PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Round 2268 EARTHSTAR Results


Guerri Stevens
December 31st, 2011, 08:43 AM
For a time, the dictionary was the leading vote getter, but eventually
lost out to Dodi, who is the next dealer with 8 unnatural points. The
real winner is Tim Bourne with 6 unnatural points. As several of you
guessed, the real definition is 18, the woodland fungus.

Here's the breakdown:

1: the potato (W. B. Yeats)
Voted for by: Judy Madnick, Dodi Schultz, Chris Carson, Tim Lodge,
Mike Shefler
FROM Dave Cunningham who voted 8 and 19, and scores 5 + 0 = 5

2: a rare and highly prized black opal
Voted for by: Keith Hale, Michael Harrington, Tony Abell
FROM Jim Hart who voted 11 and *18*, and scores 3 + 2 = 5*

3: broad-leafed plant yielding blue dye
Voted for by nobody
FROM Judy Madnick who voted 1 and 7, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

4: Of a dark hue; moderately black; tawny.
Voted for by: Nancy Shepherdson
FROM Daniel Widdis who voted 5 and 11, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

5: an arthropod nymph before its first molt
Voted for by: Daniel Widdis, Mike Shefler
FROM Millie Morgan who voted 12 and 19, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

6: another name for the very rare star garnet.
Voted for by: Tim Bourne
FROM Chuck Emery who didn't vote, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

7: a highly-productive potato cultivar optimised for dry soils.
Voted for by: Keith Hale, Judy Madnick
FROM Tim Lodge who voted 1 and 19, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

8: a star around which a life-sustainable planet or planets are found
to be orbiting
Voted for by: Dave Cunningham
FROM Dick Weltz who voted 13 and 15, and scores 1 + 0 = 1

9: a crytallized coral with unusually long polyparia, common to reefs
of the North Atlantic.
Voted for by: Matthew Grieco, Steve Graham
FROM Stephen Dixon who voted 12 and 19, and scores 2 + 0 = 2

10: an ancient astronomical term for the star at the center of Earth's
solar system; ie, the sun.
Voted for by nobody
FROM Michael Harrington who voted 2 and 13, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

11: a weapon used by men-at-arms against knights on horseback,
consisting of a spiked ball swung on a chain.
Voted for by: Daniel Widdis, Jim Hart, Tony Abell, Scott Crom
FROM Tim Bourne who voted 6 and *18*, and scores 4 + 2 = 6*

12: An herb (_Fumaria officinalis_) native to Eurasia, having finely
divided leaves and small, spurred, purplish flowers.
Voted for by: Paul Keating, Millie Morgan, Stephen Dixon
FROM Chris Carson who voted 1 and 13, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

13: any of several high-resolution reconnaissance satellites launched by
the US during the early part of the Cold War (1962-1979).
Voted for by: Michael Harrington, Chris Carson, Dick Weltz
FROM Mike Shefler who voted 1 and 5, and scores 3 + 0 = 3

14: the common designation of extrasolar planets that lie in the
biosphere for life similar to ours: Kepler-20e is the latest discovered
Voted for by nobody
FROM John Barrs who DQ'ed, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

15: a species of dung beetle found primarily in Northern Africa
(Phanaeus vindex mor.); named for the geometric pattern on its underside.
Voted for by: Dick Weltz
FROM Nancy Shepherdson who voted 4 and *18*, and scores 1 + 2 = 3*

16: an alternative for planet using only Anglo-Saxon roots, coined by
William Barnes (1800-86) in An outline of English speech-craft (1878)
Voted for by nobody
FROM Paul Keating who voted 12 and *18*, and scores 0 + 2 = 2*

17: Special mortar formulation of soil, sand and natural fibers: used to
build stone or brick buildings. Also, buildings made in this fashion.
Voted for by nobody
FROM Keith Hale who voted 2 and 7, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

