Alternative word processors without bloat?

[Ext User(OhioGuy)]

I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.

Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
Megabytes)

In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.

Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
efficient? (for the Windows platform)

Thanks!

[Ext User(PeterC)]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:26:24 -0400, Ron wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:33:59 -0400, "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
>
>> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>>wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>>
>> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>>installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>>Megabytes)
>>
>> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
>>Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>>
>> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
>>efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
> Try Lotus Symphony. It opens MS Office docs and prints to pdf if you
> need. Best of all, it's free.
>
> http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.jspa

It's still Beta. I tried the last Beta and it was slow and crashed. Not all
that small either.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

[Ext User(Larry)]

OhioGuy wrote:
> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
> wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>
> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
> installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
> Megabytes)
>
> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
> Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>
> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
> efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>
> Thanks!
>


http://www.abisource.com/download/

[Ext User(SteveH)]

OhioGuy wrote:
> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my
> wife wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>
> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that
> just installing the word processor portion takes over half a
> Gigabyte! (~570 Megabytes)
>
What! My entire MS Office 2007 install is only 500Meg.

SteveH

[Ext User(peter)]

try the StarOffice
http://pack.google.com/intl/en/pack_installer.html?hl=en&gl=ca
peter
"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:fe0k38$9tq$1@aioe.org...
> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
> wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>
> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
> installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
> Megabytes)
>
> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
> Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>
> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
> efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

[Ext User(JAD)]

'wordpad' 'notepad' your 'using' windows right? Your saying that 'works' was not as
'nice', well 'nice' costs. In space and price. Bells and whistles always costs something.


"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:fe0k38$9tq$1@aioe.org...
> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
> wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>
> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
> installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
> Megabytes)
>
> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
> Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>
> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
> efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

[Ext User(Spajky)]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:33:59 -0400, "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:

> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
>efficient? (for the Windows platform)

http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/
--
Regards , SPAJKY ®
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
5y - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"

[Ext User(Ron)]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:33:59 -0400, "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:

> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>
> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>Megabytes)
>
> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
>Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>
> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
>efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>
> Thanks!
>
>

Try Lotus Symphony. It opens MS Office docs and prints to pdf if you
need. Best of all, it's free.

http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.jspa

[Ext User(DK)]

"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>
> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>Megabytes)

My entire MS Office 2000, installed with generous (but not frivolous)
options in terms of disk usage, takes 98 Mb. That's Word, Excel,
Powerpoint.

> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
>Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.

About as much a stand alone Word 2000 would take.

DK

[Ext User(Conor)]

In article <3TXMi.1937$hw7.1422@newsfe02.lga>, DK says...
> "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
> > I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
> >wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
> >
> > Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
> >installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
> >Megabytes)
>
> My entire MS Office 2000, installed with generous (but not frivolous)
> options in terms of disk usage, takes 98 Mb. That's Word, Excel,
> Powerpoint.
>
Office 2K was noted for bloat. Are you sure you don't mean Office XP
which was way smaller than 2K?


--
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

[Ext User(DK)]

Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <3TXMi.1937$hw7.1422@newsfe02.lga>, DK says...
>> "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
>> > I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>> >wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>> >
>> > Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>> >installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>> >Megabytes)
>>
>> My entire MS Office 2000, installed with generous (but not frivolous)
>> options in terms of disk usage, takes 98 Mb. That's Word, Excel,
>> Powerpoint.
>>
>Office 2K was noted for bloat. Are you sure you don't mean Office XP
>which was way smaller than 2K?

I am positive about Office 2K. Not sure about bloat. Executable are
actually smaller than in OXP and as long as one does not install
eerything and a kitchen sink and disables annoying options like
assistants, it's not too bad. Sure it is still too bloated (as anything
from MS or Apple or Adobe or any other large company) bug that's
the price we lowly consumers pay for having "industry standard".

I don't use any of the stupid Adobe programs but still have to
install them for compatibility reasons. For me, Xara is much better
than Illustrator, Picture Windows is much better than Photoshop,
and CutePDF is much better than Acrobat. Yet, once in a while
there is a file that requires original program...

DK

[Ext User(Ron)]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:56:57 +0100, PeterC
<giraffenos.pam@homecall.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:26:24 -0400, Ron wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:33:59 -0400, "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>>>wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>>>
>>> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>>>installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>>>Megabytes)
>>>
>>> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
>>>Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
>>>efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Try Lotus Symphony. It opens MS Office docs and prints to pdf if you
>> need. Best of all, it's free.
>>
>> http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.jspa
>
>It's still Beta. I tried the last Beta and it was slow and crashed. Not all
>that small either.

True. The beta seems to work with no problems 'on my machine', but
with any beta YMMV. IBM plans the release a beta update in the next
month or so and the final should be released early next year. Mine
comes in at just over 300MB for the whole package. If size really
matters the OP should just stick with Wordpad. Office 2007 comes in
at 624MB and WP X3 at 569MB. 326MB is quite a space saver by
comparision.

Wordpad is a monstrous 337KB. Punches out a mean letter, too.

