srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) (05/02/89)
WordPerfect has decided to stop further development work for the Amiga.
The following message was posted to CompuServe's AmigaTech Forum on Saturday
morning, and is reposted here with permission. I'm sure that's it's started
to make it's rounds on various BBS systems, but for those of you who haven't
seen it yet, here is the original posting. Since the posting, Mr. Peterson
has been answering people's questions about this on CIS. (He's on the board
of directors of WP). If you wish to send him e-mail or post a notice to him,
his ID is listed below.
If you wish to send a letter to WordPerfect, the address is:
WordPerfect Corporation
1555 N. Technology Way
Orem, UT 84057
-----------------------------
#: 45802 S3/Hot News and Rumors
29-Apr-89 00:20:43
Sb: #WPCorp Backs Off
Fm: Pete Peterson WPCorp 72067,3552
To: All
I spent some time on the phone today with an Amiga user who wanted to tell
me how upset he was to learn that we have cancelled PlanPerfect for the
Amiga and put on hold any plans for a major revision to WordPerfect. The
person was especially upset to learn that the decision was based largely on
monetary considerations.
All of this is true. This week we took five programmers from the Amiga
group and moved them to OS/2 or Unix. That left two programmerto
maintain (fix the bugs) in the current versions of WordPerfect and Library.
We will continue to sell these versions, and we will from time to time
issue minor releases to fix bugs.
For those of you who are unhappy or upset about the decision, I offer the
following explanation. I know it may not help much to understand the
reasons, but I will offer hem to you so you at least know what happened.
As has been discussed on this forum, we have a few problems in the Amiga
market. I would suggest our problems are as follows: 1--We do not show
fonts on screen; 2--We do not support any graphics on screen or in a
document; 3--Our price is too high for the market; and 4--Some people feel
our software has too many bugs. 4 is, of course, something we can do
something about (and there is an interim release coming in a couple of
weeks). 1, 2 and 3 are touvher.
We don't have an easy way of getting fonts and graphics on screen. 5.0 for
the PC handles fonts and graphics well, but not on screen. We probably
won't have a WYSIWYG DOS version that can be ported for another year, and a
port of a DOS version would take 18 months after that.
The Amiga programmers had been planning on porting the next Mac version,
but the big problem with using the Mac code (which is 68000 assembly) is
that we rely completely on the Macintosh facilities for printing. That
means the Amiga group would have to write all the printing code themselves,
in addition to the code translation. Such a product could not be ready
until mid-1990 at the earliest--and probably longer. We thought of using
our printing code from the C (Unix) version, but the codes is just too big
to be used effectively on the Amiga.
The third alternative is to write a word processor rom scratch. Such a
project would take 6 n 7 programmers about 18 months (an optimistic
guess).
So whatever we do, we arrive very late to the market--probably the end of
1990 at the earliest. And once we arrive, we probably have to enter with a
price closer to $195. At that price (distributor price of $80-$100) given
the salaries we pay our programmers and the support we offer, we don't feel
we can make money.
Most of our Amiga programmers are very discouraged with the decision. They
love the machine and they like working together. They have worked hard
without much commercial success. But Bruce, Alan and I (the Board of
Directors) cannot fund the new products without some hope that the products
will be successful. Given the timing, the price point, and the costs of
development, it just doesn't make sense.
We had hoped the German market would generate enough money to pay for the
projects, but unfortunately we are not selling in Germany. While sales of
the Amiga are strong, mostof the sales are for 500s, and we don't run well
at all on the 500.
We're sorry. We kno a lot of ustomers will be unhappy with these
decisions. We entered the market because a few of our programmers loved
the machine. It was a decision of the heart, not:he head. We tried to
pull back last summer when our WordPerfect sales fell off badly, but the
programmers pleaded for more time. We reconsidered the decision in
January, and again (with our hearts) decided to give it a little more time.
Since then sales have fallen off even more, and now we don't see any way to
justify the new products.
WordPerfect is a great word processor and the Amiga is a great machine.
