I have installed at my XP-PC the WP51 for DOS and of the
Windows-Versions WP8, WPX3 and WPX5.
WP8 because it is the last one which behaves with
WP6-DOS-keyboard nearly as I know it from the WP51-Version. For
example with cursor on a word and pressing F6 the word without
the space after will be bold, in WPX3 also the space after the
word is bold OR pressing key "end" will in WP8 put cursor before
return or hRt-code, in WPX3 after this code.
When converting WP-Files to Word, WPX3 does not correctly
convert footnotes (references) into Word, WPX5 is executing a
proper conversion.
>>> Don Codling
<[email protected]>
05.12.2011 14:25 >>>
I get new versions of WP as they answer some particular need.
X5
provided a version ready for Windows 7, when I was under
pressure to
upgrade to that. Before that I used version 12 - I think the
compelling
reason there had something to do with handling Hebrew fonts, but
I can't
remember. Aside from being Win7 compatible, I have seen no
compelling
reason to use X5 over 12. No for most things is it hugely better
than
5.1 as I recall it. I like the windows "what you see is what you
get
capacity, and its ease of handling fonts and formatting. And as
I said,
along the way there have been improvements which led me from 5.0
to 6 to
7 to 8 to 9, and then to 12 and X5. My impression is that the
"improvements" in recent releases have mostly been marginal.
I don't use the search for files function a lot anymore, but a
quick
trial says it's still fast.
Don
On 04/12/2011 11:12 PM, Jong wrote:
> Don
> Good info to know, so you say WP X5 is the version to buy?
I'm still using
> WP DOS 5.1 which I can't let go of because it has such a
fast alphasearch
> (F5)on thousands of medical information files I keep --
Word only lets you
> search for the first letter (it's hard to believe anyone
would put up with
> Words file search if you're accessing documents constantly
throughout the
> day -- complete file searches WinXP or Win7 is so slow that
I find it
> unusable).
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
[email protected]
> [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Don
Codling
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 5:48 PM
> To:
[email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Dataperf] Printing in WP
>
>
> MANY years back it was WP DOS, but since then I've worked
through Win
> 95, XP and now 7, and many of the versions of WP from 4.2
to present X5.
>
> Use of shell ended with the transition to Windows. If it is
a document I
> print more than once in a blue moon, I may well automate
the setup in WP
> with a WP macro - those are immensely capable, at least if
I can find
> the right functions. Of course I set up my reports in DP to
minimize any
> further formatting needs.
>
> Since I work with WP every day and since I don't print a
lot of
> documents from DP, that has always been far easier for me
than learning
> the ins and outs of printing with DP Spool or other direct
printing means.
>
> Don
>
> On 04/12/2011 9:26 PM, Jong wrote:
>> Don:
>> Thanks for bringing that up, probably the easiest way
to print but are
>> we talking WP DOS or WP Windows? So I guess you have a
report
>> generate a WP 4.2 document, then have it pickedup by WP
in Windows?
>> Also, issue of automating all the steps -- I don't
imagine Office
>> Shell macros work at the point of printing out on WinXP
(or Win7?)?
>> Jon
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
[email protected]
>> [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Don Codling
>> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 1:26 PM
>> To:
[email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Dataperf] FAT32 vs FAT16 partitions
>>
>>
>> No, I don't think I've ever printed from DP. It's too
easy to drop
>> what I might want to print into WP which has all the
formatting I want
>> at my fingertips. Needless to state, that shows that
most of what I do
>> in DP does not ever intend to come near a printer.
>>
>> Don
>>
>> On 04/12/2011 5:05 PM, Ralph Alvy wrote:
>>> Have you tried printing with DP on a large drive
like that? I seem to
>>> remember that's when the 2gb limit showed up
before.
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Don Codling wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ralph, I'm running DP in Windows 7 on an 80 GB
partition, NTFS
>>>> formatting. Before I was running it in Win XP
on a similarly sized
>>>> partition with FAT32. No problems either way.
I think the 2 gB
>>>> limit was an OS issue.
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> On 03/12/2011 4:17 PM, Ralph Alvy wrote:
>>>>> Can I safely assume I can run DP on a FAT32
partition, really don't
>>>>> have to format it FAT16? I know DP requires
the partition to be no
>>>>> larger than 2gb.
_______________________________________________
>>>>> Dataperf mailing list
>>>>>
[email protected]
>>>>>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dataperf mailing list
>>>>
[email protected]
>>>>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dataperf mailing list
>>>
[email protected]
>>>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dataperf mailing list
>>
[email protected]
>>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dataperf mailing list
>>
[email protected]
>>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Dataperf mailing list
>
[email protected]
>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dataperf mailing list
>
[email protected]
>
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
>
_______________________________________________
Dataperf mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
