gaspar@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Al Gaspar) (01/08/88)
I've been considering WordPerfect, and I'm getting a little confused. It's as if there are two different WordPerfects. On the one hand, Pavneet Arora writes from Canada and says: >In response to Neil Harris' comment that the support is excellent, I have >a few comments of my own: > > 1. No company, software or otherwise, should be able to release > a product that doesn't even come close to working. > Bugs are one thing - fatal bugs another. I use the following > analogy - If I approached WP and asked them to give me > a copy of the software, and then told them that I would pay > them in a few months i.e. whenever I could afford it, I would > not expect them to hand over the package. And yet, WP has > taken money from users and then handed over a useless package > without ever notifying any of its users that there are problems. > And when a user tracks down the bugs and calls WP, they say > they are aware of it and a working version should be out soon. > Soon in my case has meant 3 months now, and I still don't have > a working version. ...etc. >I think the larger issue here is the ethics with which high tech companies >operate. Personally, I don't feel that WP has thus far exhibited anything >that >qualifies it for the praise that Neil Harris had to offer. My experience >has been in dealing with WP both in Canada and the US for the past three >months now. On the other hand, Rich Dankert replied with glowing praise to a request for information on WordPerfect: >In article <2143@cup.portal.com> RJknees@cup.portal.com writes: >>Hey everyone! I'm looking for someone who has (or has used) WordPefect on >>the Atari-ST. I'm thinking of buying this software! > ...answers to questions 1-4 >> >>5. Any other opinions or comments RE: Wordproccesing on the ATARI-ST >> > Contrary to all the comments from user's of Word Perfect in the > negative aspect, I can say that the version I got didn't have all the > bugs that I had seen mentioned. In fact Word Perfect Corp. is > one of the best software makers that I know of. If you OWN the > program, and have a problem with it, and they have a newer version > of it, they will send it to you, second day air sometimes. > > This is one software maker that really backs their product! What's the deal here? Are we talking about two different versions of WordPerfect for the ST here, is there a different version in Canada, or does Pavneet Arora use features that Rich Dankert doesn't? ? Can someone clarify? Also, some discussion of other peoples experiences would be great. And, yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as multi-tasking ;-). Cheers-- Al -- Al Gaspar <gaspar@almsa-1.arpa> USAMC ALMSA, ATTN: AMXAL-OW, Box 1578, St. Louis, MO 63188-1578 COMMERCIAL: (314) 263-5118 AUTOVON: 693-5118 uunet.uu.net!gaspar@almsa-1.arpa
rich@lakesys.UUCP (Rich Dankert) (01/09/88)
In article <8801081341.AA10025@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> gaspar@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Al Gaspar) writes: >I've been considering WordPerfect, and I'm getting a little confused. It's as >if there are two different WordPerfects. Edited of course... > >What's the deal here? Are we talking about two different versions of >WordPerfect for the ST here, is there a different version in Canada, or >does Pavneet Arora use features that Rich Dankert doesn't? ? Can someone >clarify? Also, some discussion of other peoples experiences would be great. > >And, yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as multi-tasking ;-). > >Cheers-- > >Al > >-- >Al Gaspar <gaspar@almsa-1.arpa> >USAMC ALMSA, ATTN: AMXAL-OW, Box 1578, St. Louis, MO 63188-1578 >COMMERCIAL: (314) 263-5118 AUTOVON: 693-5118 >uunet.uu.net!gaspar@almsa-1.arpa I will reinterate again. I have had no problems with the version of Word Perfect that I have. I use the program on an explanded 520 (1 meg) and use a ramdisk in conjunction with it. I have yet to have *any data mixed up or otherwise corrupted to date. I use WP with my MonoChrome monitor and have yet to see it screw up the display or any other such things that I have read in my travels about the different services here in the usa. I have have nothing but good to say about this product. I have used it to pop out important documents to many places where the way the document looks is 1/2 the battle. Of *all the W/Ps that I have used this is the one that gave me an output to my printer that was perfect. As far as getting updates from the CO. I cannot say that I have had the need to do so. My program works great for me, so no need. The reason for mentioning the CO.s backing is that others have had to get a bit of help or have encountered a bug, and WP corp. has shipped them a different program of the same version, and there bug was gone. I can only say that *yes there are others that may use the program and have problems with it, but I am not one of them. Of all the reports that I have read, I am still looking for the same to happen to me, but am plesently pleased to say that they have not, at least to this point. I think the program is great, and worth the $$$ for everything that you get. UUCP: {Ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!rich Discalimer: The words,ideas,and expressions are my own, and not nessasarily always correct, and I have been know to be wrong. I am not in any way or form tied into Word Perfect Corp. Just a very satisfied customer.
