Unfortunately, the publication industry is about 10 years behind the technology industry. I see publishers still asking for typewritten copy.
Asking for electronic submissions on floppy in MS Word format sux big time, I agree. What I end up doing is converting if I have to submit in Word format, or I opt to send a printed sub. Most publishers still prefer hard copy to electronic anyway.
I have two systems, on one runs the latest copy of Word (since my husband supports MS products at work, he has up to date versions of most software, so we have it. We rarely use it though) and I use Word Perfect 6.1 Novell to convert anything I write in Rough Draft to whatever format the publisher wants. Then I check it on Word to make sure it came out ok. But that's a lot of work.
It would be a hell of a lot easier if publishers would take RTF or plain text. Both of those formats are pretty good, though TXT doesn't allow for formatting and so forth.
I am the most productive under Rough Draft, which is pretty much a RTF editor with a couple of additional 'bells and whistles' that make it a little easier. And I agree, the more bloated a product gets, the less productive I am.
I'm just not quite ready to drop back down to Plain Tex level yet. Although I am heading that way, I think.;>
I run pretty mean and lean on XP with just Rough Draft and WP 6.1 though. But there's always room for improvement, if I've got industry standard software elsewhere to convert to should I need it. I realize not everyone has that kind of set up though.
Exactly right, Lumpy. I'm a novel and short story writer. About all MS Word was good for was printing and even so, I would have to spend about 30 min to an hour formatting the MS to make it 'publication legal'. Open Office and I have an even worse relationship.
I love Linux. However, I have not been able to find a word processor for it that does what I need it to do. Either the WP for Linux are too feature light or too feature heavy or don't always work like they're supposed to. It also complicates matters that I use a Compaq Presario 1244 laptop and am really not interested in upgrading because it works perfectly fine for me.
I will tell you what though. I fell in love with Word Perfect for DOS. And the version Novell released was the best. I have never been able to get WP for Linux to install correctly, which is primarily why I can't use Linux on my own personal system.
So I use Word Perfect 6.1 for Win and a fantastic little program called RoughDraft by Richard Salsbury. It was written by a writer for writers. No stupid bells and whistles. Only a few small bugs that are -well documented- in the help manual and -easy to fix-! It doesn't format MS for publication standard printing yet, but that is the only printing issue.
And most unfortunately, it only has a Win edition available since he writes it as Donationware.
But for those Linux-disciples: If I went without my online thesaurus programs and spell checkers, I could cope with KDE's KWord program (since I collect Thesauri and Dictionaries) but would still have to port any MS composed on it to Word Perfect 6.1 for Windows to format and print it.
Before I got a new copy of WP 6.1 for Windoze, I had to use Word for printing. Open Office has never worked for me.
However, as you can tell from my preferred hardware and software, I've been working in the computer stone ages for a while, but I tend to stick with what works. I have run Mandrake 9.1 and am currently working under an XP Professional install that has worked exceptionally well for me. Mind you, however, I don't use any Microsoft products on it besides the OS.
But for those writers stuck with Microsoft, Rough Draft is definitely the best composer out there. Maybe someday he will make a Linux version. But for now, I will stay with Rough Draft and WP 6.1. At least I don't have to use Word!
Find me a Linux Word Processor that has a decent spell checker and thesaurus, allows you to:
* underline freely * set quotation marks (I prefer straight to curly) * set and modify tabs * set margins, headers and footers * set fonts * format the header for properly placed page numbers * can read RTF format (unfortunately, I was convinced to convert all my work to this format, only to find many Linux text editors and word processors except OO don't convert it) * and make it STABLE and I'll more than willingly convert to Linux for keeps.
Believe it or not, this is something I was wondering about.
I'm a writer myself and have always been advised to submit MS in typewriter (Courier) font.
HOWEVER, I have begun write in Times myself. Or in the font closest to it that is A: Clear to read without tiring the eyes and B: Closest to that which is printed in magazines and books.
In the past, the Courier printer font was advised over "prettier" fonts because it looked closest to that copy that was produced on a typewriter. However, since this advice was given back in the late 80s, when the personal computer was still pretty much a luxury and 'new', as well as the fact that the printers of the time were dot matrix, it is logical to assume that the advice is outmoded. However, I have still seen this exact same advice printed in writing books published as recently as last year (I do not own any writing books published in 2003, since I have been working the majority of this year and haven't had time to read much).
On the flip side, there have been more books printed advising Times in addition to Courier, but personally, I haven't read anything advising Times and Serif fonts over Courier and the Sans-serif Typewriter fonts. I certainly hope this is a trend in publishing that will become better known soon.
I am quite in agreement that reading a 300+ MS typed in Courier is a headache. (I have several reams of MS printed in Courier. They're in a box in my garage.) Times and the similar fonts just look better printed out and they are easier to read. (Not to mention they appear slightly smalller and better formed and it seems that you can get more words on one page than you can with the same point size in Courier.)
Anyway, thanks for a valuable piece of information! Next MS I submit, I'll use Times or a similar Serif font.
Slashdot Mirror
Word Perfect 6.0 for DOS has that ability. In fact, in Text mode, one can change the screen and text display color to whatever one wants.
