#ProWrite 3.2 upgrade
42 messages in this thread
New Horizons is pleased to announce a new upgrade to ProWrite, the best
selling Amiga word processor. ProWrite version 3.2 adds a number of
enhancements over version 3.1; these enhancements include:
* PostScript support from directly within ProWrite.
The ProScript module is no longer need to get PostScript support. All of
ProWrite's features, including multiple fonts, styles, and columns are
supported in PostScript. In addition, the PostScript output can be
redirected to any device or file, and both gray scale and color output is
supported.
* Enhanced user interface.
ProWrite 3.2 has a new "3-D" look, similar to that found in Workbench 2.0.
This new look is present regardless of which version of Kickstart you are
using. In addition to this new look, ProWrite also has several improvements
to its user interface, such as more key equivalents in requesters, and the
marking of those key equivalents. ProWrite can also open on any "public"
screen, and will automatically adapt to the color palette of that screen.
* Import and export PPage text files
ProWrite 3.2 can import and export text files that contain PPage formatting
codes, and it will convert those codes to ProWrite formatting information.
This makes it easier to use ProWrite as a front-end to PPage, as all
important formatting information is retained when the text is placed into
PPage.
* Directly insert files into ProWrite documents
You can now directly insert the text of another file into an open ProWrite
document, it is no longer necessary to open the document separately and cut
and paste the contents.
ProWrite 3.2 will be shipping at the end of September, the suggested retail
price remains unchanged at $175.00 US. Several other enhancements will be
included in ProWrite 3.2 as well, a complete list will be posted here when
it ships.
[continued in the reply]
[continued]
Registered owners will be sent upgrade information in the mail. Upgrade
information is as follows:
Upgrading from version 3.0 or 3.1: $20.00
from version 2.0 or 2.5: $60.00
from version 1.0 or 1.1: $75.00
Shipping and handling in US: $5.00
other countries: $10.00
Texas residents must add 8% sales tax.
Let us know if you have any questions about this upgrade.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
I'm delighted to hear about the upgrade and will look forward to the
release.
I do hope that you have also changed the requester to "a proper Amiga"
requester. I was so disapointed when I bought Design Works to see the same
old req as ProWrite.
Yours in hope,
Andrew.
Andrew,
Well, that all depends upon what you mean by a "proper" Amiga requester.
:->
I assume you are talking about the file requesters. If so, then what is it
about the ones in ProWrite and DesignWorks that you don't like? They have
all of the features that the "ASL" one does (which is what I assume you
mean by saying a "proper" Amiga one), and more besides.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
Jim,
I don't know if you (New Horizons) would ever consider this, but I'd like
to suggest it anyway <grin>. In a future version of ProWrite (perhaps a
2.0 specific version) I think it would be great if you used the ASL
requester. Why? Because then the user would be able to preempt it with a
file requester of their choice (ie, kd_freq.library).
-sja
Steve,
Having an option to use the ASL requester is something we are considering
for future versions.
However, there is another way to substitute file requesters. If your file
requester supports AREXX, you could make an AREXX macro that brings up your
file requester of choice, and then feed its result back into ProWrite.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
I agree in the option of using the ASL requestor. Let the people make the
choice for their requestor.
Just my hope.
Donovan
Jim
Is formatted ASCII save on the features list? This would allow printing
from MSDOS and I could dump my BridgeBoard. By this I mean padding to mimic
the ruler settings – margins, indented whole paragraphs and such.
Bob
Robert,
What you are describing as "formatted ASCII" sounds like a "Print to disk"
rather than "Save" function. While ProWrite does not have a built-in
print-to-disk command, you can get it to do this with the CMD program
supplied with Workbench 1.3. I believe we even have a ProWrite macro
uploaded here on CompuServe that will automatically invoke the CMD program
to get a print-to-disk result very easily.
James Bayless
New Horizons software, Inc.
I had tried that macro in the past although not with that in mind. I gave
up on it because things would get out of whack if more than one program was
sending to the port. The files produced by CMD are very large. I am go to
print on my MSDOS machine at work which uses a different printer. What I
ave in mind is basically an ASCI file which is tweaked with for indented
paragraphs. It copies the ruler format from a special file and applies it
to the current or selected paragraph(s). All this nice ruler formatting
disaisappears if the file is saved as ascii and I would need to reb
processor. So, stuff I need for work tends to be done using an MSDOS word
processor on my bridgeboard. My MSDOS wordprocessor, Sprint, will formatted
ascii file with some loss of precision in margins. This imprecision is
preferable to losing all formatting.
