thoroughly tested before being released to manufacturing (through the golden
master process) since it was a major gaffe to release a broken app that had to
be updated with fresh physical media.

Unlike today, there was never any sense that the developer could pull the rug
out from under your feet, at any moment. The title of the article is a
testament to the (now archaic) notion that software might be considered
“complete”. That it seems so quaint is such a terrible shame.

Now we have so much software offered for rental only, like Adobe stuff, or ad-
driven free sites which are liable to changed drastically (with no option to
skip the “upgrade”) or cancelled outright like so many Google products [1].

Somehow, in the past few years I’ve picked up a nostalgic fever for retro
computing [2] which has only intensified since Covid began. I don’t know how
to explain it, but here we are. Perhaps I’m just getting old and finding it
increasingly difficult to relate to young people, who seem to jump from one
social media fad to another, like locusts.

[1] [https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

[2] [https://medium.com/message/networks-without-
networks-7644933...](https://medium.com/message/networks-without-
networks-7644933a3100)

~~~
ryandrake
> The title of the article is a testament to the (now archaic) notion that
> software might be considered “complete”. That it seems so quaint is such a
> terrible shame.

Your comment reminds me of a pretty jarring experience moving from embedded
systems into mobile (iOS) apps. I asked the lead how we know the software is
“done” and can ship. He looked at me like I had horns growing out of my head.
“We are never done. We just keep developing and releasing until they tell us
to work on something else.” This idea that your program can be done and you
release the final version is turning into a relic from a lost age.

It’s also sad from the user’s point of view: as updates get more automatic,
you have to take deliberate action to stay on an old, working, familiar
version. If you’re not careful, you can reboot and your software looks and
behaves entirely different. And in the web world it’s impossible! You don’t
even have a choice. You are running whatever version the developer decrees you
should be running.

~~~
bombela
Oh man. So painfully true. As I write this message on the latest firefox
mobile that upgraded automatically. And is one of the worst software upgrade I
have ever seen. And there is no easy way to revert to what worked before of
course. At least the most recent patch brought back the back button (no joke).
What a treat!

~~~
exikyut
That reminds me, I need to go dig an old version of Firefox out of one of
those shady APK websites so I can get tab queue functionality back. I used
that easily 20 times every day to remember URLs and such ("Share > with
Firefox").

It'll reappear eventually. But until it does, Mozilla has decreed that I shall
use an out of date web browser.

Bring on the vulnerabilities...?

------
wenc
If anyone's interested in Microsoft Word for DOS 5.5, there's a free download
from Microsoft. (Microsoft released this as freeware some years ago)

[http://download.microsoft.com/download/word97win/Wd55_be/97/...](http://download.microsoft.com/download/word97win/Wd55_be/97/WIN98/EN-
US/Wd55_ben.exe)

To install: C:\> Wd55_ben.exe - d

(note the spaces; or just use unzip on Linux)

I just installed it on DOSBox. Works great! (brings back memories of Doogie
Howser typing on a blue-screen on his PS/2)

~~~
tomcam
Word 5.5 was incredibly powerful and amazingly stable. I used it to generate
1,000+ page manuals. Word has progressed in many ways but it is generally not
better for huge documents than it was then.

~~~
wenc
I'm thinking this could still be useful as a distraction-free word processor
for writers today.

It runs under DOSBox perfectly, saves Word .doc files to the underlying file
system (which could well be a Dropbox folder if cloud syncing is needed). Or
Google Drive even, which makes it interoperable with Google Docs.

And because it's a completely text-based UI, there's no temptation to mess
around with formatting (except maybe bold text).

------
skrebbel
I like the screenshot (the Twitter link). Looks like he is:

    
    
        - Running WP 6.2
        - Inside a dosemu2
        - Inside a Linux VM (WSL, likely)
        - In a Windows 10 terminal window
    

I'm not sure if dosemu2 includes actual DOS code, but if so it's an MS OS
running a Linux running another MS OS running Word Perfect. Either way,
amazing inception.

I'm assuming he's using that odd WSL+dosemu2 detour and not a native Windows
DOSBox build because afaik DOSBox makes its own fake terminal (it simulates
the pixels, not the text). So with it he can't just WP6.2 straight from the
active terminal window.

It's also kind of a testament to how well WSL works in practice that one can
go "I want $OBSCURE_THING. Damn, doesn't work on Windows, hmm I'll try the
Linux version ok that works done". This is the same thing that finally got me,
a lifetime Windows user, access to important productivity software such as
gti, sl, cowsay and lolcat.