Our 4.1, 4.2 or 5.0 versions, however, are not the right versions for the
Amiga. We need 6.0, and 6.0 isn't ready yet. Once it's ready, we may
change our decision, but in the meantime, we can make better use of the
programmers on other machines. Pete
--------------END OF MESSAGE-------------------
Steve Pietrowicz
uucp: ...!uunet!modcomp!srp
CIS: 73047,2313dooley@helios.toronto.edu (Kevin Dooley) (05/02/89)
In article <155@modcomp.UUCP> srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) writes: > >WordPerfect has decided to stop further development work for the Amiga. > It's just as well. I have played with a pirated copy of WordPerfect. That's right, a pirate. It didn't take too terribly long before I bought a copy of ProWrite and formatted those disks. WordPerfect is a fine word cruncher for PC's, but for any well made machine with a decent user environment, it blows pianos through straws. So my response to WordPerfect Corp is GOOD RIDDANCE!! -- Kevin Dooley UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!helios.physics!dooley Physics Dept. BITNET - dooley@utorphys U. of Toronto INTERNET - dooley@helios.physics.utoronto.ca
elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) (05/03/89)
in article <155@modcomp.UUCP>, srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) says: [lots of apologetic text from Wordperfect person, forwarded from Compuserve] [ and then, just for a sampler:] > WordPerfect is a great word processor and the Amiga is a great machine. > Our 4.1, 4.2 or 5.0 versions, however, are not the right versions for the > Amiga. We need 6.0, and 6.0 isn't ready yet. Once it's ready, we may > change our decision, but in the meantime, we can make better use of the > programmers on other machines. Pete > > --------------END OF MESSAGE------------------- Would-be customer support people, take note: the above forwarded message is one of the best pieces of technical writing that I've seen in a long time. Maybe we should forward his name to Telenet, for them to hire him as PC Pursuit public relations (typical PC Pursuit manager's posting: "If you post <certain information about PC Pursuit>, we'll kick you off. If you post <competitor's phone #>, we'll delete it and kick you off"). Instead, potential PR people, note the careful reasoned and apologetic tone, calculated to gain sympathy. Technical writers, note how well the final paragraph summarizes the entire message. Everybody, note the final sentence, calculated to cast a ray of hope on the whole situation. All in all, that message was the work of a true artist. My hat is off to the person who wrote it. This is meant most sincerely, in no way satirically. In the meantime, the only other large word processor is Excellence!, which is so mind-bogglingly slow that I'd have to be doped up on Qualudes to use it. So the question is, "What now?" Note how many people he said would be required to write Wordperfect 6.0 from scratch... do you see any Amiga software companies with the resources to put that many people onto a project? DO you see ANY software company daring to trod where WordPerfect feared to go? Sounds like it's about time for me to buy TeX, eh? -- | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | | // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 | | // Join the Church of HAL, in worship of all computers with | |\X/ three-character names (e.g. IBM and DEC). White lab coats optional. |
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (05/04/89)
in article <7987@killer.Dallas.TX.US>, elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) says: > DO you see ANY software company daring to trod where WordPerfect feared to > go? I'm not sure just where WordPerfect did go. Certainly when it came out for the Amiga, about the only other games in town were Scribble 1.0, TextCraft, and possibly ProWrite 1.0. WordPerfect did really well, even though the program wasn't much better than the PC version. Of course, the PC version did very well, I've heard 40%-60% of the PC market or some outrageous figure, so I understand why WordPerfect arrived as it did. I have it myself. And it can, given enough effort on the part of the user, do most anything a mid-level wordprocessor might be expected to do. But most of those things are very tuff to get working. I myself spent the better part of a day, once, trying to get the footnotes on a document to come out properly in a slightly smaller font on a HP laserjet. No dice. No WYSIWYG. But for awhile, they were the ONLY acceptible alternative, since they could do pretty much what I wanted. Nowaday there are alternatives, and many of them fit better in the Amiga environment. Sure, graphic wordprocessors like Excellence and ProWrite 2.0 are somewhat slow, but WordPerfect was no speed demon itself. Both of these graphic wordprocessors now know how to use the printer's own font, ala WordPerfect, if that's what you want. And as of 1.3, if you instead want bitmapped fonts, the printer drivers work acceptably now with that, and give you integrated graphics as well. There are several new wordprocessors in the same vein I haven't played with yet, and if you go to Europe, you'll find about 5 you haven't likely seen yet in the German market. Also, all the top DTP packages nowadays have build-in wordprocessors. > Sounds like it's about time for me to buy TeX, eh? That may be the