This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


117 posts / 0 new
Last post
xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7
Preservation of Word Processors, Editors and DTP-Software

I've made a web survey in order to find out which classic text processors are no longer available on the web. While popular applications like Word, WordPerfect, PageMaker, etc. are preserved either somewhere on the web or by Macintosh Garden and MacHut, there remain a few text processors that seem to be lost:

WorldWrite: This was, to my knowledge, the only Unicode Word Processor for the Mac. Its company does not exist anymore. I personally have never even seen a screenshot of this application. Even the Demo for WordWrite 3.0.1 does not seem to be downloadable anymore.

FrameMaker: This great application also seems to get lost. Only www.knubbelmac.de has a demo version of FrameMaker 3. Adobe still provides for the download of the free FrameReader 5. That's it!

RagTime 5: While RagTime 3 and 5 are still available as "privat" or "solo" editions at MacIntosh Garden, and at some other places, the full version is lost. RagTime only sells Version 6 nowadays which is no good for classic Macs.

QuarkXPress: What MacHut offers in this regard is incomplete crap. Furthermore, the international passport edition is lost.

FullWrite Dictionaries: While FullWrite is still available as freeware on the web, its dictionaries, which had to be bought separately and where never released as freeware, are lost. The company is dead.

Nisus Writer Dictionaries: While Nisus Writer 6.5 is still sold by Nisus, this company for some reason no longer sells the international dictionaries - which is an unbelievable situation for a multilingual word processor! This is especially bad, because the international hyphenation of Nisus Writer Express and Nisus Writer Pro depends on Apple and is no good. This company is destined to loose the battle against Mellel!

Xemacs: This free unix editor is no longer available on the web, since its programmer died last year I believe.

Comments

Carl's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 2

For what it's worth, some old versions of QuarkXPress can be found on Higher Intellect. I don't know if it's what you're looking for, though.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Thanks for your hint. As a matter of fact, I didn't know about this website. As for your question whether this helps, I, of course, do not use all the applications mentioned. This is not possible, as one gets accustomed to one application and normally sticks to it. However, I thought, it might be of some interest for people to know which applications are really getting lost, since this is a website devoted to the preservation of legacy applications. Also, I can imagine that there are some collectors out there who like to know what is still available and what not. As a matter of fact, I found three more text processors which are no longer available for sale or otherwise on the web:

StarOffice: There actually existed a classic Mac version of this application.

papyrus: I believe, papyrus, for a very short while offered a Mac OS 9 version of their word processor, but discontinued developing it for lack of demand.

VivaPress Pro: SolutionWright Software is dead. VivaPress, to my knowledge, was the only DTP-Software that supported World Script.

I personally, would be very courious to get to know WorldWrite, because of its Unicode capabilities. I just recently came across this by chance. I did not know that such a thing as a unicode word processor for classic Mac existed.

Also, I would be very interested to get a hold on the Nisus Writer dictionaries. I even would be willing to pay money for them. I actually tried to buy the dictionaries from Nisus (as a bought the Nisus Writer) but they simply do not sell the dictionaries any more.

themacmeister's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Oct 26

I'm pretty sure I have a copy of the commercial RagTime - (before they went personal/shareware)

I will check my backups.

themacmeister's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Oct 26

Just found this, only one seeder, two leechers - be quick!

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3499903/Adobe_Framemaker_7_Mac

Runs under OS9 - possibly 8.6 too - requires serial (not included)

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

The commercial version of RagTime 5 includes the hyphenation dictionaries which are, of course, essential for DTP. RagTime and FrameMaker both allow footnotes something which has never been easily possible with PageMaker. For Quark it was (or is) possible to buy a third party tool for the footnotes.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Because of the current discussion on how to identify abandonware, I have made a list of word processors and DTP software for classic Macs whose most recent version is still sold by their companies and therefore is NOT abandonware:

iText Pro (commercial version of the free iText)
LightWayText
Mariner Write
Nisus Writer 6.5 (However, the Nisus Writer Dictionaries ARE - unfortunately - abandonware!)
PageMaker 7
Ready!Set!Go!
Z-Write
Word 2001? (I am not sure)

soudesune's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 19

How about MacWrite Pro 1.5? It is so hard to find now.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Seems to be another lost program - like Ventura Publisher 3.2 Gold for the Mac.

xy's picture
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

MacWrite Pro 1.5 is now on this website.