~~~
wenc
Looks like there are ways of running WP DOS on Windows 10 64-bit with fewer
layers of abstractions

[http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/wpdos/64bitwindows.html](http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/wpdos/64bitwindows.html)

------
zxcvbn4038
My favorite editor of all time was “Leading Edge Word Processor” which was a
lightening fast piece of word processing software for DOS w/ all the trimmings
that comfortably fit in a floppy disk with ample room for documents. The
company that made it “Leading Edge” was primarily a PC clone vendor and all
their software disappeared overnight when they were acquired by another clone
maker and their entire brand winked out.

For writing batch scripts and reading large text files I would use a utility
called sled “slick little editor”. That was some hand coded assembly language
program that was only a couple kilobytes but could do most of what vi does and
work with anything that fit into memory. It seems to have completely
disappeared from history.

Wordstar was big in school - first half of class was always everyone passing
around the DOS and Wordstar disks to boot their computers. Great way to start
your day or wind down, really sucked at lunch because you were hungry and
nothing to do but watching the second hand spin while everyone was booting up.

~~~
ubermonkey
OH MY GOD I remember LEWP, but my nostalgia here is fundamentally grounded in
its instability. See, I kept myself in beer money by helping a few grad
students recover LEWP documents that LEWP had obligingly munged badly.

Great tool -- for people who charge money to fix it when it breaks!

~~~
zxcvbn4038
I remember there was a master index file which implemented a sort of virtual
filesystem allowing long document names w/ spaces. If that got corrupted it
was a bad thing - only happened once but I lost an evening of work. Otherwise
it never gave me any problems. I remember that document recovery used to be a
big thing so I guess a lot of programs had issues - or maybe it was just the
technology at the time was less reliable.

I remember one of my school teachers seemed to think that inserting a floppy
disk required you to slam it in with as much force as possible, and she could
never understand why the disks stopped working [point to crease in media,
point to abrasion on media, point to tear in jacket] -- complete mystery,
can't have been anything she was doing. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

~~~
ubermonkey
It was something about LEWP's goofy virtual filesystem, absolutely.
Contemporary tech was really stable when crappy developers didn't get
overcute.

I made literally thousands of dollars solving issues with LEWP among a cohort
of grad students between 1990 and 1992.

I was never called upon to do similar magic for anyone who used a more serious
and less idiosyncratic tool (at my university, Word was the mainstream
option).

------
unclesams-uncle
A close relative of mine swears by WP 5.1 and running as many programs as he
can from the command line.

He also:

\- Refuses to upgrade to Windows 10 (he's trying desperately to stay on XP for
as long as he can, although I think either 98 or even 3.1 is his favorite. He
has, however, made peace with Windows 7)

\- Will buy out-of-date but refurbished laptops to achieve this goal.

\- Prefers obscure browsers over Chrome, IE/Edge and even Firefox.

\- Will actively block JS from loading in browser. It makes for a 'unique'
browsing experience.

As a result, I get the impression that he's created some sort of high-end IT
security policy in the sense that no nefarious hacker would bother even
looking for hardware and software that obsolete and obscure.

He's in his mid 70s. I've tried to get him to migrate to a lighter-weight
Linux distro running XFCE or MATE but he seems adamant on sticking to his
guns. I kind of respect that dedication, even with the mind-boggling
frustration it comes with.

~~~
OskarS
> _I kind of respect that dedication, even with the mind-boggling frustration
> it comes with._

I dunno. I get the "respect the dedication" thing, but at some point this
person is so afraid of change that they'd rather become a burden to others who
have to deal with them rather than adapt to a changing world. At least for
developers, part of the job description is to actually make an effort to learn
and use new things.

