Talk:WordPad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microsoft Windows / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

WordPad Pros and Cons[edit]

Wordpad pros:

  • fast
  • gratis
  • somewhat easy to learn
only somewhat easy to learn. It must be one of the simplest word Processors in existence, anything that you can do in it is very easy and requires only a few clicks.
  • somewhat compatible file format
While it doesn't support many more advanced Word Processor files, the rtf file format it uses by default is compatible with virtually everything. It also correctly supports Unix, Mac, and DOS line endings, and can be set to write files in any of the formats.

Wordpad cons:

  • non-free
  • no semantic markup
This is a fault of the .rtf format. The RTF files generated by Word are far more messey than those produced by WordPad because they try to make the file look like a word document, and so have huge amounts of extra markup, just llike word HTML does.
  • no structure

random reading[edit]

my windows vista randomly started reading my wordpad document out loud in a monotone voice. it actually pronounced everything right and paused at the end of sentences. however, i have no idea how i instigated this. could someone please tell me what i did? - kate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.104.26.250 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Well I'd like to remind you that there's a lot of forums and Yahoo! Answers for you to ask these types of questions.
One tip: Google "Accessibility options in VIsta and SPeech options."
Hope I've helped out.
Tangmeisterjr (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tables[edit]

Word pad can display tables if they are present in the rtf file, it simply has no means of editing them.

Carcinogens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.33.106 (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WordPad in Windows 7[edit]

I have added an entry called 'Future versions' where I mention the redesign of WordPad shown in Windows 7 M3. I also added an image already uploaded to Wikipedia from the Windows 7 wiki. Dom (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Handy hint: I've found that it's possible to copy over the old XP-era wordpad.exe to a Windows 7 computer and use it there in preference to the new version. I like to use WordPad for quick-'n-dirty editing, and The Ribbon is counterproductive here. WHPratt (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted[edit]

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Wordpad icon (Windows 7).png, found on WordPad, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeated image?[edit]

Should one of the images of wordpad on Windows 7 be removed or changed? There is no need for the same image twice. Twistor96 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

new america today is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.69.40 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Anyway, yeah, I think it's repeated. It would be nice to have a pre-windows 7 image. 190.53.202.228 (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?[edit]

Is it encyclopedic to have pro's and con's, even at the discussion page? Note that's not even a discussion, it just sits there almighty-ly. We are not PCMag, or some software review webpage. A section like that could be included, if we get the proper sources to back it up. And still, we would need to use "some people, including XXXXX and YYYY", etc... 190.53.202.228 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangLab (talkcontribs) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)