Another interesting word processor which seems to be lost is
WinText by WinSoft.
Despite its name, this multilingual word processor is not a Windows applications but was written for Mac OS.

diyarbekri's picture
Offline
Joined: 2020 May 31

Hi, how can i get the wintext or is there any converter for wintext file?
it is very important

Thanks

TataMisia's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

In my opinion the best
- word processors are: MS Word (5.1a - for 68k and 2001 for PPC).
- text editors are: iText , BBEdit, Nisus Writer.
- DTP software are: inDesign and QuarkXpress.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

I have been working on book projects using 68k Offce software for many months now and Word 6 beats them all by lengths. I am no friend of Microsoft - never was never will be - but MS-Office 6 is by far superiors to all its contemporary competitors. Its stable, secure, rock solid and can export/import many different text formats (PC, Mac or otherwise) smoothly, that most others get in trouble with.
I can edit documents with hundreds of pages and its still as smooth as silk. RTF, DOC pure text format no prob for W6. Heck the famed Apple Works can't even translate German Umlaute from a DOS file right. And Corel's WordPerfect relies on MacLink Plus for document imports, but calls it in a way that it always comes up as "unregistered". A.s.o. etc.

For all the bitching against Microsoft, I think they did the platform a huge favor by porting their Office suite to MacOS.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

For all the bitching against Microsoft, I think they did the platform a huge favor by porting their Office suite to MacOS.

Well, when Microsoft came out with Word 4 and 5 and their Office suites as Mac-only releases, Microsoft designed them to crush their competition, and they very successful, leading to a huge uproar among Mac users, some praising this small and responsive set of programs, mainly Word, others saying that MS Word and Office Mac users had sold out to Microsoft. Word 5s toolbar update continued to bank on their huge success in the Mac market. So while you're right, they did do Mac users a favor porting their Windows version, most Mac users wanted to continue having their Mac exclusivity as far as the Microsoft, and when they didn't get it, they lost it.

Apple has always had a place in the 'counterculture' movement since the beginning of its Macs days, so when Word 6 came out, Microsoft either underestimated this segment of the Mac user base or simply forgot to take into account altogether, and it was hell to pay for it which lead to its introduction becoming a huge fiasco. It was the only time Microsoft completely paired up their Mac and Windows version numbers and features. It's failed release was such a contrast to the ubiquity of Word 5 that Microsoft had to stop and completely reevaluate their Mac strategy: they formed a Mac unit that solely focused on the needs of the Mac users. Never again did they match their Mac and Windows version numbers, noticeable with Office '98, 2001, 2004 and 2008, just like Word 4 and 5 had no Windows equivalents. Between Office 2001 and 2004, they even came out with version X to show that that version ran exclusively on OS X and was named accordingly.

The Mac user base successfully bent Microsoft to their will and Mac users revelled in their collective influence against the mighty corporate giant. It was clear that both Apple and Microsoft had a lot to gain by wooing their user base together and keeping them in their 'special' space, and it was no secret that folks spent a fortune getting what they felt were the best computers on the planet, a Snapple among other iced teas if you will, so they also expected their software to revolve around their Macs. Microsoft's biggest appeal has always been 100% file compatibility with their Windows counterparts, so Mac users could freely outfit their homes and offices with Macs and schools and small to medium-sized businesses could do the same without any Office software and file format compatibility issues that otherwise plagued otherwise perfectly good and functional Mac software.

The negativity toward Word 6 and the whole Office 4.2.x wasn't only partially a performance argument. Users focused on performance felt that Word 6 had lost the responsiveness of Word 5, feeling slower and more bloated on their Macs. Of course, unless one is blind to computer market marketing strategy, Apple and Microsoft have always use their software to push users to upgrade their hardware to meet their increased software requirements. I mean, in the eyes of all computer and software makers, 'who needs an upgrade when they can replace all of their computers and software instead', right?

But unlike Windows users, Mac users have mostly never been in a hurry to ditch their Macs because they've understandably spent sizeably more for their Macs and software in the first place. It's always been a difficult line for Apple to walk because their hardware always outlast their software production cycles, leaving Mac users to either continue using their old software or upgrade everything.

In fact, everything we do here has a lot to say about the underlying subculture Apple created with Macintosh; otherwise, why else would we all be bothered with rescuing Classic Mac software? It's simply in our DNA, lol! Smile

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

I tried to write with Apple Works only to find out, that it couldn't even import RTF files created on a PC platform right. And it can't properly translate German Umlaute from PC format either - both things MS Word handles w/o need for user intervention.
When "subculture" leads to isolationism, its nothing else but technological inbreeding. I choose the vintage Mac platform because it helps me to get things done. If Google wouldn't have crippled Android beyond usefullness for tablets and/or there'd be a decent notepad capable Linux tablet out there, with a comparably good display, I might have never bothered. But given that the *only* Windoze version being sold these days is butt ugly Win10, I had no choice but to start looking "back to the glory days" for a solution.

So I am not into MacOS because I turned Fanboy, but because my setup allows me to achieve the things I am after. And MacWord is just better than its vintage competition - that's as much a fact as the one that says that Microsoft still sucks. Laughing out loud

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

When you say "AppleWorks", don't you specifically mean the 68k versions? Pretty sure AppleWorks 6.2.9 for Mac OS can handle RTF perfectly. Maybe even better than any MS Office on Mac? Idk. Have to try.