I've worked with a number of these people, where whenever you introduce a
concept that they haven't worked with for 25 years (e.g. a new VCS, a
new/upgraded programming language, a new way of building, a new framework,
even minor changes to code they wrote 15 years ago, really anything), they
become incredibly resistant and intransigent, and they make change
significantly harder than it needs to be.

People who are adaptable are forced to work with their ancient (and not always
better) systems, because it's the path of least resistance. These kinds of
people can be a real problem.

~~~
badsectoracula
But it makes sense to be resistant - you're trying to change something that
they perceive to have worked for 25 years (or whatever). I bet that if they
perceive that something to not work they'd accept that fix, but despite what
some will say, more often than not if something isn't broken then it is a bad
idea to try and fix it.

Part of gaining experience over the years is also gaining the experience that
people often want to mess things that work (often with good intentions) and
end up making things worse.

------
samatman
George RR Martin notoriously uses a DOS box with WordStar 4.0 to write his
novels.

I get it, my mother stuck with WordPerfect for her entire career as an
academic publishing editor. The reason was the "reveal codes" feature: without
the ability to "pop the hood" and directly edit the representation of the
document, fixing various weird edge cases was an exercise in frustration.

~~~
dwd
I used to love WordStar, it was an excellent Ctrl-Key editor.

I'm sure you could probably convert GRR to use something like Sublime Text and
keep all his only WordStar shortcuts. Pick a nice font and size and just start
typing.

------
Jerry2
My grandfather, who's in his 80s and has been using WP for the longest, has
switched to WordGrinder about 8 years or so ago. He co-wrote several books
with WG as well. He likes it a lot but it'd definitely not as feature-complete
as WP. He mentioned to me that he still starts up WordPerfect every now and
then to do some task.

When I bought a computer for him, an iMac, he asked me about WP and I setup a
DOSBox with it for him. But then I managed to compile Wordgrinder and showed
him how to use it and he's been using it since. Wordgrinder used to be a pain
in the neck to compile on a Mac but it's much easier now after 0.7.x version
was released. I still update it for him when I visit him.

You can see what WordGrinder looks like here:
[https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder/](https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder/)

------
fouc
I find it strange that nobody seems to be directly commenting on the whole
arms race we have with constantly upgrading operating systems, browsers, and
software in the name of security or features, and how we end up abandoning
perfectly good software, the sum of countless of human-hours of work, and all
for what?

What would help is if the operating system was no more than the hypervisor,
and we run every single application in their own VM that includes all their
dependencies.

~~~
angio
That's why I'm happy to use a tiling window manager that I've setup years ago
(bspwm) and never touched since. Likewise, I learned how to use emacs over 10
years ago and, while it got some nice improvements over time, it never changed
in any significant way. I now use it for coding, taking notes, and emails.

------
scruffyherder
I still use Excel 3 and Word 2.

They both use GDI to print and support all the latest printers. It just works!

WineVDM is an awesome tool to keep running Win16 apps on Windows.

[https://github.com/otya128/winevdm](https://github.com/otya128/winevdm)

The best part is that it being 32bit means it runs fine on Windows for ARM.

------
scott31
Modern software is nearly always worse than the ones decades ago. I still use
MS Office 2003 as that was the last version with Clippy

~~~
einr
I still use Office 2003 as it is the last version without the ribbon. The
ribbon is still a really bad idea and I can't wait for it to go out of fashion
again.

