Talk:Word processor (electronic device)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reversion of vandalism

12 July 2005,16:22 IST (GMT+5:30)

Referenced the Page Word Processor. Found that it was reading: "ROONEY IS A GYPO" Used the Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version to revert it to the previous version.

Hope I didn't muck up anything!

--getkashyap 10:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You did fine. Thank you. But your message here made me wonder just what had happened, and I noticed that you reverted to a version that was itself inferior to what had preceded it -- a lot of links to the equivalent article in other languages, etc., had been stripped out. So I re-reverted it, to that older version. -- Hoary 11:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ludicrous clumsiness (alleged)

Hmm, early word processors were "ludicrously clumsy" because they needed people to memorise mnemonic commands? I'm not so sure. Modern word processing software such as that included in OpenOffice.org Writer or like Microsoft_Word still support mnemonic-like keypresses. They're specifically used to increase editing speed (hands stay on keyboard). Use of such hotkeys is also said to reduce risk of RSI. Specialised text editors like emacs and vi still rely on keypresses and are still very popular. Emacs has the idea of using "chords". The user often holds down several meta key-combinations at once and in sequence (like C-x C-s to save). vi allows users to type commands in sequence, and the hands of the user seldom stray far from the home keys (see: touch typing). (vi has :w to save, or :wq to save-and-quit)

An allegorical(?) story goes that at at least one shop, they had replaced the more common word processors with vi for their secretaries, with the resulting increase in productivity. (Where did this story originate?)

Having said that, using hotkeys takes much longer to learn to do right, and is only really useful for heavy computer users, for whom the rewards in productivity and reduction of medical risks outweigh the cost of learning.

... added on 26 January 2004 by Kim Bruning

I read:

Early word-processing software was ludicrously clumsy in comparison to dedicated word processors; for example, it required users to memorize semi-mnemonic key combinations rather than pressing keys labelled "copy" or "bold." (In fact, many early PCs lacked cursor keys; WordStar famously used the I/J/K/M "diamond" for cursor navigation.)

Er, no. For a start, WordStar famously used the ESDX cursor "diamond". Secondly, "ludicrously" is either blatantly PoV or a dead cliche for "very" and still PoV. Thirdly, if this whole business is more than mere PoV, this seems to have confused (a) the learning of WP software with (b) the use of WP software. I don't remember bold in WordStar, but it probably would have been Ctrl-something-something. With the Ctrl key right next to A, as it was in those days, Ctrl-something-something can be typed faster by most touch typists than some special-purpose key (necessarily outside ~!@#...<>?, let alone qwer...bnm) can be hunted for. Actually my memory tells me that it's the reverse of the truth: Displaywriter (an expensive word processor device from IBM) was a dog compared with WordStar. (From my PoV, MS Word and OOo are dogs compared with WordStar.) -- Hoary 11:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I've just noticed that a similar complaint was made two years previously. So much for quality standards in Wikipedia (and the William and Mary Law Review)!

Right then, I'll change the article. -- Hoary 11:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Document processor

There's two different systems that I've seen described as document processors, neither of these are in fact word processing systems.

The older of the two is Computer Concepts' Impression line of document processors for Acorn RISC computers (Commonwealth only). Impression is basically a DTP program with integrated word processor, so that you can WYSIWYG edit your text on screen, and have it automatically re-flowed in real-time. This was made possible by the (then brand new, and extremely innovative) ARM 32-bit RISC processor.

The other document processor is LyX, which can be seen as a kind of front-end for LaTeX. Certain operations that are possible in word processors are forbidden in LyX. LyX requires the user to input the semantics of a document, not the layout. LyX then uses one of many possible latex engines to generate a formatted output in batch mode.

For these reasons, I don't think Document Processor should redirect here.

Kim Bruning 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Word processor screenshot

The screenshot currently shows an empty word window. Well, that's enlightening (not) :-P To get this featured, perhaps we should find shots of old dedicated word processors as well, for instance? Kim Bruning 01:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous? paragraph about TrueType fonts

I'm removing this:

Of particular interest to many is the standardization of Truetype fonts used in both Macintosh and Windows PCs. While the publishers of the operating systems provide Truetype typefaces, they are largely gathered from traditional typefaces converted by smaller font publishing houses to replicate "revered" fonts. Advertising continues to create a demand for new and interesting fonts, which can be found free of copyright restrictions, or commissioned from font designers. "Software With Flair" was a software house, as an example, that employed artists in the 1980s and 1990s to create fonts.

because I don't see it as being very germane to the topic of word processors.

