Apple word processor

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Apple has apparently (so I read on versiontracker.com) hired Dan Schimpf, maker of the freware text app, Macjournal. This, combined with earlier rumors, could actually mean that Apple is working on making a new, non-Appleworks word processor.



Just my guessing, i suppose..
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Hard to say. He would be useful on almost any software project.



    http://homepage.mac.com/dschimpf/





    MacJournal looks nice but it needs a lot of work to be a word killer.
  • Reply 2 of 51
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Instead of taking on MS Word head on they should focus on a consumer friendly but powerful "Document Creator" application. Word does heavy duty word processing, overkill for most home users, InDesign and Quark are expensive and very much overkill for home users, but there is a lot of room for a new kind of text/document app. It would have all the basic word processing features, with support for graphics, tables, columns and other typographical features. I envision a page layout app made for the rest of us, people who want to make country club newsletters, design custom CD covers, make eye pleasing resumes. Make rtf the standard file format with PDF and .doc as easy to get to export formats.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    I'm hoping and praying for a new Apple word processor. I like Apple works, but it's wicked old and outdated. I don't like MS word, never have. I want something with more functionality than MS office, but easier to use. I know a lot about computers, but one thing I don't want to do is struggle with my word processor, and it's a daily battle with MS word.
  • Reply 4 of 51
    rraburrabu Posts: 239member
    Maybe they could save their files in Latex? Although that may be more trouble than it's worth.
  • Reply 5 of 51
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Something between AppleWorks and TextEdit, combining the best of both would be nice.

    And today MS released their XML Word document ML to the public, allowing any developer to fully support (import & export) the Word .doc format without the need for reverse engineering (or reverse hacking if you will). I'm not sure, but this reeks of a Good Thing.
  • Reply 6 of 51
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Hard to say. He would be useful on almost any software project.



    http://homepage.mac.com/dschimpf/





    MacJournal looks nice but it needs a lot of work to be a word killer.




    Reading that page, it appears more likely that mr. Schimpf works @ Apple for some blogging solution (or for improving the blogging they currently offer with .Mac -they do, don't they?-).
  • Reply 7 of 51
    His product isn't a blog, it's a personal (as in private) journal app, all done locally on your own machine. Also iBlog isn't an Apple product, just something built on open standards that they give away with .mac.



    As far as I know he's just a talented (ex-)student developer so he'll probably be assigned to whatever Apple needs him to do rather than come in as some kind of specialist.
  • Reply 8 of 51
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member
    I like that idea Outsider.



    I tried Ragtime Solo (freeware if personal use) because it seemed to have a lot of the features you describe. However, the app is fairly non-intuitive (toolbars, etc) and doesn't really take advantage of OS X.



    I don't think Apple should attempt to kill word because they won't. (At least not in the forseeable future.) But they would sure make some friends in the consumer world and I think in Education if they came out with the Document app you forecast.
  • Reply 9 of 51
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    this may be dumb, but are there instructions on how to use textedit as a "word processor" like setting margins, tabs, top bottom margins, fonts, double/ single spacing just the simple stuff? is there a how to, or pdf? i have appleworks under os 9 but i don't want to keep switching back and forth
  • Reply 10 of 51
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member
    You can use the help section but I think that is it. It tells you some of these things but the length of the explanations are generally very brief.



    I really like this new version of TextEdit but it's really good for fairly simple documents. Typography is way ahead of anything in OS 9 so this still puts it far ahead of Appleworks in the text document world for me.
  • Reply 11 of 51
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by der Kopf

    Something between AppleWorks and TextEdit, combining the best of both would be nice.

    And today MS released their XML Word document ML to the public, allowing any developer to fully support (import & export) the Word .doc format without the need for reverse engineering (or reverse hacking if you will). I'm not sure, but this reeks of a Good Thing.




    Ahhhh, that's what they *want* you to think...



    Seriously, they reserve the right to slap everything into a binary-encoded chunklet in the WDML file (uh-oh, how *ever* are they going to create a three letter extension for *that*?), and call it good. "But look! It's XML!" Yeah, and you're right back into the position of having to reverse engineer a binary data stream, just like today.



    Smoke, mirrors, you know the drill.
  • Reply 12 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NOFEER

    setting margins, tabs, top bottom margins, fonts, double/ single spacing just the simple stuff?



