PDA

View Full Version : Text editor



wmmullaney
January 7th, 2009, 06:17 AM
Hi! I had a quick question: Do you know of any good text editor programs for win 3.1 on a 386 laptop with 4mb of ram? It has to make a .txt file readable by Vista (yes Vista, aside from most people I acually like it.). When using Write the file comes out with jiberish at the beggining and the end of the text. Sometimes it'l even cut off part of the text. So, basicly I want to use this laptop for school, but the finished product needs to be perfectly readable by wordpad or something on Vista. Any ideas?

EDIT: It also gotta be free

gerrydoire
January 7th, 2009, 06:25 AM
Hi! I had a quick question: Do you know of any good text editor programs for win 3.1 on a 386 laptop with 4mb of ram? It has to make a .txt file readable by Vista (yes Vista, aside from most people I acually like it.). When using Write the file comes out with jiberish at the beggining and the end of the text. Sometimes it'l even cut off part of the text. So, basicly I want to use this laptop for school, but the finished product needs to be perfectly readable by wordpad or something on Vista. Any ideas?

EDIT: It also gotta be free


As far as Vista goes, MAC OSX runs better, runs faster, looks better on the exact same level of hardware, so Vista is a poor operating system.

Time for Microsoft to hire better programmers ..

wmmullaney
January 7th, 2009, 06:37 AM
I love mac os x, I use 10.4 on my other computer. Apple is just so expensive. At the moment this is all I can afford. Plust I like building computers. This comuter cost about $500, including monitor, mouse, webcam, modem, and all the rest of the guts. Thats versus around 3k for a mac with a cinima display.

Back to the question please.

carlsson
January 7th, 2009, 06:40 AM
Umm.. it was years since I used Windows 3.1 but I suppose there is no Wordpad in that one, only the more limited Notepad?

3rd party text editors should possibly be a lot, depending on your previous experiences. Something along the line of Pico, Joe, perhaps even Wordstar or (M)Emacs if you can handle those programs.

Check some of these editors:
ftp://ftp.uni-koeln.de/pc/win3/editors/00index.htm
http://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/editor.html

wmmullaney
January 7th, 2009, 06:42 AM
Do any of those have a spell check option?

carlsson
January 7th, 2009, 06:46 AM
I have absolutely no idea. You will have to download them and try yourself. Of course a spell checker will also require a word list.

Here is some more links, possibly of the same kind as above. Most of these are DOS text editors though. Perhaps you are strictly looking for a program to run in Windows.

http://home.att.net/~short.stop/freesoft/txtedit2.htm

Zeela
January 7th, 2009, 06:47 AM
When you're saving your text from Write, make sure you chose to save as text. I believe that this should be possible from Write.

paul.brett
January 7th, 2009, 07:07 AM
I just fired up my VMWare Windows 3.1 image - and yes, Write can Save-As a .TXT file, perfectly readable by Notepad (or any other text editor) on Vista.

Paul.

wmmullaney
January 7th, 2009, 07:28 AM
I did save as .txt. As mentioned above it cuts off the end of long docs. I am using a floppy to transfer. I have found a meathod for the time being, save as .doc and import with differnt settings in open office. Thanks for all the links.

carlsson
January 7th, 2009, 07:32 AM
Are those text documents longer than 64 kB? I seem to remember at least Notepad had (has?) a such limit, so possibly Write will cut a .txt file to fit in Notepad.

wmmullaney
January 7th, 2009, 08:16 AM
I don't think so, the file is perfectly readable in write, but word pad has random chartars and all that mess. .doc is working ok. I'd still like to have spell check. I'll look at those links tonight.

IBMMuseum
January 7th, 2009, 08:18 AM
Are those text documents longer than 64 kB? I seem to remember at least Notepad had (has?) a such limit, so possibly Write will cut a .txt file to fit in Notepad.

The limitation was there on Notepad (free, with Windows 3.x, but doesn't have a spell checker) up until about Windows 98/ME I think. On later systems (W2K and above) I have opened multi-megabyte text files with no troubles (of course a wait time to read them from the disk). EDIT (character-based full screen) should also be there with MS-DOS 5 and above.

For spell checking (which Windows WRITE doesn't have) I would think it is going to come to a full word processor (Word for DOS, something like version 5, Word for Windows, version 2, or WordPerfect 5 or 6, with "Grammtek"), and saving the file as text...

patscc
January 7th, 2009, 09:01 AM
There's always Prolix. I like it because it understands the various "text" formats, and comes in 16 & 32 bit versions.
http://www.kobayashi.com/prolix.html
patscc

Chuck(G)
January 7th, 2009, 09:03 AM
How about Wordstar 7 for Windows? There are copies floating around the web. ISTR that it comes with a coverter to convert WS files to RTF.

Isn't there a version of SemEdit that outputs .TXT files and has a spelling checker for Windoze?