Fonts, as generally implemented, impact the whole OS and the entire suite of software running on it. Also, fonts, as described here, seems to me to be more of a concern of professional and semiprofessional designers, and uses of page layout software (Quark, InDesign, etc.) than word processors. Word processor users enjoy using decorative fonts in memos, invitations, etc. but don't usually care whether they're TrueType or where they came from.

The mention of one specific software house seems inappropriate to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding section for my University Class

I was given the assignment to add to a Wikipedia entry on a "subject we have expertise in." As a college student, I decided word processing was right up my ally. However, I am unsure of the relevance of my topic (Typical Word Processing Usage) and therefore posting here to let you - the experts - know that I am doing so. I have a lot of respect for people who devote time to editing here, and use this site often when beginning research for an assignment. Thus, if somebody feels the entry I have added is unnecessary or irrelevant, feel free to edit it out at any time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dolanre (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

See Also / mention of word processor machines in the header

Two comments - one, the only hardware word processor I see mentioned is an obsolete machine of Amstrad make; surely this deserves no more attention than does Brother's machines, the Wang, or any of the host of WP machines out there.

Secondly, I don't see any link or really any information about the word processor machines that predated common use of DOS PCs for word processing. That seems odd to say the least. --Edwin Herdman 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Asian Format

What can be included about use with Asian languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.172.215.250 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Microsoft bias?

This page seems to have an anti-Microsoft, pro-free software bias.130.15.162.92

Your edits seem to have a anti-free software, pro-Microsoft bias. To be serious, though, when you have items A and B, and want to list them, you do have to put either A or B first. I would assume the argument to put the proprietary things first is that most people use them; on the other hand, we're under no obligation to provide exposure for commercial entities. Noel (talk) 04:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why have a picture of open-office when Microsoft word is used by 99% of the world? I'm all for free software but it should be accurate.... --81.156.176.82

I agree with the above. Microsoft Word is the most common word processor, so I think it would be most appropriate to have a screenshot of that. I don't know much about copyright, but MS is okay with a screenshot, right? --Nuggit (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree, i feel the article picture should be of Microsoft Word rather than open office because it is far more commonly used. It is the screenshot the average wiki user (consumer) would most probably expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.81.135 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have put a picture of Word 2007 - according to the article it is the most widely used Word Processor so it seems appropriate to have a picture of it Cxk271 (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You also have to put a fair use rationale in the image page. Also, with that rationale you probably should include an image for a previous version of MS Word, as I doubt MS Word 2007 is the most widely used version. Diego (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't be arsed, you do it if it bothers you that much 82.36.112.95 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't be the only one seeing the irony of this argument. At the bottom of wikipedia:

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

However, I agree that, as the most common word-processor (thus the most likely to be seen and recognised), Microsoft Word 2003 should (also) be displayed, and preferably above Microsoft Word 2007. 90.213.13.252 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots of commercial word processors

Hi. Apparently it needs to be mentioned that screenshots of commercial word processor products must comply with Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criteria (NFCC) policy before they are used in this article. This article is using a couple of non-free screenshots that explicitly violate NFCC: Microsoft Word 2010 and Pages.

These screenshots violate the following clauses:

1. NFCC clause 1: No free equivalent: If you wish to just illustrate a word processor, then there are screenshots of a lot of free software or open source software word processors. Therefore, you cannot use the screenshot of Microsoft Word 2010 and Pages, just to decorate the page without providing a critical commentary.
2. NFCC clause 3: Minimalism: Use the smallest number of screenshots of commercial products. So, even if we ignore NFCC clause 1, then one of the two screenshots would have been enough. In addition, do not upload a new screenshot of a commercial product if there is already one uploaded to Wikipedia.

1. NFCC clause 8: Contextual significance: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Well, omission of screenshots of Microsoft Word 2010 and Pages would not be detrimental to understanding. This condition is enough for both images to be removed from the page. Yes, Microsoft Word does have a critical commentary – but still its screenshot does not convey or reinforce any of the information given in the commentary.

Last but not least, non-free screenshots require an adequate fair-use rationale. "For the purpose of illustration" is not an acceptable rationale. The counter-argument would be: "Well, don't illustrate it. It's not yours. You're not allowed to." Your rationale must explicitly say why you should possibly be authorized to use what is not yours, i.e. it should comply both NFCC and U.S. regulations.

