Online Ms Word Editor

Scrivener is by far the best of any writing software I've used, and I've tried lots.Best and fastest workflow. Best project organization. Copes gracefully with enormous projects with thousands of files and hundreds of thousands of words. Excellent Search. Versatile full-screen mode for distraction-free writing. Plays well with Dragon dictation software. Lots of features, which you can happily ignore until you need them. First-rate starter tutorial. Good documentation. Stellar support, and a great support community.Use Scrivener to organize and reorganize your notes, resource materials, drafts, and final manuscript in one place. Rather than impose the programmer's idea of how to write on you, Scrivener lets you set up your projects so they work with how YOU write. Want to make Chapter 3 into Chapter 6? Just drag and drop. Want to break your chapter into pieces so you can shuffle them? Simple. Want to join some or all the pieces back together? Easy.Scrivener is for organizing, managing, and writing your  project. Draft, write, and edit in Scrivener using simple formatting,  then export your manuscript to a word processor or page layout program to do final or fancy formatting.Available for Macintosh or Windows at Literature and Latte - Scrivener Writing Software

As well as the general benefits others have mentioned I'll try and show you why LaTeX can be better from my own work.First off is general appearance. By default, LaTeX just looks nicer. It's easier to format professionally whereas MS Word takes a lot of effort to look good.This first report was done on Word and took a long time to get a title page that looked generally decent. Trying to put an image in and making things align well usually ends in disaster. In contrast…The one on LaTeX looks a lot more professional. It was easier to make and I never had to worry about alignment issues as you just say \centering or a similar command.I much prefer the two column format to my reports but do you know how difficult that is in Word? Trying to put an image in is a nightmare and will usually result in ruining the format of everything else. And it's almost impossible to change from two columns back to one.In LaTeX you just type in \begin{multicols}{2} or something similar and it works fine. The text also looks nicer and it's much easier to change the margins. You can also easily add in a nice contents page before that corresponds to all the names of the sections.Word does have a similar thing but it's really not up to standard that I just don't bother.Then there's references. I've tried references on Word before but it doesn't automatically order them, it doesn't have square brackets and there's not enough customability in their layout. I usually have to do them manually. Likewise for figure, table and equation numbers. The labeling system on LaTeX is sooooooo much nicer.The reference section at the end doesn't look as good on Word.It just looks basic and unprofessional.This looks a lot nicer.Finally we come to equations. On Word, something like this is a challenge.Thank God for copy and paste!In LateX this would be child's play. In fact something like this can be written out easily too:You also have much more control rather than having to depend on the options word gives you.There are other benefits too such as the Fix package that allows you to draw images such as Feynman diagrams in a vector format. These are much nicer than the shape tool on Word.So yeah, use LaTeX! You can also write out the awesome equations you learn on Quora!

This is a very vague question, but I’ll try to cover as much as I can to my understanding of the question.If, by “fancy letters” you mean ѕтυff ℓιкє тнιѕ or  or [̲̅t̲̅][̲̅h̲̅][̲̅i̲̅][̲̅s̲̅], then simply use an online generator like this one: Unicode Text Converter.How does it work? Well, you see, unicode, by definition, is “an international encoding standard for use with different languages and scripts, by which each letter, digit, or symbol is assigned a unique numeric value that applies across different platforms and programs.”So what these text generators do is they take the plain text and they convert it to a Unicode character, and since Unicode is international (meaning it is universal and can be understood in all settings), the font won’t disappear like it might if I changed the font in a MS Word editor and copy-pasted it onto another document. Fonts that you have to install, like .otf and .ttf file formats, are not universal and therefore are not displayed in settings that do not have them installed.You can seek to type symbols and “special characters” by inserting them in a Word-like editor, or search for them and copy-paste them.Anyway, good luck on your typography endeavours! I hope this helped.