How soon can I send for the upgrade?
Bob
Rob,
You can send in for the ProWrite upgrade now, however, understand that it
will not ship until the end of September. Current ProWrite owners will be
receiving an upgrade mailing in the third week of September.
Mark Thomas
Customer Support
New Horizons Software, Inc.
Thanks. I am assuming you will want the program disk.
Bob
Robert,
To get the print-to-disk to come out with all the formatting codes (i.e.
just plain ASCII) simply switch to using the "generic" printer driver
before printing. The generic driver strips all formatting codes.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
I have read your reply twice and I am confused as to whether the generic
driver will produce what I desire. I don't recall a way to change the
driver via ARexx. I will explore your suggestion and see if it is viable.
Bob
The simplest way to switch printer drivers using Arexx is to invoke a PD
program called SETPREFS (I think). Copy your "system.configuration" file
to another name like "default.configuration. Then set your prefs to use
the generic driver using Preferences and save. Rename
"system.configuration" to, say, "genprinter.configuration". Setprefs will
let you switch among these config files on the fly.
/* print to file some w/formatting */ ADDRESS COMMAND 'setprefs
genprinter.configuration'
/* CMD and printing stuff here */
ADDRESS COMMAND 'setprefs default.configuration' EXIT
You get the idea. — Art
Will SetPrefs work under AmigaDOS 2.0?
Bob
Will setprefs work under 2.0? Beats me. I own a 2000 and have been a good
boy…I don't know anything about something that doesn't officially exist.
What's "2.0" 🙂 — Art
2.0 is the operating system in use by Amiga 3000 users and developers.
ARexx is officially pary of 2.0 and not of 1.3. I don't believe the
SetPrefs kludge will work under 2.0 because the system defaults are stored
in a different path. I am looking for a way to load a new printer driver
into ProWrite that will work independently of the OS version. Given
sufficient ARexx support sophistication while ProWrite has a ways to go.
🙂
Bob
Have you improved upon the Arexx commands at all? They need to be more
flexible and powerful to be really useful.
And yes, please dump your requestor. I much prefer a standard one.
I can't wait for 3.2. Integrating postscript was a great idea.
Donovan
By "standard" requester, are you referring to the ASL file requester? That
requester is only available on Kickstart 2.0 systems. Further, our current
file requesters have all the functionality, and more, that the ASL ones
provide.
What is it specifically that you prefer in the ASL requester to the one
built into ProWrite?
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
P.S. The ProWrite file requesters were substantially enhanced with version
3.1. If you are using version 3.0 or earlier, then you don't have the
improved file requesters.
James,
There's one big problem with the Prowrite 3.1 requester.
While the program is reading the directory, you can click in the string
gadget and type the filename if you already know it. However, when PW
finishes reading the directory, it substitutes the first file in the list
for whatever you typed. If you've already hit return, PW loads the wrong
file.
For instance, the first file in my docs:reviews directory (where I point
Prowrite by default) is 3DPro. If I type in "flow" as my review name and
hit return, BEFORE the directory is finished reading in, it's replaced by
3DPro, which is loaded since I've already hit Return. This is the one thing
that bugs me more than anything else about PW.
I don't really see much point in always putting the first file in string
requester. I see two options: (1) Don't put anything in the gadget until
you click on SOME name or type something, or (2) Don't put the first
filename in the gadget if the user has already typed something else.
That's my biggest want in PW 3.2.
Thanks,
Denny Atkin, Associate Editor
COMPUTE's Amiga Resource
Denny,
Good point. I'll see what we can do.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
I think that James Blayless fails to understand that the Prowrite file
requester fails to follow the Amiga conventions. It is irrelevant that the
functionality is there. Good user interface design should follow style
conventions which are consistent across applications (and not just one
vendors interpretation of what the conventions 'should' be).
Geoffrey Hansen
Geoffrey,
ProWrite's current requester (the one in version 3.1) is not all that
different in functionality from the ASL requester (the one that Commodore
supplies with Kickstart 2.0). About the only major difference in
functionality is that ProWrite's lets you use the text entry box for typing
either disk/path names, file names, or both simultaneously, whereas the ASL
one makes you type disk/path names in one box, and the filename (and
filename only) in another.