Fleet Command (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the remaining examples given are excessive and do not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic any more than a series of billboards contribute to enjoyment of a busy road. Tedickey (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if "the remaining examples" means the rest of the screenshots in the article, you and other Wikipedians may discuss about them and reach a consensus; but since they are free software screenshots, they are unaffected by Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criteria policy. I'd say at least one free screenshot is required but that's not this topic's concern, is it? Fleet Command (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Only partly. The guideline is there to help ensure a lack of editorial bias. Tedickey (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you guys after reading this. MisterWiki talk contribs 19:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Harold Koplow

The section on Harold Koplow is in error. I'm a Wikipedia rookie, so I thought I'd have my say here and maybe someone could incorporate it into the real article.

The article says Koplow was hired in the early 1970s -- in fact, he was working there in 1967.

The article also says Koplow was hired to write programs for Wang's calculators, which is true. But he quickly got bored with that and moved to writing the microcode for their advanced calculator, the Wang 700. The wiki article confuses the concept of a program which runs on the calculator and the microcode which interprets that program. Saying

One of his programs permitted a Wang calculator to interface with an IBM Selectric typewriter, which was at the time used to calculate and print the paperwork for auto sales.

is just weird. The 700 used the Selectric for printing, but it wasn't a program that was added on; the ability was built into the hardware and microcode. Any program on the 700 could print on an attached Selectric, not just auto sales programs. It is true that many 700s were sold into auto dealerships. See [1]

Unfortunately, Koplow's online biography ends there.

The next paragraph says, "In 1974, Koplow's interface program was developed into the Wang 1200 Word Processor". While the 1200 used the same microcoded CPU architecture, the microcode code was nearly a complete rewrite. The 1200 first shipped in May, 1972, not 1974. See [2] [ disclosure: I'm the author of that website ] Goiter (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Emacs a word processor?

Should Emacs be listed as a word processor? I certainly don't think of it as one (and I'm an Emacs user :-); it's really just a very powerful text editor. Noel (talk) 04:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I think there should be some discussion of the relationship to, and differences from, text editors. Reddyuday (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Software and Hardware separation

I think there should be separate articles for Word Process (Hardware) and Word Processor (Software). The current article is almost of no use to anyone that is looking for information about hardware word processors.--NeF (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should really be a separation, because there seems to have been a continuous evolution of the hardware word processors into software word processors. However, the editors of this article seem to have focused a lot more on the hardware word processors and relatively little on the software word processors. I think we just need more people with interest in the software word processors to contribute! Reddyuday (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Electric Pencil

It seems to be widely reported that Electric Pencil was the first word processing program for a PC http://inventors.about.com/od/wstartinventions/a/WordStar.htm, so surely it should be mentioned on this page? Eraserhead1 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. YLee (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The given source doesn't go that far (and referring to PC's as of 1976 is anachronistic). TEDickey (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. From the cite:

We'll talk with Michael Shrayer, inventor of Electric Pencil, the first word processor for microcomputers.

I believe you are misreading the following:

One of the first products for a microcomputer was a word processor called Electric Pencil.

The sentence clearly states that Electric Pencil, a word processor, was one of the first software programs available for microcomputers, not that it was one of the first word processors. Later in the cite:

"I had a computer; I thought I ought to be able to use it to write a manual. But there really wasn't any kind of word processor—and I didn't even know what a word processor was." He may not have known what a word processor was, but he went ahead and wrote the first such program that was effective for micros.

I can also provide cites from Paul Freiberger's Fire in the Valley (2000) and elsewhere, too, if desired, but this shoud be sufficient.

As for "PC's as of 1976 is anachronistic", neither IBM nor Steve Jobs/Wozniak invented the microcomputer/personal computer. The credit for the first popular one goes to Ed Roberts' MITS Altair, which appeared on the cover of the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics; Electric Pencil was first written for the Altair.

