chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/10/89)
>FullWrite is an Ashton-Tate product, but of a different division, so I'm >responding as a user. Let me second this as a non Ashton-Tate person, just so there's no implication of conflict of interest. FullWrite is a really nice word processor -- if you have a Mac II and a couple of megabytes of memory. Not perfect. There are some limitations to the formatting capabilities and you can't turn off WYSIWYG, even if you want to. FWP 1.1 cleans up most of the stability problems and removed some of the functional limitations of FWP 1.0. It doesn't deal with the performance and memory problems, which the rumored 2.0 will later this year. I used FWP for about six months fairly heavily. I really like it. I, however, finally went back to Word 3 (now Word 4) primarily because much of my work is still done on smaller machines (my home systems are 2Meg upgrades of 512ke machines). FWP just slows down too much on smaller systems for me. Most of my co-workers also use Word, so there's a compatibility issue, also. It's just easier to use a single WP -- and while I prefer FWP to Word, I don't find Word to be a bad Word Processor, and there's a lot I like about it as well. So now I use Word, but I could use either one happily. Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] You are false data. Therefore I shall ignore you.
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (07/11/89)
And now something from a third non-AT person... In article <32989@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Most of my co-workers also use Word, so there's a compatibility issue, also. >It's just easier to use a single WP -- and while I prefer FWP to Word, I >don't find Word to be a bad Word Processor, and there's a lot I like about >it as well. So now I use Word, but I could use either one happily. I'm sort of the contrapositive of chuq -- I can use either one, but not contentedly. To me, Word 4.0 is well-optimized and well-implemented, but they continue to have a user interface which I find non-intuitive and rather clunky. The number of times I've had to go to the manual to find out "where they put that option..." FullWrite, on the other hand, has an interface I love (with a few minor qualms and one semi-major one); however, when it comes to performance, I have to give it the Victor Ehlrich award: "It's a pig." Even with a Mac SEx, with 5MB of memory and an 80 MB hard disk, I've had times when I've hit the backspace key 5 or 10 times, and it's taken 2 or 3 seconds to update. Urk. So what do I use? FullWrite, with my heart on my sleeve, i.e. I am really hoping that all the fixes that Ashton-Tate has promised in their next releases come about. FullWrite has some features in it (referencing tables and illustrations by clicking on their images, graphics support, nice outline support) that bring it Awful Darn Close to what I'm looking for in my Holy Grail of word processors. It just hasn't evolved to that stage yet. I'm putting my money on Ashton-Tate for the moment, but I'm not sure enough that they'll pull it off that I'd invite someone else along for the ride. BEST LINES FROM STAR TREK V: "Surprise, those aren't Dilethium crystals - they're Folgers crystals!" -- Late Night with David Letterman --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, hplsla, thebes, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>