18: a brownish woodland fungus with a spherical spore-containing
fruiting body surrounded by a fleshy star-shaped structure, found in
both Eurasia and North America.
Voted for by: Paul Keating, Nancy Shepherdson, Dodi Schultz, Jim Hart,
Tim Bourne, Matthew Grieco
FROM The New Oxford American Dictionary which can't vote, and scores D6

19: a common weed of the U.S. northwest, _Terrastra baldwini_, having
bright yellow, daisy-like flowers borne on stems 8-12 inches tall, with
alternating, deeply toothed leaves.
Voted for by: Millie Morgan, Stephen Dixon, Tim Lodge, Dave
Cunningham, Steve Graham, Scott Crom
FROM Dodi Schultz who voted 1 and *18*, and scores 6 + 2 = 8*

No def
FROM Matthew Grieco who voted 9 and *18*, and scores 0 + 2 = 2*

No def
FROM Steve Graham who voted 9 and 19, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

No def
FROM Tony Abell who voted 2 and 11, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

No def
FROM Scott Crom who voted 11 and 19, and scores 0 + 0 = 0

--
Guerri

Dodi Schultz
December 31st, 2011, 12:09 PM
Guerri Stevens wrote:

> For a time, the dictionary was the leading vote getter, but
> eventually lost out to Dodi, who is the next dealer with 8 unnatural
> points. The real winner is Tim Bourne with 6 unnatural points. As
> several of you guessed, the real definition is 18, the woodland
> fungus.

AIEEE! Still juggling this brand-new system, and still haven't managed to
generate AD-compatible stuff, but hey, I dealt one round manually, and I
guess I can manage to do so again.

New word coming up soon.

—Dodi

Stephen Dixon
December 31st, 2011, 01:18 PM
If you to rest, and skip dealing, you need to be a little less clever.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:

> Guerri Stevens wrote:
>
> For a time, the dictionary was the leading vote getter, but
>> eventually lost out to Dodi, who is the next dealer with 8 unnatural
>> points. The real winner is Tim Bourne with 6 unnatural points. As
>> several of you guessed, the real definition is 18, the woodland
>> fungus.
>>
>
> AIEEE! Still juggling this brand-new system, and still haven't managed to
> generate AD-compatible stuff, but hey, I dealt one round manually, and I
> guess I can manage to do so again.
>
> New word coming up soon.
>
> —Dodi
>
>
>

Dodi Schultz
December 31st, 2011, 02:22 PM
Steve Dixon wrote:

> If you are to rest, and skip dealing, you need to be a little less clever.

Steve, I thought my too-obvious genus "Terrastra baldwini" (the species
coinage was top-of-the-head having just seen some news item or other about
Alec Baldwin) was being shrewdly UNclever, that everyone would spot the fake.

—Dodi

Paul Keating
December 31st, 2011, 06:09 PM
>> AIEEE! Still juggling this brand-new system, and still haven't managed to
>> generate AD-compatible stuff

Dare I suggest, Dodi, that you might like to try Coryphæus? Then you
wouldn't need to go via a text editor at all.

<gd&r, vvfast>

Stephen Dixon
December 31st, 2011, 06:09 PM
Well, your problem is overestimating US.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:

> Steve Dixon wrote:
>
> If you are to rest, and skip dealing, you need to be a little less clever.
>>
>
> Steve, I thought my too-obvious genus "Terrastra baldwini" (the species
> coinage was top-of-the-head having just seen some news item or other about
> Alec Baldwin) was being shrewdly UNclever, that everyone would spot the
> fake.
>
> —Dodi
>
>
>

Paul Keating
December 31st, 2011, 06:24 PM
The trouble is that most modern species (genus, etc) names are fake Latin,
or fake Greek.

_Pleistocene_ and _Miocene_ had Fowler foaming at the mouth in 1926. But he
was a classical scholar.

So an obviously fake name now has the ring of authenticity about it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dodi Schultz

Steve, I thought my too-obvious genus ... was being shrewdly UNclever, that
everyone would spot the fake.