------
shrubble
Wasn't aware of the dosemu2 method of converting text mode DOS programs into
calls to native text routines. Will try this with Grandview, a great old DOS
outliner.

~~~
cagey
[https://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/6291](https://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/6291)
"I have put together a version of GrandView 2.0 for DOS that is completely
portable, fully functional, and ready to run on any modern version of Windows,
using vDos-lfn, a variant of the excellent DOS emulator vDos.*"

I have used this off and on for a few years with relative success (and
pleasure).

------
jhallenworld
Well this is awesome: dosemu2 seems to work well in 64-bit Linux. I just tried
it with old DOS OrCAD (a schematic design tool).

32-bit Windows-XP still works a little better in one way: OrCAD has a plug-in
graphics driver architecture. Some sneaky person wrote a driver that uses DPMI
to make Windows graphics calls. The result is that you can do things like
resize the window or switch to full screen mode and the ancient DOS program
thinks it's attached to a monitor of that size. So dosemu2 needs to merge with
Wine for this work properly...

Some screen shots of Old DOS OrCAD:

[https://visio-for-engineers.blogspot.com/2019/11/old-but-
not...](https://visio-for-engineers.blogspot.com/2019/11/old-but-not-
obsolete.html)

~~~
andrewshadura
It'd be interesting to read more on that DPMI driver, do you have any links?

~~~
jhallenworld
Well it's here, but you probably have to join the group to get access:

[https://groups.io/g/dosOrCAD/files/OrCAD%20driver%20without%...](https://groups.io/g/dosOrCAD/files/OrCAD%20driver%20without%20bug)

I put a copy in one of my github repositories:

[https://github.com/jhallen/joes-
sandbox/blob/master/pcb/orca...](https://github.com/jhallen/joes-
sandbox/blob/master/pcb/orcaddrv.zip)

I think this is a description of what's going on:

[https://airborn.com.au/layout/vddtest.html](https://airborn.com.au/layout/vddtest.html)

Well this is getting really off topic, but it appears that you can run DOS
programs in 64-bit Windows 10:

[http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/ntvdmx64.html](http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/ntvdmx64.html)

[https://github.com/leecher1337/ntvdmx64](https://github.com/leecher1337/ntvdmx64)

------
throw0101a
The 'reveal codes' functionality is something that I always liked with WP, and
that no other word processors seems to have implemented.

~~~
ratiolat
Libreoffice writer has this:
[https://help.libreoffice.org/6.0/he/text/swriter/01/03100000...](https://help.libreoffice.org/6.0/he/text/swriter/01/03100000.html)

~~~
csande17
I could be mistaken, but it looks like that feature is mainly for showing
whitespace characters (space, tab, carriage returns), while reveal codes
showed the _formatting_ , like bold and italic. A bit like showing the HTML
tags that make up a webpage.

------
mkovach
I wrote a ton in WordPerfect. During college, they had WordPerfect on the UNIX
and OpenVMS systems. Then, at a job, we did all our documentation using
Wordstar, WordPerfect was only for the legal team.

Because of that, I still tend to install joe and use jstar quite a bit on any
box I use with any regularity.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
I wish I had WordPerfect 4.2 still. It is probably nostalgia, but this on an
amber screen, and the reveal codes feature felt like the perfect tool.

------
cameldrv
WordPerfect was awesome. I constantly want to press "Reveal Codes" when
editing in some crappy WYSIWIG markdown editor (looking at you Evernote) that
is causing me trouble.

For the youngsters, Reveal Codes would show in reverse text, things like
"[Boldface On]". As you were pressing your cursor past it, that would be
considered a single character. You could copy, paste, or delete it. It would
be as if <b> were a single character that you could manipulate.

------
jhallenworld
Do you have the giant function key overlay needed for WordPerfect?

[https://tmft.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/wpoverlay.jpg](https://tmft.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/wpoverlay.jpg)

[http://gordogato.com/oscommerce/catalog/product_info.php?pro...](http://gordogato.com/oscommerce/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=580)

------
29athrowaway
I remember that the FAT filesystem had a limit of 8 characters for filenames,
so you had to be creative with document names.

I do not remember ever having problems with WordPerfect or Quattro Pro. The
only friction I experienced was with the dot matrix printer I used at that
time.

I remember WordPerfect 6 having a mouse enabled GUI mode in DOS, as well as
the text UI.

------
smileypete
Not using WP but have gone back to using Eudora 7 for Windows after Gmail got
even slower after the redesign. Eudora is lightning fast for handling mailing
list cruft; alt click on sender or subject to group matching emails.