BRIGHT@DALAC.BITNET (BOB BRIGHT) (01/17/88)
Al Gaspar <gaspar@ALMSA-1.ARPA> writes: >I've been considering WordPerfect, and I'm getting a little confused. It's as >if there are two different WordPerfects. On the one hand, Pavneet Arora writes >from Canada and says: .... > Bugs are one thing - fatal bugs another. I use the following > analogy - If I approached WP and asked them to give me > a copy of the software, and then told them that I would pay > them in a few months i.e. whenever I could afford it, I would > not expect them to hand over the package. And yet, WP has > taken money from users and then handed over a useless package > without ever notifying any of its users that there are problems. .... >On the other hand, Rich Dankert replied with glowing praise to a request for >information on WordPerfect: .... > Contrary to all the comments from user's of Word Perfect in the > negative aspect, I can say that the version I got didn't have all the > bugs that I had seen mentioned. In fact Word Perfect Corp. is > one of the best software makers that I know of. If you OWN the > program, and have a problem with it, and they have a newer version > of it, they will send it to you, second day air sometimes. .... >What's the deal here? Are we talking about two different versions of >WordPerfect for the ST here, is there a different version in Canada, or >does Pavneet Arora use features that Rich Dankert doesn't? ? Can someone The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between. The present incarnation of WP does have a number of bugs, though few of them are really "fatal". Most of them fall into the class of minor annoyances (such as the infamous "key-click" problem). One of the most serious, to my mind, is that WP doesn't clean up after itself properly when exiting -- at least the "Canadian version" :-) doesn't, running on a mono 1040 with nite and moustrap resident. It frequently bombs upon exit, and when it doesn't, will often lock up subsequent applications (such as Uniterm). I just make sure I reboot every time I exit WP -- no big deal, since it's not the sort of program you're going to be using to dash off a quick note to the net. Word Perfect Corp. should probably be chastised slightly for not debugging the program a little more thoroughly. (They can make up for it, in my books, by making the first upgrade free to current owners.) On the other hand, even *with* its current defects WP is by far the best word processor available for the ST at the moment; certainly it's very far from being "useless", as Pavneet Arora suggests. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could have waited much longer for a really decent word processor for my ST. BBB Bob Bright <BRIGHT@DALAC.BITNET> Philosophy Dept. Dalhousie University Halifax, NS B3H 3J5
rich@lakesys.UUCP (Rich Dankert) (01/18/88)
In article <8801162346.AA18389@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> BRIGHT@DALAC.BITNET (BOB BRIGHT) writes: > > The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between. The present incarnation >of WP does have a number of bugs, though few of them are really "fatal". >Most of them fall into the class of minor annoyances (such as the infamous >"key-click" problem). One of the most serious, to my mind, is that WP >doesn't clean up after itself properly when exiting -- at least the "Canadian >version" :-) doesn't, running on a mono 1040 with nite and moustrap resident. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just have a question here. Why the mousetrap program? The program does allow the lockout of the menu bar, which may be the reason for the not so clean break upon exit. Nite I can understand, to blank the screen but another screen saver utl may solve the other problem your experiencing. I must admit that I use WP from a cold boot, seeing that if i'm going to be using it, I will be for some time,and when I exit the next program I will most likly be using will be my terminal disk, though I do use the terminal as a normal boot disk as it has my favorite .ACC's and ramdisk size. Key click problem, well I can't say that I have encountered that either, but then I don't have the volume up, as it slows my typing down ;^}. Unless your talking about something different than I am interpreting. >It frequently bombs upon exit, and when it doesn't, will often lock up >subsequent applications (such as Uniterm). I just make sure I reboot every >time I exit WP -- no big deal, since it's not the sort of program you're >going to be using to dash off a quick note to the net. > Word Perfect Corp. should probably be chastised slightly for not >debugging the program a little more thoroughly. (They can make up for it, >in my books, by making the first upgrade free to current owners.) On the >other hand, even *with* its current defects WP is by far the best word >processor available for the ST at the moment; certainly it's very far from >being "useless", as Pavneet Arora suggests. I don't know about you, but I >don't think I could have waited much longer for a really decent word processor ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In this I agree totally. WP has become my defacto standard W/P no matter what or how big whatever I am going to write is. I love it..... >for my ST. > >BBB > >Bob Bright <BRIGHT@DALAC.BITNET> >Philosophy Dept. >Dalhousie University >Halifax, NS B3H 3J5 UUCP: {Ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!rich Discalimer: The words,ideas,and expressions are my own, and not nessasarily always correct, and again I re-interate I am not affiliated with Word Perfect.
BRIGHT@DALAC.BITNET (BOB BRIGHT) (01/25/88)
Rich Dankert (lakesys!rich@csd1.milw.wisc.edu) writes: > Just have a question here. Why the mousetrap program? [Word Perfect] >does allow the lockout of the menu bar, which may be the reason for the >not so clean break upon exit. Nite I can understand, to blank the screen >but another screen saver utl may solve the other problem your experiencing. I keep moustrap resident because I like the menu bar locked all the time, and not just when I'm in Word Perfect. (Once you get used to moustrap, it's impossible to do anything without it. Menus start dropping all over the place; and *imagine* having to manually move the mouse up to the menu bar! Uugh.) Anyway, your first thought was mine too. Even when I boot WP cold with *no* accessories or utilities resident, it doesn't clean up after itself properly, and subsequent applications (e.g., Uniterm 2.0a 003; try it and see) lock up or misbehave if I don't reboot. Of course, nite and/or moustrap might be responsible in part for some of the other bugs I've run into. E.g., the WP manual states that you can record macros using either the menu bar commands or keyboard equivalents. I've found that the mouse commands work only sporadically or not at all when recording macros, and it's just possible that this behaviour is due to having moustrap resident (though I doubt it, since the macro presumably records just the commands, and not the actual mouse movements). No big deal: just make sure to use keyboard commands while recording macros. Given the ease with which one can work around this and similar bugs, a wholesale application of Mill's methods in a last-ditch attempt to confirm that WP gets along well enough with my resident utilities just doesn't seem worth the trouble. > Key click problem, well I can't say that I have encountered that >either, but then I don't have the volume up, as it slows my typing down ;~}. >Unless your talking about something different than I am interpreting. If I'm not mistaken, the key-click problem is really due to a TOS bug, which the authors of WP for the ST apparently weren't familiar with. If you've been running for a while, under certain conditions (not sure exactly what they are, though I seem to encounter the problem when I'm using the mouse a lot) your machine will start clicking away as if you were holding down a key. (Assuming that you have the volume turned up, of course. Just how fast do you type, anyway, Rich? :-)) As a side effect the Repeat dialogue often pops up in the middle of your screen, since the bug in question makes TOS think that you're trying to choke it with escape characters, and WP uses the escape key to call the Repeat sequence. Again, it's a trivial problem -- just hit <UNDO> and carry on with what you were doing. (I think Moshe Braner ran into a similar difficulty with early versions of more.ttp; perhaps he could comment?) For anyone considering buying WP, I'd like to emphasize once again that even *with* the bugs in the current version, it's eminently usable. I had the luxury of being able to borrow a copy of WP from the English Dept. here last fall. I gave it a fairly solid workout for a couple of months, so I had a pretty good idea of what bugs and limitations I could expect to encounter, before I purchased my own copy. (The educational price in Canada, BTW, is $160). If you need the power (I especially like the recursive macros, and the superb merge facility), WP is indeed worth every penny. BBB Bob Bright <BRIGHT@DALAC.BITNET> Philosophy Dept. Dalhousie University Halifax, NS B3H 3J5