Dodi Schultz
December 31st, 2011, 07:28 PM
Paul Keating wrote:

> Dare I suggest, Dodi, that you might like to try Coryphæus? Then you
> wouldn't need to go via a text editor at all.
>
> <gd&r, vvfast>

Actually, Paul, I might!

I downloaded Dixomat at some point, but I never did figure out the
instructions. I have another problem to solve before that: Generating an
end-of-year financial report for my co-op that requires some compatibility
that seems to have vanished. (I may have a work-around.) After that, I'll
address the question of Dixonary dealing software. . . .

Tim B
January 1st, 2012, 03:33 AM
> Steve, I thought my too-obvious genus "Terrastra baldwini" (the species
> coinage was top-of-the-head having just seen some news item or other about
> Alec Baldwin) was being shrewdly UNclever, that everyone would spot the fake.

Yes, shouldn't it be baldwinii?

Best wishes,
Tim.

Dodi Schultz
January 1st, 2012, 07:40 AM
On 1/1/2012 4:33 AM, Tim B wrote:

>> Steve, I thought my too-obvious genus "Terrastra baldwini" (the species
>> coinage was top-of-the-head having just seen some news item or other
>> about Alec Baldwin) was being shrewdly UNclever, that everyone would
>> spot the fake.
>
> Yes, shouldn't it be baldwinii?

Very good, Tim!

Guerri Stevens
January 1st, 2012, 11:37 AM
If it's of any help to you, I have been using Dixomatic myself, and I
believe at least one other player is using it. I know it runs under
Vista; don't know about Windows 7.

I run it very simply, not trying to let it pick out the definitions or
votes from the messages containing them, things I think it will do, or
try to do.

I am planning to upgrade to Coryphaeus.

Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:

> I downloaded Dixomat at some point, but I never did figure out the
> instructions. I have another problem to solve before that: Generating an
> end-of-year financial report for my co-op that requires some
> compatibility that seems to have vanished. (I may have a work-around.)
> After that, I'll address the question of Dixonary dealing software. . . .
>

Tim B
January 1st, 2012, 03:23 PM
> If it's of any help to you, I have been using Dixomatic myself, and I
> believe at least one other player is using it. I know it runs under
> Vista; don't know about Windows 7.
>
> I run it very simply, not trying to let it pick out the definitions or
> votes from the messages containing them, things I think it will do, or
> try to do.

I use Dixomatic too, Guerri, in the same way as you do. I run it in an XP virtual machine within
VirtualBox on Linux.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

Dodi Schultz
January 1st, 2012, 03:52 PM
On 1/1/2012 12:37 PM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
> If it's of any help to you, I have been using Dixomatic myself, and I
> believe at least one other player is using it. I know it runs under
> Vista; don't know about Windows 7.
>
> I run it very simply, not trying to let it pick out the definitions or
> votes from the messages containing them, things I think it will do, or
> try to do.
>
> I am planning to upgrade to Coryphaeus.

Thanks, Guerri. I might do the same, as I told Paul. But not with this
deal, which I'm doing manually. My much more pressing problem at the moment
is producing the year-end treasury report for my co-op with old and new
programs that insist on sitting there just glaring at each other and refuse
to communicate. I'll work it out somehow . . . I trust.

Tim Lodge
January 1st, 2012, 04:56 PM
FWIW, I tried to use Dixomatic on my 64-bit Win 7 Home Premium laptop
a couple of years ago, and it wouldn't run. I went back to my XP
machine when I needed to deal. I believe Win 7 Professional has an XP
compatibility mode, so it might rum under that. I've just got a new
Win 7 desktop PC, so I might give it another go. Perhaps fortunately,
there hasn't been much sign of my needing dealing software lately!