Also, isn't there SheepShaver and QEMU for Android? If your setup allows you to achieve the things you are after, and that's why you are into "Mac OS", and not because you turned Fanboy, then I don't understand why not use them instead (especially considering it's all emulated anyway).

Otherwise, isn't it exactly what you said, "When 'subculture' leads to isolationism, its nothing else but technological inbreeding"? I mean, if you say "I choose the vintage Mac platform because it helps me to get things done", then I don't see why those other emulators would be excluded.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Hey JT! I see where m68k is coming from because I too use three setups from my Mac-ing around:

  • my first setup runs Basilisk II on my Android Chromebook, which runs Mac OS 8.1 and below. I went to great lengths to get it networked and on the web, partially because I saw the need to figure that out for me and others here, but more importantly because that's all my device can do within the Chrome OS ecosystem. It's a bubble that those who choose to stay within have to life with.

    As a side note: my next Chromebook should allow me to install SheepShaver and QEMU as separate emulator apps within Chrome OS, but for now my Chromebook's architecture is too old: it's an 32-bit Quad-Core ARM that Google is phasing out this very month, which means it likely won't get any more security updates. What could allow someone to run SheepShaver and QEMU on a newer Chromebook is not Android, but a feature for Chrome OS that runs on newer 64-bit Chromebooks.

Back to your point though: There aren't any Android Mac emulators outside of Basilisk II (the closest one, and only one AFAIK, is Limbo, but it has an older version of QEMU baked-in that doesn't really support Mac OS 9). Trust me, we're not suckers for punishment ..wait, are we? Lol!

Now m68k has a uber-nice and powerful Android tablet with a gorgeous HD display which gives him the best Android hardware to burn rubber with Basilisk II for Android, and he's been enjoying the Mac's glory days in 68k to the fullest. I also fondly remember those days as well and all of the utility with the whole mixed-bag of file compatibility issues Mac users had to tackle back in the day. And like my own setup, his is also 100% portable, to take wherever you want! No other self-contained OS environment will be speedier or more diverse on the Android platform.

The main downside's that the OS is really old. For me, that's not a huge issue because my Chrome OS can do 99% of the web stuff I need and Android has ten-million apps for everything current. As a workhorse, it has the utility apps to 'kick-butt' with, and it doesn't hurt that it can also run a 'full-buffet' of games; all 68k, of course (for those who enjoy playing old-school computer games).

Sorry! I wrote the rest of my post not reading your post carefully: you were referring to Android-specific emulators; I went off on a tangent which included m68k's possible alternative setups outside of Android, which based on his posts I know he's also explored, as have I
  • my second setup are the PPC Powerbooks I own, a 2400c and Pismo G3 (w/the G4 Minis I'll eventually get off the ground as the third Macs). My 'Nautilus' 2400c can run Mac OS 7.6.1 and up, where my Pismo can unofficially run 8.6 onward, and the G4 Minis can unofficially support Mac OS 9.2.2. these are all real PPC Macs, so everything will be groovy on them since they can run the gambit of 68k software aside for software just too old to run on them, especially older games.
  • my third setup is the server I remote into, which can run SheepShaver and QEMU. this is a way for me to push and test PPC software before subjecting my real Macs to untested stuff or if I want to do higher display resolutions or more easily move stuff in and out of a Mac environment.

Now because I don't want to stress out or worse, kill my real Mac hardware, I tend to do most of my Mac stuff on my uber-mobile Chromebook 68k Mac emulator simply because it runs speedy, it's very connectable (I hook it up to my large HD flat-screens to display it beautifully without any issues) and anything I work on I can create a PDF and print it from Chrome, all in mere seconds (this is why I laboured so much to attempt to run Mac OS 9 the PPC version of Limbo on my Chromebook, but I only got as far as the boot screen).

So in my case I could only run SheepShaver and QEMU, it's one of two ways: not on my Android devices altogether (although I did try running Limbo on every Android device I own, lol) by remoting into my server at home from Android, or through some sort of Linux on Android setup (that one has been completely over my head, though: all I know is that I have Andronix and Termux installed and that's about it; I couldn't even get a Linux distro downloaded, let alone configured and operational) But an Android emulator implies setting up a Mac emulator inside of a virtualized (or is it emulated?) Linux on top of an Android environment that's already on top of Chrome OS, a closed Linux environment itself (in theory, it could conceivably work if everything is very light and ARM-based, except the Mac emulation itself of course).

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

So, long-story short, there's no SheepShaver or Mac-on-QEMU for Android. That does explain it. Smile The 2nd of my 3 points, that is.

