5 ms·

> it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint One famous example is George R.R. Martin writing Game of Thrones using WordStar 4.0 o

> it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint One famous example is George R.R. Martin writing Game of Thrones using WordStar 4.0 on a computer running MSDOS.

qayxc 6y ago
He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all. Writers in particular don't have to care about words-per-minute or error correction, grammar or style (there's lectors for that anyway) and they don't do serial letters or mail merge either. There's no good metric for measuring "productivity" for writers with respect to the tools used.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  Error correction and ease of duplication of the entire manuscript can be make or break.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    That's why I explicitly wrote electronic typewriter. Electronic office typewriters did have interfaces for monitors and some came with integrated digital storage (e.g. disks) and had a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs.
    - selfhoster11 6y ago
      I think a distinction needs to be made between electric typewriters (basically electrified mechanical typewriters to not tire out the fingers) and electronic typewriters (more advanced devices, usually with a buffer to correct typos before they are committed to paper, might have spell check or other intelligence, sometimes feature a full-blown built-in display). The latter are basically computers, but they are self-contained with regards to the peripherals and printing. On the other hand, a DOS operating environment, while slightly more complex, is far easier to integrate into a modern workflow. The environment can be emulated (= easier to lug around a 4MB DOS disk image than a 20kg chunky suitcase, easy to use modern peripherals like 4K screens, KVM switches/Alt+Tab, and WiFi printers), data backup is very straightforward (vs a machine-specific process or paper photocopy), and the data is far easier to convert to modern formats for incorporation into modern workflows (US ASCII + Markdown can be turned to PDF, HTML, ODT, or kept as is). If I had to incur the complexity cost of a more advanced platform, a DOS editor would be preferable over an electronic typewriter.
- justin66 6y ago
  > He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all. That's completely silly and strange. One thing about retrocomputing that is hinted at in the article, and is genuinely interesting, is that people used to pay as much as you might pay for a car to get a computer that could, for example, run WordStar. For those who write for a living, the productivity boost over something like an electric typewriter was that big. I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    > I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period. Right back at you - in fact electronic typewriters came with a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs (of the 8-bit era): from monitor connections to integrated digital storage to the ability to run programs. Modern electronic typewriters have error correction buffers, too. Some authors (and that's who we're talking about here!) prefer typewriters for other reasons, too: seeing their work directly on paper and not having to worry about any kind of leaks (unless someone breaks into their house). With authors in particular, what matters just as much - if not more - than just typing their work down, is making notes and keeping track of story arcs, characters, world-building, etc. A word processing program doesn't help with that and this requires either specialised software or a different workflow altogether that doesn't benefit from traditional word processing functionality anyway.
    - justin66 6y ago
      I actually used some of the hardware you must be referring to. I never found any of it to be very good at all, and I grew up with access to both 8-bit (and later, 16-bit and 32-bit) computers and a few electronic typewriters. (contrariwise, I do have fond memories of the IBM Selectric, as does anyone who learned to touch type on one, I'm sure) But I am utterly interested in what typewriter model you'd nominate as equal to the DOS + WordStar/Word/Sprint + PC combo of its era! If it's hardware you used and liked for some reason, that'd be something to hear about... not a lot of people reminisce about that hardware. (because it was horrible... ahem)
phaemon 6y ago
Do you think, perhaps, if he switched to some modern novel writing software, with character and plot tracking, that he might actually finish the "Song of Ice and Fire" series in this lifetime?

> it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint One famous example is George R.R. Martin writing Game of Thrones using WordStar 4.0 on a computer running MSDOS.

qayxc 6y ago

He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all. Writers in particular don't have to care about words-per-minute or error correction, grammar or style (there's lectors for that anyway) and they don't do serial letters or mail merge either. There's no good metric for measuring "productivity" for writers with respect to the tools used.

selfhoster11 6y ago
Error correction and ease of duplication of the entire manuscript can be make or break.
- qayxc 6y ago
  That's why I explicitly wrote electronic typewriter. Electronic office typewriters did have interfaces for monitors and some came with integrated digital storage (e.g. disks) and had a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs.
  - selfhoster11 6y ago
    I think a distinction needs to be made between electric typewriters (basically electrified mechanical typewriters to not tire out the fingers) and electronic typewriters (more advanced devices, usually with a buffer to correct typos before they are committed to paper, might have spell check or other intelligence, sometimes feature a full-blown built-in display). The latter are basically computers, but they are self-contained with regards to the peripherals and printing. On the other hand, a DOS operating environment, while slightly more complex, is far easier to integrate into a modern workflow. The environment can be emulated (= easier to lug around a 4MB DOS disk image than a 20kg chunky suitcase, easy to use modern peripherals like 4K screens, KVM switches/Alt+Tab, and WiFi printers), data backup is very straightforward (vs a machine-specific process or paper photocopy), and the data is far easier to convert to modern formats for incorporation into modern workflows (US ASCII + Markdown can be turned to PDF, HTML, ODT, or kept as is). If I had to incur the complexity cost of a more advanced platform, a DOS editor would be preferable over an electronic typewriter.
justin66 6y ago
> He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all. That's completely silly and strange. One thing about retrocomputing that is hinted at in the article, and is genuinely interesting, is that people used to pay as much as you might pay for a car to get a computer that could, for example, run WordStar. For those who write for a living, the productivity boost over something like an electric typewriter was that big. I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period.
- qayxc 6y ago
  > I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period. Right back at you - in fact electronic typewriters came with a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs (of the 8-bit era): from monitor connections to integrated digital storage to the ability to run programs. Modern electronic typewriters have error correction buffers, too. Some authors (and that's who we're talking about here!) prefer typewriters for other reasons, too: seeing their work directly on paper and not having to worry about any kind of leaks (unless someone breaks into their house). With authors in particular, what matters just as much - if not more - than just typing their work down, is making notes and keeping track of story arcs, characters, world-building, etc. A word processing program doesn't help with that and this requires either specialised software or a different workflow altogether that doesn't benefit from traditional word processing functionality anyway.
  - justin66 6y ago
    I actually used some of the hardware you must be referring to. I never found any of it to be very good at all, and I grew up with access to both 8-bit (and later, 16-bit and 32-bit) computers and a few electronic typewriters. (contrariwise, I do have fond memories of the IBM Selectric, as does anyone who learned to touch type on one, I'm sure) But I am utterly interested in what typewriter model you'd nominate as equal to the DOS + WordStar/Word/Sprint + PC combo of its era! If it's hardware you used and liked for some reason, that'd be something to hear about... not a lot of people reminisce about that hardware. (because it was horrible... ahem)

phaemon 6y ago

Do you think, perhaps, if he switched to some modern novel writing software, with character and plot tracking, that he might actually finish the "Song of Ice and Fire" series in this lifetime?