-- Tim L

On Jan 1, 9:52*pm, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchu... (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:
> On 1/1/2012 12:37 PM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>
> > If it's of any help to you, I have been using Dixomatic myself, and I
> > believe at least one other player is using it. I know it runs under
> > Vista; don't know about Windows 7.
>
> > I run it very simply, not trying to let it pick out the definitions or
> > votes from the messages containing them, things I think it will do, or
> > try to do.
>
> > I am planning to upgrade to Coryphaeus.
>
> Thanks, Guerri. I might do the same, as I told Paul. But not with this
> deal, which I'm doing manually. My much more pressing problem at the moment
> is producing the year-end treasury report for my co-op with old and new
> programs that insist on sitting there just glaring at each other and refuse
> to communicate. I'll work it out somehow . . . I trust.

EnDash@aol.com
January 1st, 2012, 06:34 PM
I use Dixomat, too, as the others either don't seem to run on my machine,
or I don't understand how to work them.

Nevertheless, the "harvest" function doesn't work for me; and I manually
cut and paste the submissions.


In a message dated 1/1/2012 4:23:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dixonary (AT) siam (DOT) co.uk writes:

I use Dixomatic too, Guerri, in the same way as you do. I run it in an XP
virtual machine within
VirtualBox on Linux.

Dodi Schultz
January 1st, 2012, 07:26 PM
On 1/1/2012 5:56 PM, Tim Lodge wrote:
> FWIW, I tried to use Dixomatic on my 64-bit Win 7 Home Premium laptop
> a couple of years ago, and it wouldn't run. I went back to my XP
> machine when I needed to deal. I believe Win 7 Professional has an XP
> compatibility mode, so it might rum under that. I've just got a new
> Win 7 desktop PC, so I might give it another go. Perhaps fortunately,
> there hasn't been much sign of my needing dealing software lately!

I have Win 7 Home Premium on my new desktop, Tim.

—Dodi

John Barrs
January 2nd, 2012, 05:10 AM
I run dixomatic on my Win7 - but mine is Win 7 pro and is also 32 bit...
dixomatic is really a 16-bit program written for win98 ansd earlier
(before anyone asks.. yes I do use my own home written when I have to
deal, but I always run dixomatic too so if mine fubus then I have a
'backup' ready and waiting - I should trust myself really for I have never
had to revert to dixomatic) (the software I use has a pedigree back to
8-bit machines coming through 16bit via Gem thence to windows 16bit then
Win32bit - it too requires a 32bit box becasue Win64bit is,
understandably, not backward compatible)

JohnnyB

On 2 January 2012 01:26, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:

> On 1/1/2012 5:56 PM, Tim Lodge wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I tried to use Dixomatic on my 64-bit Win 7 Home Premium laptop
>> a couple of years ago, and it wouldn't run. I went back to my XP
>> machine when I needed to deal. I believe Win 7 Professional has an XP
>> compatibility mode, so it might rum under that. I've just got a new
>> Win 7 desktop PC, so I might give it another go. Perhaps fortunately,
>> there hasn't been much sign of my needing dealing software lately!
>>
>
> I have Win 7 Home Premium on my new desktop, Tim.
>
> —Dodi
>
>

Guerri Stevens
January 2nd, 2012, 06:21 AM
I will probably regret asking this, but ... Why is it understandable
that that the 64 bit Windows is not backward compatible? What is it
about DOS applications, for instance, that prevents them from working in
the Home Premium Windows 7?

And I have one DOS application that doesn't work properly under Vista,
although others that seem similar do work. I never pursued this to see
if something could be done.