However, as for my 1st point (which I hadn't been clear about, admittedly, until now), let's all agree that when speaking of "Mac OS", we obviously don't mean "68k Mac OS", as if they were synonyms (they factually aren't, to the point it was even called "Macintosh System Software" instead, while "Mac OS" was a term coined after PPC was introduced), and that "vintage Mac OS" is either all pre-OS-X Mac OS, or true vintage, as in, 1-bit color, black-and-white-only, 24-bit-ROM-only Macs, which is not IIRC what runs on modern Basilisk, found in Android.

That's where I was (non-obviously) trying to get at: It's not good to say "AppleWorks doesn't do RTF right" when only referring to a subset of Mac OS and, thus, AppleWorks versions! That incorrectly passes it off as if it is applicable to the whole, actual Mac OS / AppleWorks family, which will mislead any reader who knows no better.

(Now that it's a weekend, I actually had due time to properly write all that up. Smile From now on, I'll just wait until I got the time, instead of trying to trim it all real quick when something needs some proper explanation from my side.)

As for having multiple setups like you described, that is both really cool and helpful. I absolutely comprehend it and have nothing against that. Until a while back (until I got fed up with the slow speed, no proper peripherals etc.), I myself used Basilisk on PSP and PSVita, too, which was fun (but frustrating at the same time).

My 3rd point ("technological inbreeding" bit) is still up in the air, though. I just found it ironic, however that may be because I may have misunderstood it (did I?), hence me asking for clarification on that.
Though it's not as relevant a point if there's no SheepShaver/QEMU on Android to give people much of a choice.

Also, I know Android is best suited for tablets and especially phones, but what about using a GNU/Linux distro (Debian, Ubuntu etc.) on them? I know that's a thing, although I don't personally know how well it works. But it does have (OS-9-compatible) QEMU. And I think also SheepShaver? Anyway, just stray thoughts, really.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Agreed. But because I never spent full-dollar on any of my "System 7" Macs (they were far too pricey for the poor ones some of us were), I squeezed as much performance as I could out of my 68k Macs, trying every speed hack and trick in the book. And I wasn't alone: when I worked for an Apple reseller, customers would ask for the same solutions (I mean your Mac could never be fast enough, you always wanted more!).

But I believe that was exactly what we were all bottle-fed all of those years: that faster meant better. But some users could care less about speed. Their concerns revolved more around compatibility than speed, and that was by far the biggest headache in selling Macs: people wanted the assurance that their files would be readable in both the receiving and sending end. I worked with Macs right before the sensation of the Internet, or the World-Wide-Web, became ubiquitous, so folks relied on using PC-formatted floppies to share their files. Having a Mac back then was like having Benz (and some of my customers drove those, too.. lol!).

Basilisk II emulated all of that 68k period, which is why I can identify with all the software that reigned during that time. I really loved using some software that was so good, Apple created its own versions of them. One of these was Popup Folder. What really stunk about what they did was that by Apple integrating a contextual menu into Mac OS 8, it rendered Popup Folder useless and the next killer app to take the stand was FinderPop (which to me was Popup Folder's worthy successor for PowerPC Macs), but this one was never released for 68k Macs! What you have left is a nice menu and not much else, which is one of the reasons I enjoy using Mac OS 7.6.1 so much (which only has one minor hiccup with its menubar command shortcut feature, it freezes when you try to create a shortcut, but you can copy the prefs from System 7.5 and the shortcuts created there will work on your 7.6 system).

Now for the 'long-shot' potential silver-lining: Adespoton threw me a real big carrot when he shared that with some hacking elbow-grease (of which I have none) you can upgrade the QEMU build inside of Limbo, it just takes some careful tweaking to get it just right (and he'd even do it, but he's swamped atm). Getting that done would open up the world of Mac OS 9.2.2 on all Android devices, just like Basilisk II for Android has done for 68k emulation (I'm just all thumbs when it comes to the what goes on under the hood software-wise)! I mean, can you imagine the possibilities? (I mean, like taking OS 9 to the poorest of neighborhoods and giving kids there much more than Android apps, I mean way more! The promise of Chrome OS with all that is, in short, simply amazing).

Lastly, I am ever-so-slowly exploring the possibility of Linux on Android. In my case, Android runs on top of Chrome OS, so it would look something like this:

■ Mac OS 9 on QEMU and SheepShaver
■ QEMU and sheepShaver on Linux
■ Linux on Android
■ Android on Chrome OS

Yuck! But it's a possibility I am willing to explore, I'm just not as pumped-up for all that compared to seeing Limbo working with Mac OS 9 someday since it already runs (early) OS X on Android (for all that hard work, I may as well run my OS 9 emulators on OS X on Limbo, but that would kill the tablet's speed to practically zero). I've also looked at possibly running a Chromebook-compatible Linux distro that can run PPC emulators, but preferably, I want to keep the simplicity of the Chrome OS environment to eliminate system troubleshooting headaches in the future.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Sorry mate but I have to disagree about the "68k is not MacOS" part of your post: Even Apple called their v8 operating system "Mac OS", as is clearly visible on their CD:
https://archive.org/details/macos8

And v8 is supported up until release 8.1 on 68k hardware. 68k machines are real Macintoshes - the original beasts as far I am concerned - so why shouldn't their operating system be called "MacOS"? Matter of fact, the PowerPC era didn't last nearly as long as did the time of 68k and it actually went downhill rather rapidly, given the high hopes that had triggered the transition to PPC.