You could just as easily run a straight DOS editor from a DOS box under Windows.

barythrin
January 7th, 2009, 12:19 PM
Yeah, .rtf may fix some of those problems instead of saving as .doc in older formats. Wordperfect is loved by many and does have advanced features including macros and form field/mail-merge type features, but yeah Microsoft Works (oxymoron), Microsoft Word, were a few early versions. I'm not sure if there was a free version of StarOffice or OpenOffice that would run under 3.x (maybe under 3.11 with win32s though).

Ole Juul
January 7th, 2009, 02:57 PM
Any editor that outputs actual text it will work. Quite a few newer programs use the word "text" losely. The only thing that is needed for some OSes is to use a .TXT extension and thats up to you to do. I suspect Vista is as dumb as XP and Linux when it comes to that so just go with it and add the .TXT when you're naming the file. :)

Here is a selection which I use or recommend and they will all work
like a charm in Win3.1.


Dir

TED COM 3072 01-01-80
TER COM 4,096 08-22-08
Q EXE 48832 09-16-94
T EXE 101,406 09-03-91
NE EXE 86,787 06-11-95
NE ZIP 369,890 09-18-06
VI COM 24,846 02-18-89


TED (TinyEDitor) is the old PC Mag editor. Very small but
no word wrap. Leaves EOF marker though. I use it for a lot
of my writing. It is small and goes on all my boot disks
and systems. To me it is the DOS equivalent of VI.

TER (Terse) is an updated version of TED and is much
better in many ways. Lots of features. That extra maturing
time and 1K means a lot. :) I am used to using TED so I
haven't changed yet, but I think it is worth a
consideration, especially since it competes nicely with
much larger editors.

Q (Q-edit) is the old programmers standby from Semware.
Opens many files. This has about as many features as you
could possibly use. There is a huge following so there is
an unlimited source of pre made macros for it too. With a
drop down menu it is easy to use, but the key strokes are
traditional and intuitive. Arguably the most sophisticated
and polished editor for DOS.

T (Technical Editor) is able to handle files of any size
which is why I keep it around. Many features and similar
to Q.

NE (No Edlin Ever) has a GUI interface but will run on any
DOS system AFAIK. It also has a terrific spell check. It
is worth noting that it has always been completely free. I
recommend this one for people who don't like the "terse"
editors and want a more windows like interface. The spell
check is fast, expandable, and available separately.
T (Technical Editor) is able to handle files of any size
which is why I keep it around. Many features and similar
to Q.

VI is not as functional as *NIX versions but if you're
used to it then it could be a good choice.

Notes:
IBM was apparently unaware of the classic PC Magazine
Utilities when some years later they also came up with a
TED or Tiny Editor. It is quite good but takes up more
space than the (less featured) original TED or the newer
(but comparable) Terse.

If anyone wants these, I'll find some links or post zips.
Cheers

patscc
January 7th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Ole Juul said...suspect Vista is as dumb as XP
They also can generate .txt files, but with unicode formatting, which ends up as gibberish on pre-unicode machines. That's even more annoying than the lf-cr nonsense.
.txt files should be 8-bit ANSI, not UTF-16.

patscc

wmmullaney
January 7th, 2009, 06:11 PM
NE (No Edlin Ever) has a GUI interface but will run on any
DOS system AFAIK. It also has a terrific spell check. It
is worth noting that it has always been completely free. I
recommend this one for people who don't like the "terse"
editors and want a more windows like interface. The spell
check is fast, expandable, and available separately.
T (Technical Editor) is able to handle files of any size
which is why I keep it around. Many features and similar
to Q.


Cheers

I'd be interested in NE, thanks!

Ole Juul
January 7th, 2009, 06:12 PM
They also can generate .txt files, but with unicode formatting, which ends up as gibberish on pre-unicode machines. That's even more annoying than the lf-cr nonsense.
.txt files should be 8-bit ANSI, not UTF-16.
patscc
Yes when you move away from ANSI then its a slippery slope. At some point you might as well call PDF a text file then. There seems to be a lot of confusion between text as an information format, and type setting. I've seen people using a word processor as an editor! To me, page layout, fonts, and other publishing issues are image related and have nothing to do with text as such.

Personally I require CR/LF because I don't want to use specialized programs for text processing. In my (perhaps little) world, all files are read the same way and the name or extension has no bearing on anything other than my own preference. I expect a "cat" or a "type" to give me something readable. I guess I'll always be a doshead. :)

Ole Juul
January 7th, 2009, 06:37 PM
I'd be interested in NE, thanks!
The file is 359K so I can't post it here, but look for NE300b.ZIP on this simtelnet page: http://www.eunet.bg/simtel.net/msdos/editor.html
There's a couple of other ones there too. ;)

FILE_ID.DIZ

NE v3.00B FREEWARE text editor with ALL
the features. From GDSOFT. (stands for
NO EDLIN EVER !!) Very good and
small Editor with WORDWRAP and SPELL
CHECKING !! A TOTAL replacement for
EDLIN and DOS EDIT (UGH !!). Can edit
MULTIPLE files, has block commands,
justify, search, replace and ALL of
the features that you expect in a
decent editor. It is VERY FAST and
small and FREE !! Works GREAT on
laptops too !! (c) 1993,1995 GDSOFT

Terry Yager
January 7th, 2009, 08:55 PM
I'd be interested in NE, thanks!