Guerri

John Barrs wrote:
> I run dixomatic on my Win7 - but mine is Win 7 pro and is also 32 bit...
> dixomatic is really a 16-bit program written for win98 ansd earlier
> (before anyone asks.. yes I do use my own home written when I have to
> deal, but I always run dixomatic too so if mine fubus then I have a
> 'backup' ready and waiting - I should trust myself really for I have
> never had to revert to dixomatic) (the software I use has a pedigree
> back to 8-bit machines coming through 16bit via Gem thence to windows
> 16bit then Win32bit - it too requires a 32bit box becasue Win64bit is,
> understandably, not backward compatible)

Tim B
January 2nd, 2012, 08:40 AM
> I will probably regret asking this, but ... Why is it understandable
> that that the 64 bit Windows is not backward compatible? What is it
> about DOS applications, for instance, that prevents them from working in
> the Home Premium Windows 7?
>
It's understandable that Microsoft would like to get rid of users' old software, but less
understandable that users let them get away with it. DOSBox manages to run all the DOS applications
I've tried with it, and I can't believe Microsoft couldn't have built something like that into
Windows; after all, it runs happily with all versions of Windows including Win7.

Why it appears that some Windows applications don't work with 64-bit Win7 I don't know. All the ones
I've tried have worked fine, except that the old Help files don't work without a patch being applied.

> And I have one DOS application that doesn't work properly under Vista,
> although others that seem similar do work. I never pursued this to see
> if something could be done.

Most run with XP, though some lose sound and full screen doesn't always work. Fewer work with Vista,
and as far as I know none with Win7.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

Dodi Schultz
January 2nd, 2012, 09:19 AM
On 1/2/2012 9:40 AM, Tim B wrote:

> DOSBox manages to run all the DOS applications I've tried with it,
> and I can't believe Microsoft couldn't have built something like that
> into Windows; after all, it runs happily with all versions of Windows
> including Win7.

Yes, DOSBox does run with Win 7. And DOS apps do run in DOSBox. My problem
is that one such app, my DOS-based WordPerfect, while it can do most of the
things it used to do, has unaccountably lost a few abilities. For one
thing, and it's the worst thing, it refuses to let me change fonts or even
see what font it's using, although it will happily display, and discuss
switches in, margins, line spacing, etc. I think it's just being surly, but
they don't make antidepressants for wordprocessors. (You think I'm being
ridiculously anthropomorphic? You should meet my neurotic fax machine.)

I'm trying to produce a financial report that requires columns of carefully
aligned figures, i.e., a monospaced font. What WP persists in spitting out
is likely CG Times Roman, which will not do. Normally, BTW, I just plug
this year's figures into last year's report. Won't work. It turns last
year's report, pulled up from the files, into CG TR, too.

I need to do this quickly, and I will probably have to use WordPad, which
is new to me, but I guess I'd better get used to it in a hurry.

But first, I'd better get the defs posted . . .

—Dodi

Paul Keating
January 2nd, 2012, 11:22 AM
Just a thought, Dodi:

I take it you do have the WP-compatible fonts that you need installed on
that machine? Font rendering is one of the things that WP/DOS, Windows 9x
and Windows 7 do utterly differently. So WP won't be able to see or use the
fonts that Windows 7 has installed. If it thinks it has only the one font,
then it might be picky about letting you change to another. (Forgive me if
this is the very first thing you tried.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dodi Schultz

>> For one thing, and it's the worst thing, it refuses to let me change
>> fonts or even see what font it's using.

Dodi Schultz
January 2nd, 2012, 11:47 AM
On 1/2/2012 12:22 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
> Just a thought, Dodi:
>
> I take it you do have the WP-compatible fonts that you need installed on
> that machine? Font rendering is one of the things that WP/DOS, Windows 9x
> and Windows 7 do utterly differently. So WP won't be able to see or use
> the fonts that Windows 7 has installed. If it thinks it has only the one
> font, then it might be picky about letting you change to another.
> (Forgive me if this is the very first thing you tried.)

I'm sorry, Paul, I'm now further confused. If WHAT was the first thing I
tried? Is there something else to "try"?

Normally (and it worked fine with prior versions of Win), one selects font
style and size from within WP. It's a function-key thing. Ctrl-F8 gets you
a screen in which you can see what font is being used and instruct it about
changing if you want to. Ctrl-F8 now does nothing at all, while other
function-key things work just fine; e.g., Shift-F8 gets a screen where you
can see how margins, hyphenation, and a bunch of other things are set and
change them.