[Ext User(PeterC)]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:26:24 -0400, Ron wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:33:59 -0400, "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
>
>> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>>wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>>
>> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>>installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>>Megabytes)
>>
>> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
>>Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>>
>> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
>>efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
> Try Lotus Symphony. It opens MS Office docs and prints to pdf if you
> need. Best of all, it's free.
>
> http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.jspa

It's still Beta. I tried the last Beta and it was slow and crashed. Not all
that small either.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

[Ext User(SteveH)]

OhioGuy wrote:
> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my
> wife wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>
> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that
> just installing the word processor portion takes over half a
> Gigabyte! (~570 Megabytes)
>
What! My entire MS Office 2007 install is only 500Meg.

SteveH

[Ext User(PeterC)]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:46:51 -0400, Ron wrote:

>>It's still Beta. I tried the last Beta and it was slow and crashed. Not all
>>that small either.
>
> True. The beta seems to work with no problems 'on my machine', but
> with any beta YMMV. IBM plans the release a beta update in the next
> month or so and the final should be released early next year. Mine
> comes in at just over 300MB for the whole package. If size really
> matters the OP should just stick with Wordpad. Office 2007 comes in
> at 624MB and WP X3 at 569MB. 326MB is quite a space saver by
> comparision.

Just looked at 2003 Pro: the installation is about 207MB (then there are
little bit in the app. files); that's without FrontPage and Outlook.
However, I allowed the installation CABs to remain (saves messing about
with the CD) and they total 290MB!
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

[Ext User(OhioGuy)]

http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/

Has anyone tried the one above? Someone just told me about it, and it is
only about 4 Megabytes, total.

If it works halfway decent, then that is what I mean about software bloat.
If someone can make a full featured word processing program at only 4
Megabytes or less, then why are the things from Microsoft and Corel shipping
at hundreds and hundreds of Megabytes?

[Ext User(JAD)]

your missing the point,,,MS doesn't make WP for just YOU

"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:fe5pik$ue7$1@aioe.org...
> http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/
>
> Has anyone tried the one above? Someone just told me about it, and it is only about 4
> Megabytes, total.
>
> If it works halfway decent, then that is what I mean about software bloat. If someone
> can make a full featured word processing program at only 4 Megabytes or less, then why
> are the things from Microsoft and Corel shipping at hundreds and hundreds of Megabytes?
>

[Ext User(DK)]

Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <3TXMi.1937$hw7.1422@newsfe02.lga>, DK says...
>> "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
>> > I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>> >wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>> >
>> > Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>> >installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>> >Megabytes)
>>
>> My entire MS Office 2000, installed with generous (but not frivolous)
>> options in terms of disk usage, takes 98 Mb. That's Word, Excel,
>> Powerpoint.
>>
>Office 2K was noted for bloat. Are you sure you don't mean Office XP
>which was way smaller than 2K?

I am positive about Office 2K. Not sure about bloat. Executable are
actually smaller than in OXP and as long as one does not install
eerything and a kitchen sink and disables annoying options like
assistants, it's not too bad. Sure it is still too bloated (as anything
from MS or Apple or Adobe or any other large company) bug that's
the price we lowly consumers pay for having "industry standard".

I don't use any of the stupid Adobe programs but still have to
install them for compatibility reasons. For me, Xara is much better
than Illustrator, Picture Windows is much better than Photoshop,
and CutePDF is much better than Acrobat. Yet, once in a while
there is a file that requires original program...

DK

[Ext User(Ron)]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:56:57 +0100, PeterC
<giraffenos.pam@homecall.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:26:24 -0400, Ron wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:33:59 -0400, "OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I finally got around to installing WordPerfect Office X3, because my wife
>>>wanted something nicer than Microsoft Works.
>>>
>>> Really, all we want is a word processor. I was shocked to find that just
>>>installing the word processor portion takes over half a Gigabyte! (~570
>>>Megabytes)
>>>
>>> In my mind, a word processor should be something that takes up 10 to 20
>>>Megabytes, or else it is poorly designed.
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest other Word processor programs that are small and
>>>efficient? (for the Windows platform)
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Try Lotus Symphony. It opens MS Office docs and prints to pdf if you
>> need. Best of all, it's free.
>>
>> http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.jspa
>
>It's still Beta. I tried the last Beta and it was slow and crashed. Not all
>that small either.

True. The beta seems to work with no problems 'on my machine', but
with any beta YMMV. IBM plans the release a beta update in the next
month or so and the final should be released early next year. Mine
comes in at just over 300MB for the whole package. If size really
matters the OP should just stick with Wordpad. Office 2007 comes in
at 624MB and WP X3 at 569MB. 326MB is quite a space saver by
comparision.

Wordpad is a monstrous 337KB. Punches out a mean letter, too.

[Ext User(Bill)]

In article <fe5pik$ue7$1@aioe.org>, none@none.net says...
> http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/
>
> Has anyone tried the one above? Someone just told me about it, and it is
> only about 4 Megabytes, total.
>
> If it works halfway decent, then that is what I mean about software bloat.
> If someone can make a full featured

Define 'full featured'.

> word processing program at only 4
> Megabytes or less, then why are the things from Microsoft and Corel shipping
> at hundreds and hundreds of Megabytes?

Because somebody wants what they have to offer.

>
>
>

Notepad is only 58KB.

Want to buy an IBM Selectric? 0 KiloBytes, many ounces, different
definition of bloat.

Bill