Do you have to quote the whole damn post every time? I'm wearing out my scroll button.

--T

Ole Juul
January 7th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Do you have to quote the whole damn post every time? I'm wearing out my scroll button.
--T
Same thought here... I'm thinking of getting a wind-up mouse.

Terry Yager
January 7th, 2009, 09:00 PM
I guess I'll always be a doshead. :)

Real DOSheads use EDLIN.

--T

Ole Juul
January 7th, 2009, 09:12 PM
Real DOSheads use EDLIN.
--T
Haha. It was the first editor I used and I really haven't progressed far. :)
Actually EDLIN has some good points. IIRC it can edit from a script, like SED, making it suitable for all sorts of clever things like editing many files at once. I wonder if NOTEPAD can do that?

strollin
January 8th, 2009, 05:18 AM
...
Notes:
IBM was apparently unaware of the classic PC Magazine
Utilities when some years later they also came up with a
TED or Tiny Editor. It is quite good but takes up more
space than the (less featured) original TED or the newer
(but comparable) Terse. ...


I worked at IBM when the T editor was developed and was a Beta tester for it. It wasn't developed by IBM per se (never a product) but was developed internally by a single programmer. I don't recall the person's name offhand but it was his personal project. As far as TED taking less space, one of the key requirements for T was that it stay under 9K which (IIRC) was the size of a single disk cluster on a floppy disk. Because DOS could only allocate a minimum of a cluster, a 3K file used just as much disk space as a 9K file. T's author would only add new features to T as long as the file size stayed within the 9K limit.

I use T as my editor of choice on all my DOS machines.

T was actually a subset of another popular internal IBM editor called E. E later evolved to become EPM and I believe it was actually included in one or more versions of OS/2.

wmmullaney
January 8th, 2009, 08:02 AM
Do you have to quote the whole damn post every time? I'm wearing out my scroll button.

--T

Sorry T, I was heading out the door and didn't have time to shorten it. Ole Juul, Thanks so much!

wmmullaney
January 8th, 2009, 09:25 AM
Thanks for the help everyone!!! I got everything working with ne. Don't ever use write in windows 3.1.

Ole Juul
January 8th, 2009, 02:33 PM
[TRIVIA]
I worked at IBM when the T editor was developed and was a Beta tester for it. ...
I was hoping my statement would bring somebody out of the woodwork. :)


It wasn't developed by IBM per se (never a product) but was developed internally by a single programmer. I don't recall the person's name offhand but it was his personal project.

The info is in the README with the program which reads:
by: Tim Baldwin
IBM UK Laboratories Ltd.
Hursley Park
Winchester, Hampshire, England.


As far as TED taking less space, one of the key requirements for T was that it stay under 9K which (IIRC) was the size of a single disk cluster on a floppy disk. Because DOS could only allocate a minimum of a cluster, a 3K file used just as much disk space as a 9K file. T's author would only add new features to T as long as the file size stayed within the 9K limit.

Now there is an interesting and valid point. I have always tried to find the smallest utilities because they, well, take up less space, :) and typically run better and are more carefully crafted. Its a matter of principle. I realize now that the cluster size should be taken into account when it comes to size. Thanks for the reminder. If I understand correctly then the disk size is the determinant. Actually at the time that T was originally written it looks like 4k would be the cluster size. Oh well, we can argue about that another time. :p

Between 128 and 256 MB, 4k. cluster size
Between 256 and 512 MB, 8k. cluster size
Between 512 and 1024, 16k. cluster size
Between 1024 and 2056, 32k. cluster size


I use T as my editor of choice on all my DOS machines.
I can see why.
In case you have lost the original distribution and README etc., then you can pick it up on this IBM Employee Written Software (http://www.tavi.co.uk/os2pages/ews.html) page. Anyone else who is interested in this IBM editor it is listed as "T - A tiny editor, version 2.20b" and the file is TINYED220B.ZIP.


T was actually a subset of another popular internal IBM editor called E. E later evolved to become EPM and I believe it was actually included in one or more versions of OS/2.

I had a look but couldn't find that one yet. I might want to add it to my collection - not that it needs to get any larger. :)

Regarding my earlier (brash) statement about IBM copying the PCmag editor, by name. Well, I've checked the dates more carefully. The file I checked had 1980 on it. Of course that should have been a clue! Lots of early programs end up with that date. hehe. Looking inside the file itself it says:

TED 1.0 (c) 1988 Ziff Communications Co.
PC Magazine - Tom Kihlken

The IBM editor's EXE says:

T Ver v2.20b - (C) Copyright IBM Corp. 1987,1993. By Tim Baldwin, IBM UK Labs

So I was wrong about the history. :)

Cheers,
Ole