There are a flock of other F-key things, most of which work and a few of
which don't.

I'll work around this somehow. I *have* to!

Guerri Stevens
January 2nd, 2012, 01:45 PM
I had forgotten about the help files. And that reminds me that my
version of Excel beeps for some reason when choosing a file to open, or
some action like that.

I guess I can understand why Microsoft would not want to do anything
*extra* just so old software would continue to work plus they would
prefer that we buy new software, preferably theirs. I suppose the only
way we could poke them in the eye for that would be switch to the Mac or
Unix in some flavor and there wouldn't be enough people doing that for
them to care.

All the DOS applications I still use worked fine under XP. I tend not to
use sound, so wouldn't have noticed that. Most work under Vista. I am
not sure what I will do when forced into Windows 7.


Guerri

Tim B wrote:
>
> It's understandable that Microsoft would like to get rid of users' old
> software, but less understandable that users let them get away with it.
> DOSBox manages to run all the DOS applications I've tried with it, and I
> can't believe Microsoft couldn't have built something like that into
> Windows; after all, it runs happily with all versions of Windows
> including Win7.
>
> Why it appears that some Windows applications don't work with 64-bit
> Win7 I don't know. All the ones I've tried have worked fine, except that
> the old Help files don't work without a patch being applied.
>
>> And I have one DOS application that doesn't work properly under Vista,
>> although others that seem similar do work. I never pursued this to see
>> if something could be done.
>
> Most run with XP, though some lose sound and full screen doesn't always
> work. Fewer work with Vista, and as far as I know none with Win7.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tim B.
>

Guerri Stevens
January 2nd, 2012, 01:55 PM
I forget all the ins and outs of WordPerfect fonts. I do know that it
will substitute one font for another if it cannot find whatever font you
specified in the document you opened. So it is necessary either to put
the fonts in the place WP expects to find them or tell WP to use the
place where the fonts reside. I no longer have any DOS WP versions on my
machine, so can't be specific, but look for "location of files" or
"settings" or something like that. You probably want a Courier font for
your reports.

Alt+F3 (reveal codes) should let you see what font is there, although if
you use styles, the font may be inside the style.

Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:
>
> Yes, DOSBox does run with Win 7. And DOS apps do run in DOSBox. My
> problem is that one such app, my DOS-based WordPerfect, while it can do
> most of the things it used to do, has unaccountably lost a few
> abilities. For one thing, and it's the worst thing, it refuses to let me
> change fonts or even see what font it's using, although it will happily
> display, and discuss switches in, margins, line spacing, etc. I think
> it's just being surly, but they don't make antidepressants for
> wordprocessors. (You think I'm being ridiculously anthropomorphic? You
> should meet my neurotic fax machine.)
>
> I'm trying to produce a financial report that requires columns of
> carefully aligned figures, i.e., a monospaced font. What WP persists in
> spitting out is likely CG Times Roman, which will not do. Normally, BTW,
> I just plug this year's figures into last year's report. Won't work. It
> turns last year's report, pulled up from the files, into CG TR, too.
>
> I need to do this quickly, and I will probably have to use WordPad,
> which is new to me, but I guess I'd better get used to it in a hurry.
>
> But first, I'd better get the defs posted . . .
>
> —Dodi
>
>

Paul Keating
January 2nd, 2012, 01:58 PM
I just thought that if the WP fonts weren't installed somehow, except for
one single basic default font, then Ctrl-F8 would not work because there was
nothing for it to do. And since only WP knows what to do with those fonts,
because they are entirely different from the Windows ones, you would have no
other way of knowing they were missing.

>> Ctrl-F8 now does nothing at all, while other function-key things work
>> just fine

Dodi Schultz
January 2nd, 2012, 04:21 PM
On 1/2/2012 2:55 PM, Guerri Stevens wrote:

> I forget all the ins and outs of WordPerfect fonts. I do know that
> it will substitute one font for another if it cannot find whatever
> font you specified in the document you opened.