~~~
rasz
at least 3 remote exploits [https://www.exploit-
db.com/search?q=Eudora](https://www.exploit-db.com/search?q=Eudora)

~~~
einr
Yeah but who honestly is going to try to exploit Eudora 7 in 2020 unless they
are deliberately targeting you?

------
protomyth
I remember it being loved by lawyers. The Mac version for the old System OSes
was pretty damn nice, especially compared to the crappy versions of Word.

I get the feeling that someone looking at the post for [1] might not do badly
by cloning WP or more probably WordStar for the terminal.

1)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24412687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24412687)

~~~
bluedino
The lawyers we consulted for liked it because they had to deal with 8.3 DOS
file names.

DOS WordPerfect let them view the next file with a key press. Click click
click found it.

The Windows version required them to go to File, Open, choose the file...

~~~
ericbarrett
I bought a washer/dryer at a regional appliance chain recently. Checkout was
at a desk with a terminal. The implementation was modern, with high contrast
colors and nice fonts, but unmistakably still “ANSI” [0]. The employee who
checked me out absolutely flew through the invoice, contact, and delivery
forms. It was really nice after dealing with so many companies that just use
web apps with obviously overloaded backends.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_437](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_437)

------
kelnos
Wow, the really brings me back. I'm certain that my old WP floppies are gone
at this point... is there a place to get a safe (from malware) and preferably
legal copy of WP for DOS?

~~~
phonon
[https://archive.org/details/WordPerfect5.1.1989-11-06](https://archive.org/details/WordPerfect5.1.1989-11-06)
(Also check out
[https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22WordPerfec...](https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22WordPerfect%22)
)

------
jansan
I am still using Paint Shop Pro 7.04 Anniversary Edition from 2000. It is fast
and very intuitive and has all the functionality that I need from an image
editor. I tried several newer versions and other programs (yes, this includes
Gimp) but always came back to my beloved PSP 7.04.

------
tenebrisalietum
I still use a program called "iPhoto Plus 4!" for basic image editing.

It came with an old Mustek paralell port scanner that came with an equally old
533Mhz AMD K6-2 Compaq Presario runniung Windows ME (initially 98 and later
upgraded to XP), that I bought off of a friend in 1999. The scanner is long
since dead (stopped using that in '02 I think).

It loads quickly, has basic functions but is better than MS Paint, I'm used to
the interface, and have never needed to stop using it. For more sophisticated
things I will use Gimp or other programs, but this program has always been
there when I've needed it and it still works on the latest Windows 10 builds.

------
ubermonkey
This feels performative and not like a well-reasoned choice that the poster
would make in the absence of any observers.

I used WP for DOS back in the day. It _sucked_ out loud, especially when
compared to more modern word processors already available, like Word (for DOS!
I don't even mean the Windows version). (The reasons are legion and really
beyond the scope of this post.)

At the same time, yeah, it sucks that feature creep and whatnot often bloats
good tools into something unwieldy and slow. But there are other, modern
options available that wouldn't require having to shift your brain back to
1995 or whatever.

~~~
taviso
Shrug, I only mentioned it because there was a thread about using old word
processors.

Regarding Word for DOS, I did try it out, but I think you're mistaken - it's
capable but not as powerful or configurable as WordPerfect. I think you're
calling it "modern" because by default it has CUA key bindings (Ctrl+C,
Ctrl+V, Shift+Arrows to select, etc.). WordPerfect has those too,
File->Setup->Keyboard Layout and then switch the default "Original" bindings
to "CUAWP". This is better than Word, because you can edit and rebind the
layout, even to macros. For example, I always use Ctrl+W to delete a word, so
in WordPerfect I bound it to DeleteToBeginningOfWord. I don't believe that's
possible in Word.

Another major drawback of Word for DOS is that it's fixed at standard VGA text
resolutions (e.g. 40x25 characters), where as WP supports arbitrary
resolutions. I can resize my xterm any size up to 255x128 and WP just works.

What are the "other, modern options available", with the requirement I've
already stated - that I want it to run in a terminal? I would be very happy if
there was a vim plugin that makes it a word processor, but I really think I've
tried them all.