No. It is absolutely not dead. It still is the main tool for writing academic texts and it will be for a long time. But I would argue that [math]\LaTeX[/math] should die, let me explain why.First of all, let me differentiate between [math]\TeX[/math] and [math]\LaTeX[/math]. The first is a computational typography language/system developed by Don Knuth in the 70s. As such, [math]\TeX[/math] is the backend for [math]\LaTeX[/math], the typesetting language designed by Leslie Lamport in the 80s for easily producing documents with [math]\TeX[/math]. On my opinion [math]\TeX[/math] is beautiful and we have no reason to replace it. On other hand, [math]\LaTeX[/math] is a technology from another age which is not aligned with the best known practices of designing expert user-facing document production software. And no, I ain’t comparing it with MS Word. I’m comparing it with other expert user-facing computer languages. Let me say why I think that.First keep in mind that I love [math]\LaTeX[/math], and I’d use it even to type love letters to my wife. It’s by far the best thing we have for producing academic documents, especially if they include math. But it’s been more than 30 years and we know more than Leslie Lamport knew in the 80s about computer language design.When [math]\LaTeX[/math] was created the number of people around the world that used computers to create documents with high quality typesetting and graphics requirements was very little. Nowadays nearly every company has someone whose job is to design visual communication in the form of text and graphics. And many different platforms evolved for that purpose. And many different languages and forms to represent the elements that will eventually be rendered as a beautiful text on the screen/paper/whatever were designed. And [math]\LaTeX[/math] was never influenced by what was learned about how to design such languages. This leads to a series of shortcomings I want to pinpoint:[math]\LaTeX[/math] mixes global formatting and document structure in the same language. Those are two very different tasks and LaTeX is sub-optimal for both. On a typical web environment for example, the first is done by CSS and the second by HTML (not that those are two particularly good languages, but separating those concerns is a good idea).The way you annotate formatting and document structure in [math]\LaTeX[/math] is intrusive and gets in the way of you actually reading the text while you type it. This is similar to what happens in HTML versus the seamless and natural annotations used by the Markdown standard or the Wikipedia markup standard. A typical file should be content centric, not annotation centric. The most prominent feature in the file should be the text itself, not the structure marks you use to format it. Note the difference between those options:Bold face formatting:\textbf{some bold text} ([math]\LaTeX[/math])bsome bold text/b (HTML)**some bold text** (Markdown)'''some bold text''' (Wikipedia)Creating a new section:\section{New Section} ([math]\LaTeX[/math])# New Section (Markdown)On [math]\LaTeX[/math] you have to decide the global structure of a document before hand (typically by choosing a documentclass. Once the document reaches a certain size, changing the documentclass is almost impossible. Once you separate formatting concerns, content structure concerns, and global presentation and rendering concerns, one should be able to deal with this almost transparently. When you’re organizing the content structure of a document it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a book, a Physical Review Letters article, a tufte-latex handout, or whatever. You’re only concerned about how to distribute the text into a tree of hierarchical sections/subsections/etc. You should be able to get the exact same tree of sections/subsections/etc and render seamlessly in the style of a PRL article or a book, or a Nature Physics article, or a tufte-latex style handout without having to touch the text. Just by selecting a different renderer configuration.Most [math]\LaTeX[/math] documentclasses should be about formatting, content structure and typesetting. But a lot of them mess with basic syntax. Some of them change the name of widely used commands. Some of them even change what elements must be inside or outside the \begin{document} \end{document} statements (revtex is a disgraceful example). So, if you choose a documentclass, you're pretty much stuck with it after a few dozen pages.Converting [math]\LaTeX[/math] for the web is a HUGE pain. Most compilers like tex2html produce a very ugly result at best. The web is ubiquitous and mathematical content must be amenable to be displayed on the web. It is where everything is, after all. [math]\LaTeX[/math] was designed in the age of printed paper and a .tex document can mostly only be rendered well on printed paper or self contained PDF/PS files. It integrates poorly with most other visualization interfaces. Again: if the rendering of the document was a decoupled concern, you wouldn’t need to worry whether your document is supposed to be shown in a blog or a printed version of a journal when you’re choosing whether to use [math]\LaTeX[/math] or not.This is already too long and there’s a lot to be said: dealing with fonts, dealing with presentations, etc, etc. But all of it really is a result of a lack of separation of those concerns: content structuring, local formatting, global formatting and final rendering. [math]\LaTeX[/math] mix those concerns in a form that gets in the way of fastly producing high quality documents.Don't get me wrong! I think [math]\LaTeX[/math] is awesome! Specially compared with wysiwyg typesetting. But if someone comes up with a way of separating those concerns I’d abandon it immediately. Specially if it uses Markdown for content and structure, [math]\TeX[/math]-like symbols only for equations and something else for style and rendering.