exact thing to do. I personally don't see that much room in the Amiga market for something like WordPerfect. I can find wordprocessors that are easier to use and true WYSIWYG, or go to Tek for a real document formatting language. The stuff I struggled to get WordPerfect to do I did 10 years ago in Scribe (another formatting language) without a hitch. I could do much of that in any real WYSIWYG wordprocessor for the Amiga. Don't take this as a blasting of WordPerfect; it's probably the best of that breed of wordprocessor, it's got an excellent manual, and it's backed by a good company. The Tek system for the Amiga is probably the best Tek for any machine, and you can do absolutely anything with it. It's designed for dealing with very large documents. It's not DTP, but it'll let you format equations and tables much easier than any DTP or wordprocessor I've ever come across. We'll probably be getting some in here real soon now. > | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | > | // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 | > | // Join the Church of HAL, in worship of all computers with | > |\X/ three-character names (e.g. IBM and DEC). White lab coats optional. | -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (Will Bralick) (05/04/89)
In article <155@modcomp.UUCP> srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) writes: > >WordPerfect has decided to stop further development work for the Amiga. > >The following message was posted to CompuServe's AmigaTech Forum on Saturday >morning, and is reposted here with permission. > > [long informative article deleted ...] > First, recognize that WP has made a business decision that they feel is in the best interest of their stockholders and employees. We may disagree, especially with systems like the 2500 being fielded, but I hope that we can maintain a relatively professional demeanor (then again, this _is_ USENET, isn't it :-) and not engage in gratuitous flamage. Second, I am a bit confused. I understood that WP made back their sunk cost on their Amiga port in a (record ?) three days (version 1.00?). The implication I gleaned from Steve's repost (note that differs from a riposte' :-) was that WP saw the Amiga market as a money-loser. Which is correct? Third, I have been debating which of the premier word processing packages to buy. The one with a national reputation for building word (perfect ?) processors that had (relatively) recently entered the Amiga marketplace or the one that was built for the Amiga by a company that has been writing software for the Amiga since words were first scribbled on an Amy1000 screen. Hmmm... It appears that my decision has been made for me. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil | luxury than of arms, they lose wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (05/04/89)
In article <788@helios.toronto.edu> dooley@helios.toronto.edu (Kevin Dooley) writes: >WordPerfect has decided to stop further development work for the Amiga. It's just as well. I have played with a pirated copy of WordPerfect. That's right, a pirate. It didn't take too terribly long before I bought a copy of ProWrite and formatted those disks. WordPerfect is a fine word cruncher for PC's, but for any well made machine with a decent user environment, it blows pianos through straws. So my response to WordPerfect Corp is GOOD RIDDANCE!! While I share your general attitude towards WordPerfect (any non-WYSIWYG wordprocessor in 1989 is simply not worth my time), I detect an *ever-so-slight* dose of sour grapes here. WordPerfect's people probably don't read the net, y'know..... -- Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> <kudla@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS> Pi-Rho America \\ /// "Shooting stars never stop, 2346 15th St. \\ /// even when they reach the top." Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order (518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rush
ktly@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (05/04/89)
In article <788@helios.toronto.edu> dooley@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Kevin Dooley) writes: >It's just as well. I have played with a pirated copy of WordPerfect. >That's right, a pirate. It didn't take too terribly long before I >bought a copy of ProWrite and formatted those disks. [...] Unfortunately this is the first experience with WP for many Amiga users. Most of the pirated copies that I have seen have been from the very earliest releases of WordPerfect, which were admittedly full of bugs. The newest update has many improvements over the first release, as well as the elimination of dozens of bugs. People who use pirated copies of WordPerfect also do not have the benefit of the WordPerfect manual or support staff, both of which are considered to be among the best in the Amiga community. WordPerfect is not the flashiest of word processors. It doesn't support fancy fonts or IFF pictures. It doesn't include a grammar checker or a check-as-you-type spelling checker. It does, however, provide a quick, stable, and powerful environment for serious word processing, with an Amiga- standard (where standards exist) user interface and good support of multi- tasking. -Jonathan [The above opinions are not necessarily those of Cornell University or WordPerfect Corporation, though I am affiliated with both.]