And most Android tablets are at least as fast as your ordinary laptop and my aging Samsung tablet still has the highest screen rez on the market. Its the darn operating system that limits everything as Google doesn't really care about the technology - they are only after the user data. So they concentrate on the Smartphone market almost exclusivly and it shows on tablets. That's why I went looking for an "alternative solution" in the first place. And when I found vintage MacOS (and I will keep calling it that until someone invents a time machine, goes back thirty years and makes Apple themselves stop calling it "Mac OS") it was love at first sight.

Yes there are Linux distros that run under Android and some smart Russian even invented a Windows emulator for ARM devices. I have 'em all installed - right next to my trusted Amuga setup - and except for the Amuga they all suffer from the limits put on them by Google's messed up design: Device names are not located where they are supposed to be, drives are not accessible to all applications and access to graphics, sound and network hardware is mysterious at best. And if your device isn't rooted then running any of these is an excercise in frustration anyway.

PS: Development on the original Limbo QEMU engine stopped some time ago and the successors either just won't work or they actually do boot but mess your screen with joystick controls and the like because they, too, were written completely with smartphones in mind. You got to be a juvenile delinquent, to wanna waste your time running a Desktop operating system from a phone display. Shock

If you truly want to explore Linux on Android, then stick with Termux and combine it with XSDL. Termux doesn't bother with emulation but is actually a true Linux port for Android (which by itself is a castrated version of that operating system).

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

Sorry mate but I have to disagree about the "68k is not MacOS" part of your post: Even Apple called their v8 operating system "Mac OS", as is clearly visible on their CD:
https://archive.org/details/macos8

The name change from "System" to "MacOS" came in around version 7.5 or 7.6 of the Mac's OS, as shown in this installer window:

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

I wasn't going to comment either way, but let's visit as to the real reason Apple changed the name of their operating system in 1997:

■ It was the Clone Wars, lol! Apple tried out licensing their OS to Apple clone-manufacturers

So why change the name at all? It was Apple's way of making sure that its operating system didn't lose its identity! Its OS was going to be used on non-Apple computers, and surely they wanted it to be 'crystal' clear that its OS was an Apple product, but System 7.6 wouldn't tie itself to Apple in any meaningful way. In fact, the introduction of Mac OS 8 should have actually been Mac OS 7.7! But the real gotcha was that by calling it Mac OS 8, it allowed Apple to stop licensing their OS to Mac clone-makers, thereby ending, sooner than later, the Mac-clone market!

Mac OS 8 did introduce some nice updates, but it wasn't until Mac OS 8.5 that 68k support was dropped altogether and the Mac OS really grew. Technically speaking, Mac OS 8.5 is a far bigger update all around than 8 ever was, so it's considered by many to be the true Mac OS 8 version! However, the Power Macintosh had first come out during the System 7.1 days!

■ The first Power Macintosh models debuted w/System 7.1.2, pre-dating the "Mac OS" designation by several OS versions
■ Mac OSes 7.6-8.1 are all 68k compatible, but progressively optimized for Power Macs

Apple introduced its last 68k Mac models in 1995:

■ Powerbook 190 and 190cs were introduced with the Mac-specific System 7.5.2
■ System 7.5.2 was the first version that can mount 4GB volumes versus 2GB
■ it introduced the new Sound & Displays CP (that got mixed-reviews)
■ more importantly, it also brought Open Transport to the first PCI-based PowerMacs
■ only a handful of Macs can run 7.5.2; however, System 7.5.3, was universal
■ none of the System 7.5.x series were never 'officially' called "Mac OS 7.5.x"
■ as noted, Mac OS 7.6 was the first Mac OS with the "Mac OS" designation
■ All of the models that were introduced with Mac OS 7.6.x were all Power Macs

Apple discontinued the Powerbook 190cs in October 1996, and Mac OS 7.6 wasn't released until three months later in January 1997 for the benefit of the Mac 'Clone Wars'.