rich@lakesys.UUCP (Rich Dankert) (01/26/88)
> > If I'm not mistaken, the key-click problem is really due to a TOS >bug, which the authors of WP for the ST apparently weren't familiar with. >If you've been running for a while, under certain conditions (not sure >exactly what they are, though I seem to encounter the problem when I'm >using the mouse a lot) your machine will start clicking away as if you >were holding down a key. (Assuming that you have the volume turned up, of >course. Just how fast do you type, anyway, Rich? :-)) I know what you are talking about as far as the Keyclick problem goes. I used to have the problem, until I changed the Keyboard, which has the newer version IKBD Controller. Havn't run into it since, but if it's a TOS bug as I have read etc.. then your guess is as good as mine, as my machine is on for about 8-10 hours/day, 7 days/week. Typing speed? Depends.... Out of my head I can get to about 70 wpm but if I have to copy from another hard copy, only around 40wpm. Though this is by no means stupendious, I have over taken the wife this past year ;^}. > For anyone considering buying WP, I'd like to emphasize once again >that even *with* the bugs in the current version, it's eminently usable. >I had the luxury of being able to borrow a copy of WP from the English >Dept. here last fall. I gave it a fairly solid workout for a couple of >months, so I had a pretty good idea of what bugs and limitations I could >expect to encounter, before I purchased my own copy. (The educational price >in Canada, BTW, is $160). If you need the power (I especially like the >recursive macros, and the superb merge facility), WP is indeed worth every >penny. In the above I fully agree. Tis a WP that will have to be beaten. -rich UUCP: {Ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!rich Discalimer: The words,ideas,and expressions are my own, and not nessasarily always correct, and I will defend to the death to argue them.
dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) (01/28/88)
In article <413@lakesys.UUCP> rich@lakesys.UUCP (Rich Dankert) writes:
++
++ If I'm not mistaken, the key-click problem is really due to a TOS
++bug, which the authors of WP for the ST apparently weren't familiar with.
++If you've been running for a while, under certain conditions (not sure
++exactly what they are, though I seem to encounter the problem when I'm
++using the mouse a lot) your machine will start clicking away as if you
++were holding down a key. (Assuming that you have the volume turned up, of
++course. Just how fast do you type, anyway, Rich? :-))
+
+ I know what you are talking about as far as the Keyclick problem
+goes. I used to have the problem, until I changed the Keyboard, which has
+the newer version IKBD Controller. Havn't run into it since, but if it's
+a TOS bug as I have read etc.. then your guess is as good as mine, as my
+machine is on for about 8-10 hours/day, 7 days/week.
+
The problem, as I understand it (and I do believe that I understand it)
is that the keyboard sends lots of bytes when mouse or joystick events
are being handled. If the routine that handles the packets takes a
little too long, the first few bytes of the packet are lost (since
the interrupt is inhibited) and the last byte(s) of the packet, which
are not lost, don't look like parts of a packet to the handler, they
look like key "make" codes. The auto-repeat is handled in software,
and since no break code has been received, the software decides that
it is time to repeat the "key", so a keyclick is generated, etc.
This is not really a TOS bug, just lack of flow control (and a poor
design decision in the software).
It could be that the new keyboard sends characters too quickly.
Any comments from Atari?
--
Daniel A. Glasser
...!ihnp4!chinet!dag
...!ihnp4!mwc!dag
...!ihnp4!mwc!gorgon!dag
One of those things that goes "BUMP!!! (ouch!)" in the night.