However, if you are referring to the "3-D" look in the Kickstart 2.0 file
requesters when you talk about "following the Amiga conventions", then
ProWrite 3.2 will indeed have such a 3-D look.
But if by "Amiga conventions" you are referring to neither functionality
nor appearance, then I don't really understand your comment.
(BTW, there really are not any real "Amiga conventions" when it comes to
these things–even the recent "Amiga Style Guide" book is inconsistent and
incomplete.)
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
B/exit
James, I think that one of the 'unconventi-ional aspects' of the PW
requester is that to access differnet val valu aol volumes, you have to
scroll through the available volumes with the disk icon – most requester
allow a direct access selection of disks. It just feels cumbversome and it
is confusing after using, say the Dpaint or Pagestream requesters. JL/e
(i apologize for this garbeled message but Iam on my Mother-in-laws Bemer
and i cannot backspace AND if have (that's i have) forgotten the edit
commands on CIS! ;-( )
James,
You can get a list of mounted disks and assignments with ProWrite's file
requester. Just continue clicking on the "Back" button until you are at
the top of the heirarchy (the words "Mounted disks and assignments" will
appear in the top of the requester to let you know what you are looking
at). You can also do this more quickly by holding down the ALT key when
you click on the "Back" button. (This applies to ProWrite 3.1; version 3.0
had the old requesters).
ProWrite 3.2 will replace the disk arrows with a "Disks" button which will
give you the disk/assignment lists immediately.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
Attn. James Bayless.
I seem to have opened a can of worms with my comments on the
ProWrite/Design Works file req.
Can I suggest that you have a look at Khalid Aldoseri's Freq which is a
replacement for the arp/asl/req requestors. This is what I would term 'a
proper' Amiga req.
I agree with you that your req is functional. My main gripes are that you
can't type in filenames, it dosn't look right, it dosn't conform to the new
'standards' i.e. asl.
Apart from that, its lovely…..
Andrew.
Andrew:
I agree, Khalid's Freq is a quantum leap forward in generic selector
design. It's a little confusing, with all those options, but I still think
it's dreamy…:)
Gary
– Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
Andrew,
You must be using an older version of ProWrite. Starting with version 3.1
the file requester was enhanced considerably–it is very similar to the ASL
requester (you can get a list of mounted disks, you can type path and file
names into them, etc.).
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
Geoffrey:
I couldn't disagree more! What makes the Amiga so unique is the fact that
it's possible for various developers to create different kinds of file
selectors until "the ultimate file selector" emerges. On the Mac, you're
stuck with what the OS engineers and designers felt was the best selector.
What if I dislike it? Tough. I have no alternative because EVERY program on
that platform has to use it. As well, for my software, I have written a
file selector that is quite different from most standard system selectors,
but is perfectly suited to the task at hand (namely, handling thousands of
files). If I were a Mac developer, my hands would be tied. The down side to
this is: when does eveybody shut up and use the same selector? I dunno'.
Maybe never. But then, should every program also use the same interface,
even if it makes the software in question bulkier and less easy to use?
Gary
– Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
Oh, no, here comes the File Requester religious war. With the Dev Con
coming up, I guess I better become mentally prepared for such a waste of
time. I don't think a file requester is the best way to express the full
magnitude of your programming skills. To think that dozens and dozens of
skilled Amiga-heads have wasted man-years "refining" the wheel makes me
very, very sad. They could have been doing something else.
John:
Re: The File Requester War
What do you suppose the best way for me to express the full magnitude of my
programming skills should be when my software deals almost exclusively with
file manipulation? I suppose a simple text gadget would have sufficed…:)
I think you missed the point of what I was saying, anyway. I was praising
the Amiga's open-endedness, the fact that you can take anything "standard"
in it and improve on it, if you want. That imposed "standardization" has
it's good points but also its bad points. I'm not going to sit and argue
with someone that their selector is ugly or dysfunctional, though… who
cares? But by your rationale, we should all simply use the available tools
at hand (aka. the system selector) and get onto more important things, like
what the software does. But what if the interface then becomes so clumsy
and awkward to use, that I just can't use it, in spite of the wonderful
things the software does internally? How can it be that terrible to want to
make every aspect of the program fit and work sensibly with every other
aspect, both inside and out?