So it's still a mixed bag to me: while PowerMacs were introduced as far back as the System 7.1 days, Mac OS remained 68k-compatible until Mac OS 8.5, which wasn't introduced until October of 1998, four OS versions after the introduction of the 'Mac OS' designation: Mac OS 7.6, 7.6.1, 8.0 and 8.1. (I'm not counting 8.2 only because it was only a beta and I couldn't find any evidence that it can boot any 68k Macs)

adespoton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015 Feb 15

https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Mac_OS_versions - you can see here where the Mac OS changed. It was a gradual change, got slapped on the loading screen (but not the boot screen) of 7.5 Update 1.0. PPC System 7 started with 7.1.2 though, and it wasn't until 7.6 that all the strings got integrated and the printed material fully referenced Mac OS. And, has been mentioned, 68K Mac OS ended at 8.1. So there were 13 releases of 68k Mac OS over a period of 3 years.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Wow, so the 'Mac OS' name change actually preceded 7.6; I didn't know that! Even though a few of those 13 releases were solely for a few specific Mac models only, like version 7.5.2 (which interestingly, does not appear in the main list)!

adespoton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015 Feb 15

I spent years untangling all of that stuff (including back when it was happening -- things were a mess back then) and from what I can tell, Apple released what many call 7.5.2 as Mac OS 7.5 Update 2. At 7.5.3, the versioning scheme was changed, and updates 1 and 2 were retroactively treated as .1 and .2, with the next release being 7.5.3... oddly also first released as Mac OS 7.5 Update 2.0 (as opposed to 2) which was only released for hours on ftp.apple.com before it was replaced by Mac OS 7.5.3 Revision 2 (I got my copy during that brief window!).

Seems like the different teams at Apple were having difficulties with release naming back then, the guys doing the bundled releases not communicating with the guys doing the community release, who released something mis-named and broken.

So yeah; on the list, it shows Mac OS 7.5 Update 2.0 linking to 7.5.2 (I should probably fix that to remove the .0).

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

This explains a lot of what I missed; I worked for an Apple reseller until the end of '93, which is all during System 7 and it's infinite number of system enablers! I sold my Classic II before relocating, and at my new job, they had a Powerbook 165c and a Macintosh IIci.

I did buy my first of two Performas, the 578 at Sears either in '94 or '95. With a floppy drive, internal modem and CD tray, the world was my oyster, lol! That performa had a system 7.1P6, iirc, and I also remember signing up with AOL, so up until then I system 7.5 hadn't surfaced.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Sheepsaver doesn't run on Android and moreover, emulating a high clocked PowerCPU would be no easy task for an ARM processor primarly designed for low power consumption. I have an 86 Intel emulator running on a CuBox with 3 GB RAM and its slow like molasses.

If the AmigaOS team wouldn't have stopped supporting their port and the UAE that's left now be easier to setup, I might have stuck with that. But interlace mode for DTP in 2020? Thx but no thanks. And I was specifically referencing the much talked down - if not derided - MacWord 6, which I have been using *extensivly* now for many months and had ample time to compare it to the contemporary competitors.
Its a technical fact that Word 6 can do many things the others won't or would just do with many more steps involved. MacWord 6 runs stable, reliable and plays nice with others. As far as I am concerned, that's all you can ask from a decent Word processor. Corel's Word Perfect for example takes almost twice as long to load and outright croaks, when trying to import documents that are a few hundred pages long.

Ah and yes, a number of Word runner ups don't like Adobe's Type Manager at all - which I find outright bizarre for professional text processing software. I could go on like that, but I guess you get my drift.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

For real DTP work you're far far better off learning to use a proper DTP app such as Adobe PageMaker or Quark Xpress (or on more modern systems apps like Adobe InDesign and Affinity Publisher). Trying to do any type of page layout work in Word, or PowerPoint which many office workers do use as an adhoc DTP app) is a complete and utter pig of a job that wastes massive amounts of time just trying to get around its "helpful" automatic changing of things and trying to get it to do what you want rather than what Microsoft says you want. Even just simply pressing backspace can suddenly change the entire format of a paragraph!!

In the past proper press-print companies have refused to accept Word documents as being "ready to print" and would always charge you for re-laying out the document in a real DTP app. Partly this was due to the lack of CMYK abilities in Word, but there were other reasons too, including Microsoft's inability to stick to the established rules everyone uses which can cause issues with things like PDF creation.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

I said that I am writing a book with MacWord, I never claimed to do page layout with it. Wink
DTP is a pain in the rear with any standard text processing app, and that holds true even today. If and when the time comes to put the finished text to print, , I'll got a fully loaded QuarkXPress waiting alongside a few other DeskTop Publishing apps, that I might also give a try. Luckily QXP offers extensions for direct import of Word and RTF files.

But for editing a large text file, nothing beats MS Word - at least not if flexibillity in data exchange is one key element of the editorial process.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Not to mention the rich dictionaries and other included and/or available word reference tools.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Ah yes, the Thesaurus, the templates and the never ending flood of Word Macro tools. Laughing out loud

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

Part of your RTF import problem is likely due to Microsoft. They often make up the ideas to suit themselves, ignoring all establish rules. I can't quite remember, but it may have been RTF that Microsoft unilaterally decided should include images, and that caused no end of issues for other apps that played by the rules and only accepted text with formatting.