Not very well. There are things you can do though, for example you could use a tool such as pandoc to convert from Word format to plain text.If you add an autocmd for running any .docx file through pandoc on load and save, that would work - the resulting saved file would be in a valid .docx format but you would have lost any formatting during the process, so it's hard to see much benefit.

I typed your question and googled it. I clicked on a link to a federal government website.\U0001f1e8\U0001f1e6“How to use the application formThese instructions show how to:use the electronic application formvalidate itelectronically sign itUse this form whether you submit your application online or mail it to our office.Download and open the form.The application form is in PDF format. To view it, you must use Online Document Writer /4422361 Online Ms Word Editor Online Document Writer /4422361 Online Ms Word Editor Reader 10 or higher (you can download it for free).See what to do if you cannot open the form.”https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&s...

I can offer a program in which you can type the formula as a string in the MS Word document or another text editor. The program analyzes the formula and generates a LaTeX string. This is a unique and very easy way to obtain a mathematical formula to LaTeX format. Among the unique features - validation of the formula with the issuance of diagnostic messages. Is it good to have the ability to use variable names that supports indexes, Greek characters, setting a range of values ​​and change step, calculate and save result? That all are present. There are a lot of unique properties and it is easier try it to learn them yourself. Program has a good help and easy to use.Its name is “aneasycalc”:The AnEasyCalc program by SteamAndWater labs