Yes, and it keeps finding two others. Which won't work. It also runs some
words together and leaves huge gaps between others, which really makes even
less sense. It refuses to entertain the possibility of the originally set
up Courier, which I absolutely need.

Anyway, I have just produced a bit of what may work, in Wordpad (which also
offers font choices, including Courier), and succeeded in sending and
getting back a test document from one of my fellow shareholders. So that
may well turn out to be the workaround I'll use.

Aaaaargh!

Dodi Schultz
January 2nd, 2012, 04:28 PM
On 1/2/2012 2:58 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
> I just thought that if the WP fonts weren't installed somehow, except for
> one single basic default font, then Ctrl-F8 would not work because there
> was nothing for it to do. And since only WP knows what to do with those
> fonts, because they are entirely different from the Windows ones, you
> would have no other way of knowing they were missing.

Oh. Hm. That's an interesting thought.

But I may put off looking into that, since only one font, Courier, is
desperately needed at the moment, and Wordpad seems capable of producing
that for this document I need to get out quickly. And I seem to have
succeeded in producing and dispatching a brief text file with it.

Guerri Stevens
January 2nd, 2012, 07:10 PM
I notice that in my Windows version of WP there are times when two words
appear not to have a space between them, but Reveal Codes reveals that
there is indeed a space.

As far as the large spaces between words, the only thing I can think of
offhand that might produce that result is full justification. If you (or
it) thinks the right margin should be even, not ragged; i.e. all lines
the same length, achieved by adding extra spaces between words.

You didn't set up your columns using spaces, did you?
xxx(spaces)yyy(spaces)zzz

If so, after you finish the work this time around, I recommend using tabs.

Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 2:55 PM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>
>> I forget all the ins and outs of WordPerfect fonts. I do know that
>> it will substitute one font for another if it cannot find whatever
>> font you specified in the document you opened.
>
> Yes, and it keeps finding two others. Which won't work. It also runs
> some words together and leaves huge gaps between others, which really
> makes even less sense. It refuses to entertain the possibility of the
> originally set up Courier, which I absolutely need.
>
> Anyway, I have just produced a bit of what may work, in Wordpad (which
> also offers font choices, including Courier), and succeeded in sending
> and getting back a test document from one of my fellow shareholders. So
> that may well turn out to be the workaround I'll use.
>
> Aaaaargh!
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dodi Schultz
January 2nd, 2012, 10:39 PM
On 1/2/2012 8:10 PM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
> I notice that in my Windows version of WP there are times when two words
> appear not to have a space between them, but Reveal Codes reveals that
> there is indeed a space.
>
> As far as the large spaces between words, the only thing I can think of
> offhand that might produce that result is full justification. If you (or
> it) thinks the right margin should be even, not ragged; i.e. all lines
> the same length, achieved by adding extra spaces between words. . . .

Guerri, that's happening with a document from last year, which was
perfectly fine when I created it.

I've concluded that as far as WP goes, my consult has to come back and
figure out what's going on. I may have to abandon the DOS version (although
I HOPE not; it's been a good friend all these years, seen me through a
flock of books and uncounted articles) and get a later, Win version. From
what I've seen of MS's Word, I really don't care for it. But I'm going to
end up producing this co-op treasury document in either that or WordPad,
because they work right now, in their unfriendly way, and this document
needs to be produced without any delay.

Paul Keating
January 3rd, 2012, 01:30 AM
I was never a WP user, but if I think back to the DOS programs I used with
nice typographical support, such as Ventura Publisher and Borland Sprint,
after installation you had to run font generation utilities to set up font
files for every font you planned to use, in every point size you expected to
use them in. Took hours.

Windows fonts are specialized DLLs. Pre-Windows programs don't know how to
call them. There really isn't such a thing as a DOS font because every
application had to do its own implementation.

Your spacing problem sounds like a font substitution issue. Your old
document calls for a particular font which your new environment doesn't
have. Each word begins at the point on the line that was required by the old
font. The substitute font makes some words wider, so they run into the next
word.