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

Not surprised to hear that. I was actually suspecting it had to be something like that from the beginning, even when considering strictly the 68k environment.

IIRC, they did much of the same with Internet Explorer back in the day, to go against other browsers, and they were keen on deploying such tactics against PR-DOS, as well. They also attempted to break Java compatibility back in the day, which got them sued very hard, but maybe not harder than when the US Government finally sued them for antitrust in general.

Microsoft, at least until not that long ago, was all about "Embrace, extend, and extinguish", a term coined by none other than Microsoft themselves. Most Microsoft hate and concerns were certainly not unwarranted, as we can obviously see. They also famously said "Linux is a cancer" back in the day. (lol) So when they finally released "multiplatform" Visual Studio Code, I simply had to roll my eyes. Laughing out loud (Code is useful, though.)

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

I wonder who's the weed? Lol Innocent

Microsoft indeed succeeded with MSW5, still loved and hated at the same time by all!

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

Yep, Internet Explorer (aka Internut Exploiter) was another major pain in the backside created by Microsoft trying to make up their own rules. To get websites to function properly, you often had to check which browser the viewer was using, and then have entire bits of extra HTML coding to specifically cater for Microsoft's selfish stupidity.

Another issue affecting both Word and web browsers was (may still be) that Windows rendered fonts differently, so if you created a Word document on one computer it would often look a mess on another with a different version of Word and / or different OS or OS version. Usually the document looked fine, until you clicked in it to edit it or tried to print it, and then all the text would suddenly re-flow, even if you were using "Windows-friendly" fonts installed by Word itself!

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

That is why you have the option to embed fonts in your Word document, which btw still allows me up to this day to exchange docs between MacWord 6 and Win Office, w/o loosing any format info. Its a feature that OpenOffice/LibreOffice has only recently introduced (strangely enough).

And RTF exists in different versions, plus the abillity to embed pictures in it isn't a bug in my view, but is absolutely essential for the document format to stay useful to this day. So if Microsoft triggered that improvement then I say "Thx!" for that. And it would also explain why MacWord 6 handles RTF imports from PCs better than any other Mac app from that era.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

It has never been possible to embed fonts using the old Mac versions of Word (or any other Office app) - the option doesn't exist. From memory the Mac version could read embedded fonts by Windows version of Word, or at least preserve them when saving. Embedding fonts on the Mac versions only arrived recently with Office 365 and Office 2019.

RTF stands for Rich Text File/Format, which is an enhanced version of plain text files. Images are by definition not "text". Plain text files contain just the text, while RTF files should only ever include the text and extra simple text formatting information like bolding, bullet points, etc. (Early HTML is basically a form of RTF with it's <> tags). True RTF files should never contain images ... but Microsoft as usual thought they knew better than everyone else, and made a complete mess for everyone, again as usual.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Please - the option to embedd fonts does exist in MacWord 6 and it works - even across platforms!
https://pasteboard.co/JclUkfO.jpg

And RTF has been supporting the embedding of pictures for quite some time now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format

Quote:
"RTF supports inclusion of JPEG, Portable Network Graphics (PNG), Enhanced Metafile (EMF), Windows Metafile (WMF), Apple PICT, Windows Device-dependent bitmap, Windows Device Independent bitmap and OS/2 Metafile picture types in hexadecimal (the default) or binary format in a RTF file. Not all of these picture types are supported in all RTF readers."

That was never an evil scheme by Microsoft but simply an ongoing development of an existing standard. "Rich Text Format" does not mean "Pictureless Text Format" Laughing out loud

I have never found blind hate to be a very productive emotion, that goes for people and most certainly for technical objects. So I hate Windoze for it hampers me in the tasks I try to achieve. But I acknowledge that "Windows" is a consumer oriented operating system, that gives most people just what they need.

I despise Microsoft's hegemony in the office software market. But when I reported an error to the OpenOffice developers that caused an already "Saved" file to loose its changes if the program got terminated irregularly - for the actual Save operation only happened, when OpenOffice terminated *gracefully* - their reaction was: "So what? We know that already and its no big deal to us". I decided right there and then, that OO was no serious competitor for the office software throne - not to me anyway. For if you push on "Save" it should save your file to disk, PERIOD.

I don't like vegans, for they make an ideology out of lunch. Likewise I choose my software based on its technucal abillities. And if dreaded Microsoft gives me what I want, I'll take it and won't loose a night's sleep over it. Laughing out loud

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

True Type fonts could perhaps have been embedded in older versions, but it's only recently that any font could be embedded. One of many websites that say it has only recently been added to MS Office apps:

Huge news for Office Mac users - font embedding finally arrives! (Dec 2018)

Yes, RTF now includes images, but it wasn't original meant to - that's why it's Rich Text Format. Microsoft as usual forced everyone else to do as they say. Sad

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

C'm on, skip the "perhaps" part. I took the effort to make and upload that screenshot so plz be so curtious to acknowledge that MacWord 6 had at least that one point going for it: The abillity to embedd any true type font into the document, that was used to create it.