I request an apology for Tedickey. YLee (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

afraid not - it goes on to say (which you might have understood to be a qualification to the catchy title and lede, "He may not have known what a word processor was, but he went ahead and wrote the first such program which was effective for micros". In other words, the author of the article is stating that it was the first successful instance, not that (as you are stating), that there were no previous instances. Your source says micros, not PCs. Likewise, no expectation that you'll provide more accurate information (point made) TEDickey (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on your sneering this is pointless, but I'll try again. You are selectively reading one sentence based on a misreading of another sentence, which a full reading of the entire article (and the introduction above it, which I quote from above) properly explains. You are also using an unwarranted and nonexistent distinction between "PC" and "microcomputer" which the editors of history of personal computers would laugh at. Regardless, I will provide additional cites, and will (pointlessly) amend the text to read "microcomputer" instead of "personal computer". YLee (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article merged

Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Document statistics – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Awkward Wording - Xerox Defunct???

The article states"(Diablo, which became a Xerox company, and Qume -- both now defunct.)" A literal reading would be that Xerox is now defunct. Now Xerox has had some tough time, but they are still very much alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.252.114 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I addressed your concern with this edit. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

History of what?

Is Word processor#History intended to document the history of word processors or only the history of the phrase word processor? If the former then it should include some or all of the early programs mentioned in #Characteristics and in articles linked from it, e.g., TJ-1, TJ-2 and RUNOFF. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead screenshot

The lead pictures were three screenshots. They were deleted. A photo was added of an ancient computer. It was removed because it was "... was a general-purpose computer, not only a word processor", and replaced with a 1980's handheld "word processor"

I replaced that pictured device with something expected, more along the lines of the original screenshots, dissolving the discrepancy between common usage of the term "word processor" and its representative picture. (Thanks to the new link-mouse-over feature.) What I chose from the images namespace was something that fit the descriptive text in the lead. My work attempts to help distinguish between a text editor and a word processor, so I picked an image showing as many different font faces as I could find.

For related concerns and debate, please see the relevant talk page sections: Emacs a word processor, Kim Bruning's sections, and Screenshots of commercial word processors. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 16:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft Word is not WYSIWYG

In Section 4.6, the current text reads "MacWrite, Microsoft Word and other word processing programs for the bit-mapped Apple Macintosh screen, introduced in 1984, were probably the first true WYSIWYG word processors to become known to many people until the introduction of Microsoft Windows." This clearly leaves the impression that Microsoft Word in Microsoft Windows is true WYSIWYG.

Microsoft Word is not true WYSIWYG.

When you are editing a document in Word, you can do so in the Print Layout view. However, it is Print Preview that is the WYSIWYG part of Word - where you can see the document as it will appear if printed. But you cannot directly edit in Print Preview. You must do so in Print Layout view. And there is no guarantee by Microsoft that the way that the document looks in Print Layout View (which is where true WYSIWYG would be in place) is how it will look in Print Preview.

As a Microsoft Word community support MVP stated (http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/office/forum/office_2007-word/how-can-i-get-print-layout-view-to-match-print/ab369244-3839-47fe-95aa-1a015376acc8): "Print Preview is the WYSIWYG version of the document - how it should appear when printed. Print layout is merely an aid to document layout to give an impression of what the document will look like while assembling the document. It should however be pretty close to Print Preview (but Print Preview is dictated by the capabilities of the active printer driver)."

Googling on people seeking help for their Print Layout view version not looking the same as the Print Preview version shows that many people have experienced this problem for many years throughout every version of Word, up to and including Word 2013. It is particularly maddening to see Word showing the document in Print Layout exactly as you would like it to print but then going to Print Preview and finding out that it will not print as it looks.

What you see in Print Layout view is NOT necessarily what you get.

The problem is most obvious when section breaks are used in Word. While this is not classified as a markup language, it is for all intents and purposes a form of markup that the Print Layout view does not recognize but the Print Preview does recognize.

If Microsoft would enable true printing of the Print Layout view as it appears, perhaps to a PDF file or to some standard output, then Microsoft Word could be considered to be true WYSIWYG. But it is not now and never has been true WYSIWYG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.178.135 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I see you point in that editing doesn't truly let you see what's going to come out, I think MS Word is classed as WYSIWYG. It might be dishonest in what it tells you about the final document, but non-WYSIWYG tends to be things like LaTex. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 18:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good article?

I nominated this article to be a good article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Word processors in Academia

I added the following under Typical Usage:

Academia

	+	

Word processors are universally used for papers that present the results of research.

