The article was written in 1996, WordStar was still being developed and updated until 1999. I knew a bunch of people who were fond of using WordStar in the 1990s so I don't think it's particularly unusual.
According to your [ubermonkey's] first comment here, you are a "long-term collector of mechanicals." Why do you ubermonkey do that? Isn't that just obsessive hoarding? Why do you keep old things around? Seems obsessive to me.
I mean, what's the point of disparaging someone's pleasures? Can't you just appreciate it for what it is, just someone's interesting, unusual hobby or usage? Can't you give him/her some idea about how to improve what s/he is doing? Or simply leave it alone. Like most moms say: if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.
The author's clear thesis is that a 30+ year old word processor that requires layers of emulation to run on modern computers is still the best tool for fiction writers, which is laughable.
If I were arguing that everyone who cared about telling time should use a mechanical watch, then we'd be making equivalent (and equivalently ridiculous) arguments.
....that would certainly be equivalent.
P.S. Guidelines on hacker news call for civil discussion.
Do you really, honestly see running an obsolete, 20 year old program in emulation as a defensible choice for most people, or more something done out of sheer cussedness?
>Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1]
Yes. I am noting your general lack of civility.
If I'm using a tool for my profession 8+ hours a day, 5+ days a week, for years on end; if that tool allows me to be productive and organize information in a useful way; especially if there are no comparable alternatives... Then approximately an hour of my life to set up DOSBOX and install the software is both defensible and sensible.
You'll find users, craftsmen, artisans, and other professionals (software and beyond) go to extreme lengths to keep their favorite tools in good, working order. You'll also find such people are more than willing to ignore name calling and other pettiness: they understand their tools, the value of those tools, and why those tools are worth preserving better than kibitzers from outside their specific domains.
If someone uses a tool every day for a long time, yes, they learn a lot about that tool. But computing is not a stable environment, and it is poor advice to suggest anyone undertake the kinds of hassle the author describes to run antique software when better, more modern options exist that almost certainly answer the mail better for anyone who didn't get set in their ways in 1983.
Even within the notoriously hidebound tribe I belong to -- which is to say, software people over 45 -- even the most change-averse are generally running a build of $favorite_editor that dates from the last decade. Depending on a program that hasn't been maintained in 20 years for even enthusiastic hobby writing is a really, really bad idea.
Your average computer user has NOWHERE NEAR the expertise required to pull together the house of cards he details for running WordStar under modern versions of Windows.
Again, my position here isn't that he shouldn't do whatever he likes. My gripe is that he's presenting it as though it's empirically a good idea for non-him people.
Your first comment in this thread is [flagged] [dead], I won't copy its contents here, but you can go back and read the first sentence of that comment if you like. It's been followed up by more ad-hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and total non-sequiturs.