And I tested that it works to this very day, even across different operating systems.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

TrueType was such a powerful Apple built-in font 'type' (pun intended, lol), that it competed with Adobe's PostScript ATM fonts. I amassed TrueType fonts for my own use because they looked and printed perfectly on non-postscript applications (which many of my programs were) without a lot special system extensions. For novices and those not working with professional computer typesetters, TrueType was insanely great and super easy to use, just drop it in!

I think Microsoft was ahead of the curve and was pushing the envelope, as they tried to do everywhere. Apple's tech innovations were most often looked at as visionary by its user-base, whereas Microsoft's innovations were looked at like 'the enemy encroaching on enemy territory'. I was more-often-than-not blind to the animosities, but it was fun to dabble in the whole Mac vs. MS-DOS and Windows melee.

RTF, in this example, while being Microsoft's unifying document format, was not meant to hold back its own innovation, so incorporating images and truetype fonts meant the standard was growing in capabilities; it was up to the rest to keep up with the format! Some saw this as an unfair advantage; that they were taking advantage because they were big enough to put some muscle into the document standard they created.

However, I totally get why they were hated so much and for so long: the real fear that they would stifle out competition by making their solutions cheaper and better loomed over Mac users around the world. I also acknowledge that that same Mac spirit motivated programmers everywhere to push hard to not let that happen. Everything, and I mean everything (not coming out of outfits like Claris, Microsoft, Adobe, etc.), was shareware back then. Even innovative standard technologies, like Adobe Reader's PDF and Microsoft's RTF formats.

It's a beautiful example of a very innovative era! Smile

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

I believe that competition is good for business. Yeah Bill Gates played "mean" but Steve knew how to use his ellbows, too. Its a contact sport and there should be no crying in IT.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Jobs and Gates did play on each other's perceived (and real) villainies quite well, didn't they? Their love-hate relationship played out way better than any juicy soaps I ever watched! (I'm not claiming to have ever watched soaps religiously, I merely 'briefly' dabbled in the amazing and heated adventures of L&L in GH sometime in the 80s)

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Well you can't lead a garage store outfit to global success, w/o some alpha male attitude behind it. Look at Digital Research and how they fared. They gave us CP/M and were offered first chance by IBM to supply their line of PCs with a custom operating system. Well Gary Arlen Kildall - the "father of operating systems" and founder of DR - told IBM's lawyers to come back later, for he had promised his wife a vaccation.
He was a nice enough guy to keep his promises and by the time he returned, a thus far unknown dude named Bill Gates had decided that there were better things to do with your time, than keeping promises made to your better half, while IBM's legal team runs up and down the street, looking for *anyone* willing to sell them an operating system.

"Nice guys finish last" is more than just a nasty saying.

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

For all the bitching against Microsoft, I think they did the platform a huge favor by porting their Office suite to MacOS.

Technically, the suite was born on Mac OS itself as a Mac exclusive, which then got ported over to Windows (Word 1.0). Wink Let's not forget that.

Anyway, it's cool to have Office as one out of many other options.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Let's just find that WriteNow toolbar and we'll be happy campers! Smile

And if I'm not mistaken, WriteNow can read and write Word 4/5 files perfectly while Word 6 can read and write the Word 4/5 format as well (I can't believe it's been that long since I went over the compatibility between Word programs and other word processors).

adespoton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015 Feb 15

Personally, I went from Microsoft Works to Nisus Writer. Writer always handled everything I threw at it. Word 6 could display stuff, but was slow and bulky, and hard to navigate. AppleWorks... well, I used it for Apple/ClarisWorks documents, which it handled well. Everything else went in Nisus Writer.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

Thanks for the tip Smile did you mean version 4? The last version for 68k Macs was version 6.0.1, I believe. Was that one ever in the Garden archives?

I'd love to see how a couple of version numbers can affect a word processor, either for better or worse.

adespoton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015 Feb 15

Writer 4 kept me on Works; I believe it was 6 that seemed to Just Work, handling all formats and doing so in a zippy fashion with a built-in grammar checker.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

I had already looked, and the only one I was able to find was Writer 6.0.3, but that one and 6.0.2 are the first two PPC-only versions of Nisus Writer.

We need version 6.0.1, the last 68k version! Anyone think they have it anywhere?

adespoton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2015 Feb 15

Odd; I appear to have 4.14 and 4.16, and a bunch of versions of Nisus Compact. Can't find my 6.x.