~~~
ubermonkey
>I think you're calling it "modern" because by default it has CUA

No. I'm calling it modern because it was stylesheet-based, and followed the
eventual dominant paradigm of working with ranges of text and attaching
formatting, not inserting codes.

CUA menus and keybindings aren't part of my opinion of Word. (In fact, the
eventual grafting of CUA menus to it really ruined it, IMO.)

Your "major drawback of Word for DOS" is really only a drawback for people
_trying to run it in an xterm in 2020, decades after its last release_ , so,
uh...

I'm baffled at the insistence of a word process in a terminal, honestly.

~~~
taviso
> I'm baffled at the insistence of a word process in a terminal, honestly.

I don't know what to tell you, some people are more productive working in a
terminal.

I like being able to ssh in, reattach to a screen/tmux session that has my
email (mutt), development environment (gdb+vim+ycm), word processor
(dosemu+wp), and so on. This is how I've worked for a long time.

I agree that everything I use a computer for could be achieved (far less
efficiently, but without the steep learning curve) using GUI tools, but I
value the efficiency gain and don't mind investing in learning new powerful
tools.

~~~
ubermonkey
I hear people insist they're more efficient in a terminal, and some tasks are
friendly to this bias -- but not all of them. And when it comes to the ones
not fundamentally text-mode in nature, I have yet to really SEE that happen
from those same people when I've worked closely with them.

IME, these people are also the ones who insist that the tasks a terminal is
bad at, and that they consequently have trouble doing efficiently (e.g., well-
formatted text, or formatting text in line with a shared template) are somehow
not important or legitimate. The super common pattern is a refusal to engage
in HTML email, for example. Sure, mutt is fast for plaintext mail, but if you
have to engage in some additional toolchain machinations to read (let alone
create) an HTML mail, you lose a bunch of those efficiency points.

Maybe you're different! It's possible! But I haven't seen it.

As for myself, I absolutely still do composition in plain text 99% of the
time, because I've been bitten by extinct file formats too many times. But I'm
running native emacs under OSX, in a graphical environment, when I do it. When
I need to do something for production to a client, I'm in Word, because it
makes creating an attractive document far, far easier than with any prior
tool.

(Including, it chagrins me to note, Word 5 for DOS.)

~~~
taviso
I think I'm pretty efficient, but maybe you're right and I'd be even more
effective if I just used Microsoft Office and Outlook, but I doubt it. It's
not like I don't know how to use an graphical email client, and I believe I
can achieve tasks that would take you many minutes in a few keystrokes.

It seems like you have strong opinions on how a word processor should operate,
but this seems like calling emacs more modern than vim, because it uses elisp
(i.e. just your opinion, and not a universal truth).

I don't really mind what word processor you use, and think Microsoft Word is a
perfectly valid choice if it works well for you. I think I'm happy with my
workflow at the moment, and don't plan on changing it.

------
verytrivial
Anyone with a TheC64 Maxi and looking for an ascetic, hair-shirt level of
simplicity and focus should check out "Kwik Write!" Basically notepad.exe. You
can get about 5 or 6 thousand words of prose in memory. Has search and
replace, soft line wrap, etc. It's my NaNoWriMo environment for 2020 (assuming
I can keep away from Wizball.)

I have to so I can eject the USB and plug it in to my RPi and it will extract
the files using the c1541 tool and git commit them somewhere. Delightfully
pointless.

------
Aperocky
I still use vim.

And I have supported the children in Uganda.

~~~
wenc
So specifically on vim as a word processor: I've tried using vim as a word-
processor and it doesn't work that well even with wordwrap configs enabled up
to the wazoo. (and I've been vim user since 1998)