Guerri Stevens
January 3rd, 2012, 03:00 AM
I understand that the document was fine before you tried to work on it
in your new setup. You're dealing with font substitutions and who knows
what else as a result of your new setup. And of course at the worst
possible time, which doesn't help. At least WordPad is working for you.

If you like, you can Email me the document and I'll see whether I can
figure anything out. I no longer have any DOS version of WP on my
machine, but I have an old machine that may still work, and even in the
Windows version I may be able to figure something out.

If I had to guess, I would suspect the issue is WP and not your new
setup because WP itself appears to be working. But maybe not, because
you seemed to say earlier that you cannot access the commands to specify
or change fonts. Or did the commands work, but you couldn't get at the
fonts you wanted? If the latter, it may be as simple as telling WP where
the fonts are located.

As far as switching to a Windows version of WP: I finally bit the bullet
myself. You have to get used to it, but as long as you aren't doing
anything fancy, it shouldn't take long. If you have macros, they will
have to be converted, of course. I don't know what DOS version you have,
but in Windows you'll use the standard Windows commands which you'll be
used to after working with WordPad: Ctrl+S to save, F1 for Help, and so
on. Once you get through your current project, it might make sense to
switch. And you're hearing this from a person who still uses a handful
of DOS applications and at one point considered installing DOS as a
second operating system!

--Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 8:10 PM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>> I notice that in my Windows version of WP there are times when two
>> words appear not to have a space between them, but Reveal Codes
>> reveals that there is indeed a space.
>>
>> As far as the large spaces between words, the only thing I can think
>> of offhand that might produce that result is full justification. If
>> you (or it) thinks the right margin should be even, not ragged; i.e.
>> all lines the same length, achieved by adding extra spaces between
>> words. . . .
>
> Guerri, that's happening with a document from last year, which was
> perfectly fine when I created it.
>
> I've concluded that as far as WP goes, my consult has to come back and
> figure out what's going on. I may have to abandon the DOS version
> (although I HOPE not; it's been a good friend all these years, seen me
> through a flock of books and uncounted articles) and get a later, Win
> version. From what I've seen of MS's Word, I really don't care for it.
> But I'm going to end up producing this co-op treasury document in either
> that or WordPad, because they work right now, in their unfriendly way,
> and this document needs to be produced without any delay.
>
>

Dodi Schultz
January 3rd, 2012, 08:52 AM
On 1/3/2012 4:00 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:

> At least WordPad is working for you.

As is the apparently primitive version of Word that came along with my Win
7. Neither is to my liking, but I've determined by sending test files back
and forth with fellow shareholders who use both Win and Mac that I can
produce the required document and transmit it in RTF or PDF form. That'll
do for now.

> If I had to guess, I would suspect the issue is WP and not your new
> setup because WP itself appears to be working. But maybe not, because
> you seemed to say earlier that you cannot access the commands to
> specify or change fonts. Or did the commands work, but you couldn't
> get at the fonts you wanted?

The former. They're function key combinations. As I said, most work. With
those who don't, my consultant (with whom I've been in e-mail touch and who
will return at a later date to see what's happening) thinks there is a
possible conflict w/DOSBox itself. My WP's quite old: 5.1.

> As far as switching to a Windows version of WP: I finally bit the
> bullet myself. You have to get used to it, but as long as you aren't
> doing anything fancy, it shouldn't take long. If you have macros,
> they will have to be converted, of course. . . . Once you get through your
> current project, it might make sense to switch.

I might end up doing that. I suspect I'd find that far more friendly than I
find Word, which seems downright hostile. But then I'm used to writing
software that's ULTRA-friendly.

My consultant (who's not here in the city) fears possibly causing more
trouble if I'm directed long-distance to experiment and will return at a
later date for eyes- and hands-on inspection.

Thanks, Guerri, for both your sympathy and your suggestions.