This was reversed by OMPIRE with the following comment: wrong! LaTex and Emacs are universally used for papers that present the result of research

What he says is wrong for two reasons: 1) I have personally edited, as editor of two scholarly journals (in a humanities field), hundreds of papers, and have published quite a few of my own, at least 50. Not one was ever using LaTex or Emacs. 2) As I said when I reversed him back, LaTex and Emacs are not word processors. They are not discussed in any of the various word processing articles, such as Comparison of Word Processors. Even in the present article, they are discussed under "Text Editors", which is something different (and IMHO, does not belong in this article). My understanding, and I've not used either of them, is that they are text formatting systems. Perhaps some people do sit down and write original papers in LaTex from the get-go; if so I was mistaken. I thought those programs worked on (imported, through whatever method) material created with a word processor.

So I reversed him. He then reversed me back with no comment.

Suggestions are welcome. deisenbe (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

LaTex isn't an editor, but a text-formatting application. A quick look at the available articles tends to hint that Wikipedia doesn't have any useful discussion on the topic. There's considerable overlap with text-formatters (which generally rely upon user-supplied markup) and word processors (which may support this, but generally are aimed at WYSIWYG usage). As usual, looking for reliable sources is the way to proceed rather than editor "consensus" aka WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision system

It is told in the introduction that "Microsoft Word is the most widely used word processing software according to a user tracking system built into the software, which is not built into LibreOffice, AbiWord, KWord, and LyX." This statement is wrong, since LyX 2.0 contains now a very good revision system. Cybertib (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The clause "according to", etc., should simply be trimmed (along with the unsourced me-too's), and the remainder of the sentence given a WP:RS. TEDickey (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this article should say a few words about two features that (in my mind) are completely independent -- various words processors have one or the other or both or neither:

* A revision control system that "tracks" edits and stores them locally on disk. (Is this what Cybertib is talking about?)

* a phone home system that sends data over the Internet -- perhaps during initial product activation, or later as part of an automatic error reporting system, or both. (Is this what that "user tracking" sentence in the article is talking about?)

--DavidCary (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Automated Electronic Systems

The original AES was not a "sophisticated microcomputer." It used emitter-coupled logic. The only microprocessors on the market in 1972 were the Intel 4004 or 8008, neither of which was very sophisticated or used in word processing. I don't understand how you can call something a "microcomputer" if it doesn't use a microprocessor. Expensive ECL machines are usually called minicomputers.

Unless someone objects, I'm going to change it.107.141.160.161 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Where to now

IMO this is an excellent article but at the wrong article title. But maybe it's not that simple.

It's been flagged as improperly focused since 2014 and that's another way of looking at it.

It's been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: William & Mary Law Review. Hopefully they have used a permalink but it's something to think about. I'm reluctant to replace an excellent article already cited externally like that with a stub. If we move this to another title and replace it by a stub article on word processor programs, the net affect is to stubify it so far as anyone using a simple URL or bookmark is concerned.

Anyway, I've started something at word processor program. That and the hatnote I've added should improve the reader experience somewhat at least. Andrewa (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If this article is to move

I suggest moving to word processor (electronic device), which now redirects to this article. And meantime, I suggest that redirect as a better wikilink target than just word processor. It can be accessed by typing [[word processor (electronic device)|]] using the pipe trick. Andrewa (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case we'd need a BCA to go at the title word processor. I've started one at draft:Word processor. Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft is looking good. I'd like to add File:WordPerfectX3.png but as that's nonfree it will have to wait until the page is moved to the main namespace. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If a merge instead

Similarly, for now wikilinks intended for the word processor program article can be made to word processor program. If that article is renamed, then it will become a redirect; If that article is merged into this one, then it will become a redirect to the appropriate section. In either case the wikilink remains accurate.

A merge would have the advantage that we'd have a good main article for Category:Word processors which currently covers both topics, but I don't favour it. It seems to me these are both topics deserving articles of their own.

In any case, it seems likely that many wikilinks currently pointing to this article are intended for an article on word processor programs. These should be fixed unless an immediate merge takes place. Andrewa (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Word processor template

See Template talk:Word processors#Template scope but I suggest we discuss here. Andrewa (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Inferno986return and ClarkMe, you have both worked on the template recently, any opinions? Should it include word processor (electronic device) articles, or just programs? Andrewa (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Incoming links

There are over 1,000 incoming links, and most of them seem to be for the type of program rather than the obsolete hardware device. Andrewa (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved

In that the problem of focus has been flagged for four years and nobody seems to be watching this page, I've boldly moved my BCA draft to the base name and the hardware-oriented article here. Most of its page history concerns dedicated word processors, so this seems best to me.

Lots still to do at the BCA. Help welcome. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)