Maybe he doesn't want to have to create an account. Maybe he doesn't want to figure out how to disable cloud saves. Maybe he doesn't want to pay a subscription fee. Maybe he doesn't want emojis, mentions, hash tags and recommendations about what his friends are reading. Maybe he doesn't want a analytics report in his mail describing about how he used the software this week. Maybe he doesn't want "undoubtedly absolutely necessary telemetry" being reported. Maybe the old ways were better.

"Maybe he doesn't want to have to create an account." - oooff, this this home hard. I tried to print something the other day here at home and I couldn't because I had to log into my printer's software. I couldn't remember my password, or even the email address I used to set it up. What should have been a very simply file -> print turned into a long process of registering a new account, password doesn't meet complexity rules, verify your account, sign back in, etc... to print a one page thing while I was in a hurry.

Edit: If anybody from printers (specifically HP) is reading this. Stop. Just stop.

This seems like a false dichotomy - Libreoffice/Openoffice and Abiword don't have any of these anti-features (except for telemetry, which is useful (when sent to a trusted party)).

Or maybe they weren’t and you’re just making an appeal to antiquity out of misplaced nostalgia and recollections about some amorphous Golden Age that never quite existed as you remember.

I think, in general, this is a good counterpoint. But the things mentioned really do suck. Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact you can just use Google or Facebook to log into everything more people would complain.

The obsession with modern software has with mining every single bit of data they can is a huge step in the wrong direction. The silly "features"--like the 'what you do' or 'what your friends' do reports--are more annoying than interesting.

I don't mind, or might even enjoy, that kind of thing when I sign up for it, but it really doesn't need to be in every piece of software I use.

I don't view autocorrect as an advancement to be honest. It causes more issues than it solves IMO. On a phone it's ok to have it because typos are so frequent but on a PC I'd never use it.

That sounds like a good YouTube skit.

"Mad Libs, you must ride the desert sandwich. If you do not, the Firemen will not respect you."

"Fedora Thad, someday you will inherit the Hackneyed empire. Don't let the emperor's Streaker forces intimidate you."

"The Slice™ must flow."

I use a combination of autocorrect and dictation on my Mac. My fingers aren't as accurate as they could be and I can't remember spelling to save my life. It's made writing easier because I don't need to worry about that.

The real solution is to just give people the choice. Everyone's workflow is different enough that there can't really be a "one-size-fits-all" program. I'd be ecstatic if we moved away from being forced to use certain software because so-and-so needs a proprietary file format that only this piece of software supports.

Agreed. The fact that Kindles still don't read epubs is aggravating.

There's a trick for that. Rename the epub to <something>.png and email it to your kindle address. It'll convert it!

It's weird that Amazon doesn't support epub conversion officially but this trick has worked for years.

Of course calibre is also an option but I usually use this method because it's so simple.

Msdos edit had cut/copy/paste. The 64k limit which I presume is the base for the 40 pages was sometimes bad, but you can just open another file.

And then there is autocorrect. I am not at all a writer, but even for me the thing causes as much trouble as it solves. Tolerable on a cell phone, but a real keyboard is a much better option than mr oh-I-don't-know-that-word-here-is-red-squigly-for-you. If a real writer is forced to use it, I understand it very well if he attacks the precocious abacus with an axe.

I know what you mean. But, remember that most of the best writing in history was produced by candlelight. Improvements to word processing probably lowered the barrier so that more people could write, but if you're already a writer it may not make much of a difference to you. And since the most difficult part of writing is sitting down and doing it for a long time, the key technology involved may not be the word processor, it may be the rituals that make that happen for you over and over.

One could use the "we've advanced so far" as an argument against oil paints in visual medium. And photography actually did (sadly) create a huge gap in academic art education.

There is place for industrial efficiency, and place for medium for art.

I think the relationship of a writing utensil in work of art is similar to the functioning of artistic medium. It does not matter what it is, as long as it facilitates the inspiration and getting the piece done. "Efficiency" has no value in artistic process , unless it's part of the artwork.

In visual art, you likely want a medium that is lightfast, does not physically detoriate and offers a standard set of pigments. But the paint does not need to be efficient or fast (who needs painting! We have cameras and printers!)

Analogously, a writer likely wants a medium that has high enough contrast to be legible, and is robust. You want to use a typeface that most people can read - and write in a language others understand.

Since creative writing is a toil for most people anyway, it is unlikely faster typing or better wordprocessing will increase the speed of the final result that much.

I mean George R.R. Martin could have used quill and ox blood and the books would be done if he was writing constantly.

After searching for a good note-taking system I have settled on Notepad (on my employer’s Windows system) and TextEdit (on my Macs at home.) This with files and folders gets me all the organization I need. Even a fancier text editor doesn’t give much benefit.

Similarly a ton of my professional work involves emails. Though they’re in Outlook the editor might as well be Pico: very seldom do I even use the bold font or any other accoutrement.

He’s definitely on to something. Word processors are really a kind of Wysiwyg typesetter. They just don’t add much for the actual writing process that a simple text editor doesn’t already give you. Typesetting is a different process.

> Autocorrect

That's probably the first thing a lifelong professional screenwriter would turn off.

It's hard to argue that feature advances have not come with any severe downsides, especially in UX, complexity, reliability, safety, and privacy.

Regarding autocorrect: Maybe not outsourcing your literacy to a machine might have something to do with retaining the capacity to write.

Because you've never made a mistake when typing? Associating auto-correct to literacy is as stupid as it comes. Maybe come up with a better argument next time?

Idle speculation is not an argument. Maybe don't be so aggressive next time?