Gary
– Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
You're talking to me about products that are essentially glorified file
requesters? That's exactly what InterChange is… the muscle is in the
modules, the interface is brain-dead. Yes, for some apps, the file
selection *is* the product. But we weren't talking about that, or at least
most people I hear arguing about FRs are not making products that are
essentially FRs. They waste their talent on the file requester for
something that doesn't need it.
John:
Agreed. Programs for which file selection is only a gate, the starting
point to the other 99% of what the program does, should not have 50% of
their development time devoted to file selection. I do feel that it's as
important to write the most logical and intuitive interface possible, right
down to the FR, though, since a user's opinion of the product is ultimately
shaped by what the program gives them as well as how simply it gives it to
them. I/O is what matters. By your rationale, there should only be one word
processor available; why re-define the "wheel" if there's already a program
available that let's you type words into it and save them to disk? (Taking
things to the extreme, as usual…:)
As well, I really have no idea how much time is actually spent on these
things. I took a month to develop mine and I like it and I use the same one
in all my software. I think it would be crazy to spend anymore time than
that. As for arguing about the "look" of it: who cares? As long as it does
what you want…
Gary
– Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
Actually, I haven't used 3.1 much since I got it so I think my problem with
the file requestor was not accurate. I just loaded 3.1 after getting your
reply and played around with the file requestor. I really like being able
to click on the back key a few times to get a list of Mounted and assigns.
For some reason I didn't know it did that.
So, I think your file requestor is OK after all.
But I really think if the ARexx commands were more powerful, I could really
put ProWrite to use. For instance, why can't I bypass menus with direct
ARexx commands. Also, having to name the first 10 macros Macro_1, Macro_2,
etc.. is not at all intuitive. What did Macro_4 do? Oh yeah…
Donovan
Donovan,
Yes, Macro_1 through Macro_10 can be confusing if you don't use them a lot.
However, you can name the macro anything you like, and invoke it with the
"Other Macro" requester by name.
Incidentally, you can also hold down the ALT key and click on the "Back"
button in ProWrite's file requester to immediately get a list of mounted
disks and assignments (rather than clicking on it repeatedly to back up to
the top). Also, in ProWrite 3.2 there will be a "Disks" button that will
get this list immediately as well.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
Are there any serious ProWrite example macros? For instance, something to
show how to set up a style guide for a document? In the case of ProWrite,
what I think of as a style guide would be a (set of) Arexx macros that
facilitate the creation of (say) a heavy-duty report (with table of
contents, index, title page, list styles, chapter headers, footnotes,
etc.). I think the things that the Arexx interface for ProWrite is lacking
in order to create something like this is the ability to mark a position in
a document with a (say) letter (so the macro can bounce around between
several points in the document) and the ability for a macro to provide
default values for a requestor (like Find). What do you think?
David
– via Whap!
David,
We are always looking for ways to improve ProWrite's macro language, and
there will be some enhancements in that area with version 3.2.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
I also hope that 3.2 will have a requestor pop up when choosing other on
the macro menu. I can't remember the names of my macros off hand.
By the way, the first program I bought after I got my 1000 when it first
came out was ProWrite. I've upgraded every time. It's nice to be able to
give feedback like this.
Thanks
Donovan
One Big Question, Is this going to make ProScript Obsolete? or will Us
Proscript owners be getting a Update version of Proscript? I Like the Idea
of Postscript output in Prowrite, But I shelled out $60 Bucks for
Proscript.
No Flame was intended in this Messages, But inquiring Minds want to know.
James Scott
Great Day to be Alive
James,
No, ProWrite 3.2 will not make ProScript obsolete since it does a good
job by itself and has a few more features than what 3.2 will have, such as
arbitrary page rotation, arbitrary page scaling, and bitmap font
downloading. Also, if you have ProScript then you obviously have ProWrite
so you too can upgrade to 3.2 and have both options. You will, in this
case, have to sav the file you want to print in ProScript and load
ProScript by itself.
Mark Thomas
Customer Support
New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
There are still a few seldom used features which ProScript supports that
ProWrite will not; in particular things like arbitrary page rotation,
scaling, and skewing. But for nearly all applications you will no longer
need ProScript.
We had intended to come out with a ProScript upgrade, but had we done that
it would have cost about the same as the ProWrite 3.2 upgrade, and it
wouldn't have had all the extra things that the ProWrite 3.2 upgrade
brings.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.