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (05/06/89)
In article <1077@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (Will Bralick) writes: > First, recognize that WP has made a business decision that they feel is in > the best interest of their stockholders and employees. We may disagree, > especially with systems like the 2500 being fielded, but I hope that > we can maintain a relatively professional demeanor (then again, this > _is_ USENET, isn't it :-) and not engage in gratuitous flamage. You might know this already, but WordPerfect Corporation is not publicly held. (Any "stockholders" are really the owners). That's one of the reasons that their support is so good, they are still a bit interested in producing an honest product for an honest price with honest support, not so much "the stockholders want to see better numbers." Of course, one does have to pay the rent. > -- > Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of > wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil | luxury than of arms, they lose > wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | their state. > with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli -- Tom Limoncelli -- tlimonce@drunivac.Bitnet -- limonce@pilot.njin.net Drew University -- Box 1060, Madison, NJ -- 201-408-5389 Standard Disclaimer: I am not the mouth-piece of Drew University
srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) (05/06/89)
in article <1077@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (Will Bralick) says: > Second, I am a bit confused. I understood that WP made back their > sunk cost on their Amiga port in a (record ?) three days (version 1.00?). > The implication I gleaned from Steve's repost (note that differs from > a riposte' :-) was that WP saw the Amiga market as a money-loser. > Which is correct? I don't recall the exact amount of time that it took WP made their money back. From the postings on CompuServe, WP corp. didn't make it sound like it was a matter of days. From what I've been able to tell, WP Corp didn't seem to think that they can go on with Amiga development towards Version 6.0 without losing money. It does sound like they're starting to rethink position however. One of the reasons for their decision was they thought the Amiga community wouldn't put up with anything less than full WYSIWYG in the next version. A number of people on CIS told them they'd be just as happy to have a new version that fixes the current bugs, offers new features, and (eventually) would go on to a new version beyond that which would have WYSIWYG. WP seems to be sitting back and doing a quiet re-evaluation. I'm not sure if they'll change their position or not. -- Stephen R. Pietrowicz UUCP: ...!uunet!modcomp!srp CIS: 73047,2313
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (05/07/89)
/ comp.sys.amiga / srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) / May 1, 1989 / >Fm: Pete Peterson WPCorp 72067,3552 >This week we took five programmers from the Amiga >group and moved them to OS/2 or Unix. Unix? Hah. I looked into getting WordPerfect for our Unix timesharing systems. They are among those companies who have their heads shrink-wrapped. They'll be glad to sell it to me, provided that I get one of the few hardware/OS-version combinations they "support". Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,chinet,att}!nucsrl!gore
elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) (05/08/89)
in article <1077@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (Will Bralick) says: > In article <155@modcomp.UUCP> srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) writes: > Second, I am a bit confused. I understood that WP made back their > sunk cost on their Amiga port in a (record ?) three days (version 1.00?). The posting specifically said that it was operating costs over the past year that was killing them. Having all those programmers on the job, handling all those support calls, etc. The costs are still beginning when you shove the product out the door... And to the person who said "Good riddance": Word Perfect might not have been a good word processor to you. But to me, it certainly looked attractive. I write large manuals (>100 pages) with indexes, table of contents, footnotes, the works. Word Perfect would do all of that, and would do it with reasonable speed. Meanwhile, last time I tried Excellence, I almost fell asleep waiting for it to scroll.... > Third, I have been debating which of the premier word processing > packages to buy. The one with a national reputation for building > word (perfect ?) processors that had (relatively) recently entered > the Amiga marketplace or the one that was built for the Amiga by > a company that has been writing software for the Amiga since words > were first scribbled on an Amy1000 screen. Hmmm... It appears that > my decision has been made for me. Don't make up your mind so fast -- there's alternatives. For simple writing with straight text, e.g. letters and such, I use MicroEmacs (the PD MG version) together with proff (a PD nroff-like formatter). For heavy-duty tasks (e.g. 100 page manuals), TeX/LaTex is more likely to be satisfying than Excellence. For shorter messages with imbedded Amiga graphics, a desktop-publishing package such as, e.g., PageStream (when they get all the bugs out), will do much better. Excellence is really of use only when you want all of the above, and it's not really satisfying for anything larger than a form letter. And if TeX had graphics capabilities (does AmigaTeX? The version I've used under Unix doesn't), you wouldn't want Excellence even for that. -- | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | | // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 | | // Join the Church of HAL, and worship at the altar of all computers | |\X/ with three-letter names (e.g. IBM and DEC). White lab coats optional.|
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (05/13/89)
In article <10260017@eecs.nwu.edu> gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) writes: >Unix? Hah. I looked into getting WordPerfect for our Unix timesharing >systems. They are among those companies who have their heads >shrink-wrapped. They'll be glad to sell it to me, provided that I get one >of the few hardware/OS-version combinations they "support". This is always a problem, of course, but please give us (Hunter Systems) a call; we might have a solution for you. Phone: 415-965-2400 Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug doug@xdos.com Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary "Of course, I'm no rocket scientist" -- Randell Jesup, Capt. Boinger Corps