Sublime Text 3My baby. This is where I spend most of my time. I switched to Sublime from Notepad++ about 5 years ago, and since then I’ve tried most of the big competitors—Atom, Brackets, etc.—but none have been able to lure me away from Sublime. I’m continually impressed by how fast and smoothly it runs, even under heavy loads. The Command Palette and Package Control make it easy for me to find features I haven’t yet memorized, or add new ones, and the plugins I’ve installed for FTP/SFTP transfer and git version control allow me to perform most basic tasks without leaving the app.I’m cross-platform, with a Windows PC and MacOS laptop, using Google Drive to keep my files synced. Sublime works (nearly) identically on both OSes, which means I can switch back and forth without hassle. I can save my project on Windows, open it in MacOS ten seconds later, and everything’s right where I left it: same files, same folders, even the cursor is in the same position. I use and highly recommend the Material Theme plugin, which really polishes up the interface.Atom has gotten very close, and I could probably get by on it for a few days before I started seriously pining. There’s a lot I like about it: the fully unified command menu, vastly superior management of profiles, preferences and plugins, much better git integration. But for me, Sublime still has a meaningful edge in performance and feature polish. Sublime never makes me wait, and very rarely gets in my way. Atom doesn’t pass that test just yet. I also prefer the way Sublime handles projects and workspaces. Atom’s “project = folder” approach is attractively simple, but doesn’t cut it for some schemes.SourceTreeMy team uses Atlassian’s BitBucket for version control, it’s kind of a no-brainer to use their integrated client. And my eyes appreciate the new dark theme, even though it’s still a bit on the hideous side.I’ve also tried the new hotness, GitKraken, and there’s a lot I like about it. It’s much prettier, the workflow is better conceived and more suited to modern development practices, , it feels more solid and stable in places where SourceTree tends to rattle a bit. Nonetheless, it’s just not as capable (yet). SourceTree has better information density—I like being able to see the commit history and file diffs at the same time—and there are a lot of secondary and tertiary tasks, such as managing remotes, that GitKraken just doesn’t do yet. The nice thing about git is that I can easily use them side-by-side on the same projects, so I’ll be keeping an eye on GK as it develops. I can see it replacing SourceTree before long. But for now, SourceTree is the one that Gets The Job Done.PostmanIf you do any kind of work with REST APIs, I cannot recommend this guy enough. It’s like Fiddler’s “Compose” feature on steroids. They really thought of everything, and it’s very clear that they use their own product. Almost every time I’ve thought “hey, you know what feature would be helpful here?” I’ve promptly found that it was not only included, but it was exactly where I’d expect it to be. Sometimes with a niche market you’re stuck with a limited range of options, often there’s one or two standards that everyone uses, and they get kind of complacent. So I have a lot of love for Postman, because they’ve really knocked it out of the park.Webkit InspectorA lot of people don’t know about the surprisingly powerful developer tools that are built into their old vanilla web browser. Chrome and Safari both include Webkit’s developer tools, which is super handy. I also use Firefox Developer Edition, and even Edge is (slowly) catching up. This obviously doesn’t replace a full-fledged IDE, but for basic web development and maintenance on the scale my team works at, it’s perfectly capable, and hence one less piece of software I need to install.WorkFlowyNot strictly a programming tool, but something I cannot live without. WorkFlowy is a deceptively simple concept: it’s an infinite outliner. You can make bulleted outlines, and then zoom in on any individual item and work inside it. So any single bullet can become its own self-contained document, task list, outline, project hub, etc. It also has, of course, sharing and real-time collaboration. I’ve got my whole life in WorkFlowy, both personal and professional. It sits right next to my inbox with equal standing. It has virtually no learning curve—the concept is simple enough that you can very quickly get started and set it up however you want. If you’re a hierarchal thinker like I am, I urge you to give it a try.KoalaKoala does one thing well: it watches a set of folders and automatically compiles your LESS, SASS/Compass, or CoffeeScript source files when it detects a change. In conjunction with Sublime’s SFTP plugin, it makes my life a lot easier when I have to keep files in sync with a remote web server somewhere. All I have to do is save my changes, and both the compiling and syncing happen automatically, in the background. Since I tend to be a very iterative worker—make a tiny change, refresh the browser to see how it looks, go back to Sublime and make another tweak, rinse and repeat—I really value anything that cuts time, clicks and keystrokes out of my workflow.MacOSApple doesn’t exactly need my endorsement, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge it as a major part of my toolbox. I started with Windows when I was five years old, I learned everything I know on PCs, and I never even used a Mac for an extended period of time until about two years ago. And, to be fair, it took that long to really get its hooks in me. It’s only recently that I knew I was ready to switch to MacOS as my primary operating system. There are a lot of reasons, and a lot of them are a matter of aesthetics and personal preference, but there are a few that are relevant to this question:It has Apache, MySQL and PHP built-in. I have local mirrors of all my client sites right in my Documents folder, and I can edit them directly, without having to sync files by FTP or other means. I know you can do this just as easily with MAMP/XAMPP or a dozen other development bundles, but I like not having to pile too much third-party software onto my laptop.The Terminal has made me understand why so many of my developer friends actually like using the command line, which baffled me for so long. Windows’ Command Prompt is a necessary evil, and PowerShell is a necessary improvement. Terminal is clean, friendly, a car that you’d actually want to drive.On a more fundamental level, MacOS is a Unix-based OS, which means it fits more naturally with the software, frameworks and (primarily Linux) server environments that I deal with as a web developer. The bash shell, SSH tunneling and keychain authentication, chmod file permissions, Ruby, Python—there are so many of these things that are so awkward and cumbersome on Windows, it feels like you’re getting a room full of people who speak different languages to communicate with each other using charades and pictograms. On Mac/Linux they just freaking work.Google DriveGoogle doesn’t need any help from me, either. But Drive is so fundamental to my digital life that it must be mentioned. I pay $2 a month—that’s two dollars, not a typo—for 100 GB of storage, which is way more than I need, and it’s enough to keep all of my stuff—all my documents, projects, photos, everything—synced and backed up in real time. I never have to worry about whether a file I need at home is on my work computer, or vice versa. More importantly, if my machine gets struck by lightning and vaporized in an instant, I won’t lose more than the last few minutes of work. Whether it’s Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, iCloud, Box.com, or anything else, this kind of easy, seamless backup & sync is one of the delights of being a computer worker in 2017, and you really owe it to yourself to get one.Edited to remove some personal information from a screenshot.

I’m very sorry, but User-12584786383630117302 is absolutely correct.You’ve been suckered. You might just as well have thrown all the money you spent on your book into a hole and set it on fire.Given how terrible the amazon page, the cover, and everything else is (and seriously, there are 11 year olds who could have done better) no one is going to take this book seriously, no matter what you do. In fact, I would venture to say that this vanity press did no editing, just did a rough conversion of your document to a .pdf file without bothering even to spellcheck, and sent it off to some cheap Chinese printing press.You cannot save this book. The only thing you can do is resign yourself to your losses start educating yourself on self-publishing and self-promotion, rewrite the book from scratch, hire a professional editor and book cover artist and self-publish it under another title.