Unfortunately, the publication industry is about 10 years behind the technology industry. I see publishers still asking for typewritten copy.
;>
Asking for electronic submissions on floppy in MS Word format sux big time, I agree. What I end up doing is converting if I have to submit in Word format, or I opt to send a printed sub. Most publishers still prefer hard copy to electronic anyway.
I have two systems, on one runs the latest copy of Word (since my husband supports MS products at work, he has up to date versions of most software, so we have it. We rarely use it though) and I use Word Perfect 6.1 Novell to convert anything I write in Rough Draft to whatever format the publisher wants. Then I check it on Word to make sure it came out ok. But that's a lot of work.
It would be a hell of a lot easier if publishers would take RTF or plain text. Both of those formats are pretty good, though TXT doesn't allow for formatting and so forth.
I am the most productive under Rough Draft, which is pretty much a RTF editor with a couple of additional 'bells and whistles' that make it a little easier. And I agree, the more bloated a product gets, the less productive I am.
I'm just not quite ready to drop back down to Plain Tex level yet. Although I am heading that way, I think.
I run pretty mean and lean on XP with just Rough Draft and WP 6.1 though. But there's always room for improvement, if I've got industry standard software elsewhere to convert to should I need it. I realize not everyone has that kind of set up though.
Sable
Exactly right, Lumpy.
I'm a novel and short story writer. About all MS Word was good for was printing and even so, I would have to spend about 30 min to an hour formatting the MS to make it 'publication legal'.
Open Office and I have an even worse relationship.
I love Linux. However, I have not been able to find a word processor for it that does what I need it to do. Either the WP for Linux are too feature light or too feature heavy or don't always work like they're supposed to. It also complicates matters that I use a Compaq Presario 1244 laptop and am really not interested in upgrading because it works perfectly fine for me.
I will tell you what though. I fell in love with Word Perfect for DOS. And the version Novell released was the best. I have never been able to get WP for Linux to install correctly, which is primarily why I can't use Linux on my own personal system.
So I use Word Perfect 6.1 for Win and a fantastic little program called RoughDraft by Richard Salsbury. It was written by a writer for writers.
No stupid bells and whistles. Only a few small bugs that are -well documented- in the help manual and -easy to fix-! It doesn't format MS for publication standard printing yet, but that is the only printing issue.
And most unfortunately, it only has a Win edition available since he writes it as Donationware.
But for those Linux-disciples:
If I went without my online thesaurus programs and spell checkers, I could cope with KDE's KWord program (since I collect Thesauri and Dictionaries) but would still have to port any MS composed on it to Word Perfect 6.1 for Windows to format and print it.
Before I got a new copy of WP 6.1 for Windoze, I had to use Word for printing. Open Office has never worked for me.
However, as you can tell from my preferred hardware and software, I've been working in the computer stone ages for a while, but I tend to stick with what works. I have run Mandrake 9.1 and am currently working under an XP Professional install that has worked exceptionally well for me. Mind you, however, I don't use any Microsoft products on it besides the OS.
But for those writers stuck with Microsoft, Rough Draft is definitely the best composer out there. Maybe someday he will make a Linux version. But for now, I will stay with Rough Draft and WP 6.1. At least I don't have to use Word!
Find me a Linux Word Processor that has a decent spell checker and thesaurus, allows you to:
* underline freely
* set quotation marks (I prefer straight to curly)
* set and modify tabs
* set margins, headers and footers
* set fonts
* format the header for properly placed page numbers
* can read RTF format (unfortunately, I was convinced to convert all my work to this format, only to find many Linux text editors and word processors except OO don't convert it)
* and make it STABLE and I'll more than willingly convert to Linux for keeps.
Sable
Believe it or not, this is something I was wondering about.
I'm a writer myself and have always been advised to submit MS in typewriter (Courier) font.
HOWEVER, I have begun write in Times myself. Or in the font closest to it that is A: Clear to read without tiring the eyes and B: Closest to that which is printed in magazines and books.
In the past, the Courier printer font was advised over "prettier" fonts because it looked closest to that copy that was produced on a typewriter. However, since this advice was given back in the late 80s, when the personal computer was still pretty much a luxury and 'new', as well as the fact that the printers of the time were dot matrix, it is logical to assume that the advice is outmoded. However, I have still seen this exact same advice printed in writing books published as recently as last year (I do not own any writing books published in 2003, since I have been working the majority of this year and haven't had time to read much).
On the flip side, there have been more books printed advising Times in addition to Courier, but personally, I haven't read anything advising Times and Serif fonts over Courier and the Sans-serif Typewriter fonts. I certainly hope this is a trend in publishing that will become better known soon.
I am quite in agreement that reading a 300+ MS typed in Courier is a headache. (I have several reams of MS printed in Courier. They're in a box in my garage.) Times and the similar fonts just look better printed out and they are easier to read. (Not to mention they appear slightly smalller and better formed and it seems that you can get more words on one page than you can with the same point size in Courier.)
Anyway, thanks for a valuable piece of information! Next MS I submit, I'll use Times or a similar Serif font.
Sable