    Maybe this is what you are looking for



    TextEdit -> Preferences -> Show ruler

    TextEdit -> Format -> Wrap to page



    Forgive the waste of space if you already knew that.
  • Reply 13 of 51
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member
    They will have to be a little careful. Office is an expensive app that windows and mac users don't like to upgrade often because it already has more features than we need. (Not saying this makes it good.)



    Crippling the format too soon, or even a ways down the road will even cripple a vast network of windows users.



    Slashdot has a story on this today and even though it appears they have released the info, there are licenses involved. (Sorry not to add link.)
  • Reply 14 of 51
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Thanks kcmac.



    I agree, I don't see the upside to them trying to go against Word or Quark or InDesign head on. Think about it, a lot of files people create at home are never shared! Except for things like resumes (better distributed in PDF format anyway) most information is transfered via email with no attachments. The pro apps I described above are the opposite: they are popular because of the need to be compatible. At home, the only thing that matters is the final product; the print job or the final private file that will probably never be shared. And when it needs to be, what better format for distribution than PDF?
  • Reply 15 of 51
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Thanks kcmac.



    I agree, I don't see the upside to them trying to go against Word or Quark or InDesign head on. Think about it, a lot of files people create at home are never shared! Except for things like resumes (better distributed in PDF format anyway) most information is transfered via email with no attachments.




    You live in a better world than I do. A lot of the people who send me email practically live in Word, and they use it to write, send and read email. My life is Word attachments - when they aren't Excel attachments - not for actual spreadsheets of course, but for any sort of tabulated list, since Word sucks at those. I get bug reports in Excel.



    It could all be sent plain text, of course, but no.....
  • Reply 16 of 51
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Thanks kcmac.



    I agree, I don't see the upside to them trying to go against Word or Quark or InDesign head on. Think about it, a lot of files people create at home are never shared! Except for things like resumes (better distributed in PDF format anyway) most information is transfered via email with no attachments. The pro apps I described above are the opposite: they are popular because of the need to be compatible. At home, the only thing that matters is the final product; the print job or the final private file that will probably never be shared. And when it needs to be, what better format for distribution than PDF?




    .txt, .rtf and/or .html for starters.
  • Reply 17 of 51
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    You live in a better world than I do. A lot of the people who send me email practically live in Word, and they use it to write, send and read email. My life is Word attachments - when they aren't Excel attachments - not for actual spreadsheets of course, but for any sort of tabulated list, since Word sucks at those. I get bug reports in Excel.



    It could all be sent plain text, of course, but no.....




    Our workplace has a maximum attachment size and most of our clients do also; some forbid attachments at all. Everything else is done via ftp. Interestingly, most of our attachments are PDF and, ugh, Powerpoint.



    Also one advantage to PDF is if you put it on a website, you can view it from within the browser (except Safari, grrr). Word docs: no.
  • Reply 18 of 51
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by der Kopf

    .txt, .rtf and/or .html for starters.



    txt, fine for simple text.... something an email handles just fine. Same with rtf.



    HTML is way to variable on different platforms and even different browsers within the platform. And it's a nightmare to edit. And Apple already has PDF abilities built-in to the OS.
  • Reply 19 of 51
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I think Apple should make a Page Maker like application. Layers, lots of objects that can be easily moved around, embedding other documents via drag and drop.



    It'd be a simple word processor like Word, unless you actually looked for advanced features. But the features should be unique, things that tap directly into OS X.



    It should be a graphics powerhouse with the abilities X has. Definitely start to create an application that could move in and take over if Adobe axes PhotoShop, or even PhotoShop Elements.



    Combine this with PDF creation and we've got a big winner on our hands.
  • Reply 20 of 51
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member
    Except for complex word documents, there are several apps on the street that read and write .doc including TextEdit and even Appleworks.



    So we can already save to and write to doc, txt, rtf, rtfd, html, pdf. What we need is an app as Outsider has described making it easy for the consumer and some business people to make a wide range of documents. Apple can easily pull something like this off.



    Hell, there are still a lot of people that really like Appleworks. A more focused app that uses the power of OS X and easier to use than Appleworks would be a no brainer.



    It has been said recently that with the improvements to typography and the text engine in OS X that the floodgates will open for text apps to make some nice moves. (Supposedly, this is what has been holding up Nisus).



    I'm hopeful that Apple will pull this out of the bag in January.
Sign In or Register to comment.