I did use vim to write my dissertation but it was in LaTeX.

~~~
Aperocky
Yeah, vim doesn't really do format at all.

That being said, I feel like Latex has just too many features - making it more
like words. I like .md format much better particularly a blend of markdown and
latex for the occasional need of equations.

I feel like eventually we'll return to the root of writing - to communicate.
That process can take years but I'm so so happy that light formats like
markdown is making inroads to businesses.

------
agumonkey
It's worth making a tiny repository of tools that are light in resources,
light on features, but satisfying to use from simple and clear ergonomics.

------
gwbas1c
I learned on WordPerfect for DOS because that was what my dad used at work.
Then, when I was in high school, we moved to WordPerfect for Windows when we
moved to Windows 95.

I always missed the simplicity of WordPerfect for DOS, but WYSIWYG always kept
me in the Windows version. For some reason, I always had some kind of
irrational fear of MS Word; but I switched in college and never looked back.
Ever.

------
pcr910303
Hmm, not really related to the story (or HN comment), but I thought HN
comments became automatically dead when submitted... [0] I guess someone
decided to vouch for this?

Is my guess right? Can someone shed some light on how this is not dead?

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ycombinator.com](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ycombinator.com)
(view it with showdead on)

~~~
dang
You guessed right: someone vouched for this, and it created such a good thread
that I think we'll protect this one. Cases like this are one reason why HN's
systems are so porous—e.g. submissions to HN posts get autokilled but someone
vouched for it so it came back.

Also, allowing weird exceptions keeps things unpredictable, which makes things
more interesting.

------
im3w1l
I guess that means one could make portable programs by targeting the "dos-vm".

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
I've said as much multiple times. If you want write it once and run it on
nearly every platform with a screen, write it for DOS (or more specifically,
DOSBox).

~~~
userbinator
...and if you want an actual GUI, then Win32 (and WINE for those not on
Windows.) I have utilities I wrote in the Win95 era that I still use daily,
the binaries continue to work fine in Win10.

------
kbenson
Wow, the picture[1] he links to in the comment makes it look surprisingly
capable. I remember using WordPerfect for DOS way back in the early 90's for
writing elementary/middle school papers, but don't remember it being this
capable. Either I wasn't aware of the features (likely, I was young and trying
to do homework, not explore a word processor), or they were added afterwards.

1:
[https://twitter.com/taviso/status/1272670107043368960/photo/...](https://twitter.com/taviso/status/1272670107043368960/photo/1)

~~~
someguydave
I remember when Word for Windows came out for win 3.1 and being deeply
unimpressed with its features compared to wordperfect 5.1 for dos.

------
taxidump
I remember wiring up one of the founders houses in Utah. Hope he reads this.

~~~
LVB
Not a founder, but this comment immediately popped, "Orem, Utah USA" out of 30
years of my brain's cold storage.

------
sosborn
WordPefect was the first software that showed me the power of user programmed
macros. I think I was in high school at the time.

------
dividedbyzero
Where would one get this today? Also, what else should I try to get the proper
DOS vibes from back in the day?

~~~
Jaruzel
Wordperfect is available on WinWorld:

[https://winworldpc.com/product/wordperfect/5x-dos](https://winworldpc.com/product/wordperfect/5x-dos)

That said, I know for fact that WP is _not_ abandonware, so I'm not sure about
the legality of this.

~~~
pkphilip
The entire download of the executable is less than 4MB! and the manual is 26.2
MB! :)

------
slowhand09
I used to be a wiz at WP5/6/7, often taking tech support calls from remote
family members at 3am. I could typically answer their questions with opening
my eyes. I hate the bloat in most of todays "office" software, but I go along
out of convenience.

------
1vuio0pswjnm7
[https://web.archive.org/web/20020214094236/http://www.columb...](https://web.archive.org/web/20020214094236/http://www.columbia.edu:80/~em36/wpdos/linux.html)

------
Imagenuity
I still run Quicken 6 for Windows from around 1995. Runs fine using Windows 10
in VirtualBox on my Mac. Tried newer versions of Quicken and really don't like
them. Can't find anything open source that is as simple and easy to use.

------
est
Reminded me of the guy used Python with nEdit and produced the first
BitTorrent client.

------
himinlomax
What a luddite, he still writes _letters_.

------
hipsterstal1n
I love this. I grew up using this and still have the software on floppies, I
may try this out.

------
frank2
Upvoted for being a HN story whose OP is a HN comment.

------
ssivark
So... much... churn...

