d83_sven_a@tekn01.chalmers.se (Sven (Sciz) Axelsson) (12/24/88)
What is the current status of MS Word 4.0? It isn't available here in Sweden yet, and I haven't seen any reviews on it. There are rumors thar Microsoft has withdrawn the program due to excessive bugs. Is this true? It would be interesting if those who has had real experience with the program could posr their observations to the net, or better to me directly. If there are enough replies, I'll summarize them to the net. Thanks. Sven Axelsson d83_sven_a@tekn01.chalmers.se dep:t of Linguistics univ. of Gothenburg Sweden P.S. Merry Christmas to you, all netters. D.S.
paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) (12/24/88)
In article <456@tekn01.chalmers.se> d83_sven_a@tekn01.chalmers.se (Sven (Sciz) Axelsson) writes:
#What is the current status of MS Word 4.0?
#It isn't available here in Sweden yet, and I haven't seen any reviews on
#it. There are rumors thar Microsoft has withdrawn the program due to
#excessive bugs. Is this true? It would be interesting if those who has
#had real experience with the program could posr their observations to
#the net, or better to me directly. If there are enough replies, I'll
#summarize them to the net.
Our Dutch Microsoft spokeswoman at first mentioned december as the month
MS-Word 4.0 should hit shelves. The latest word, however, is:
february, march.
This is in fact due to some extra debugging that has to take place.
I've had a pre-release of Word 4.0 which was fairly full of bugs
and immensely slow due to the fact the all their P-Machine debugging
code was still in the program. MS-Word 4.0 will, or so it seems, still
be running on a P-Code interpreter. I wonder how they will speed up
the program compared to Word 3.0x (which was interpreted P-Code as well).
# Thanks.
Most welcome.
#
Paul Molenaar
"Just checking the walls"
- Basil Fawlty -
--
Paul Molenaar
"Just checking the walls"
- Basil Fawlty -stuartb@microsoft.UUCP (Stuart Burden) (12/25/88)
In article <456@tekn01.chalmers.se> d83_sven_a@tekn01.chalmers.se (Sven (Sciz) Axelsson) writes: | What is the current status of MS Word 4.0? | It isn't available here in Sweden yet, and I haven't seen | any reviews on it. I'm not all that surprised that you haven't seen it in Sweden. | There are rumors that Microsoft has withdrawn the program | due to excessive bugs. Interesting rumour, but it's incorrect, we haven't shipped it yet. | It would be interesting if those who has had | real experience with the program could post their | observations to the net, or better to me directly. Well... it's tempting... nah.. :-) :-) | Thanks. | Sven Axelsson Stu. __Paths to my door:_______________________ microsoft!stuartb@beaver.cs.washington.edu - Usual disclaimer, that all microsoft!stuartb@uw-beaver.arpa - the above is pure fantasy microsoft!stuartb@uunet.UU.NET - and Microsoft only [DE01HB]stuartb@DASNET# {from AppleLink} - gave me the Mountain Dew stuartb@microsoft.uucp {well connected} - to dream it all in a D2012 {@applelink.apple.com - shared acct} - caffeine haze :-) __________________________________________________________________________
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (12/28/88)
In article <482@nikhefk.UUCP> paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) writes: >I've had a pre-release of Word 4.0 which was fairly full of bugs >and immensely slow due to the fact the all their P-Machine debugging >code was still in the program. MS-Word 4.0 will, or so it seems, still >be running on a P-Code interpreter. I wonder how they will speed up >the program compared to Word 3.0x (which was interpreted P-Code as well). I worked at Microsoft on Macintosh Word V 1.0 (way back in '84) on program speed-ups. (It gives me a good feeling to know that in one summer I probably saved several lifetimes of useful work for all the people using that program.) The c-compiler Microsoft uses for its products generates P-Code, but any block may instead be compiled to native 68000 code. This means that the routines which do things which may be done slowly (does it really matter if it takes 10 milliseconds to change the cursor to a right-arrow instead of 10 microseconds?) can use compact P-Code, while things that need to be done quickly (e.g. screen redisplay) may take up more memory but run as fast as possible. The version you used might have been all P-code. Perhaps they were also using the principle 'Make it work, THEN make it fast'. (Perhaps they learned something from Word 3.0, 3.01,...) David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "I was sad that I had no shirt, until I met a man with no torso"
prince@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Larry Prince) (12/29/88)
In article <8985@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: > >I worked at Microsoft on Macintosh Word V 1.0 (way back in '84) on >program speed-ups. (It gives me a good feeling to know that in one >summer I probably saved several lifetimes of useful work for all >the people using that program.) ^^^^^^^^^^^ Gosh that's great...now think of all the USELESS work they can devote their time to. (Sorry...couldn't resist ;-> ) UCLA Computer Science Department -- Larry 3413 Boelter Hall Los Angeles 90024 (213) 825-2145 Prince UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!prince ARPAnet: prince@CS.UCLA.EDU
ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) (12/30/88)
In article <129@microsoft.UUCP> stuartb@microsoft.UUCP (Stuart Burden) writes: >In article <456@tekn01.chalmers.se> d83_sven_a@tekn01.chalmers.se (Sven (Sciz) Axelsson) writes: > | It would be interesting if those who has had > | real experience with the program could post their > | observations to the net, or better to me directly. > >Well... it's tempting... nah.. :-) :-) Don't do this Stu. NEVER, EVER, tease people (like me, for e.g.) who are spittin' chips because Word 3.0x don't work proper an' all, when some of us are DEPENDING on it to. You tired of living or something? BTW, I assume that Word 4.0 will be able to read 3.0x files, including style sheets? Ben Lian --------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Y H Lian ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Dept. of EE & CS ARPA : ben%tasis.utas.oz.au@uunet.uu.net University of Tasmania BITnet: munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben@ GPO Box 252C uunet.uu.net (I think) Hobart, Tasmania 7001 UUCP : {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}! Australia. munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben
marco@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (01/01/89)
I just called MacConnections to ask about MS WORD 4.0. A couple of
weeks ago they were saying it would be out this month. Now, they are
selling 3.02 with a free upgrade from Microsoft.
David M. Marcovitz
Computer-based Education Research Lab
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
UUCP: {seismo,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uicsrd!marco
ARPANET: marco%uicsrd@a.cs.uiuc.edu
CSNET: marco%uicsrd@uiuc.csnet
BITNET: marco@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edumoriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (01/01/89)
In article <482@nikhefk.UUCP> paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) writes: >I've had a pre-release of Word 4.0 which was fairly full of bugs >and immensely slow due to the fact the all their P-Machine debugging >code was still in the program. MS-Word 4.0 will, or so it seems, still >be running on a P-Code interpreter. I wonder how they will speed up >the program compared to Word 3.0x (which was interpreted P-Code as well). As to the delay in Word 4.0's release, I can't say; I doubt it is "excessive bugs", as I know a beta tester who has used various beta versions instead of Word 3.02 for some time now, and has had nary a crash. My personal suspicion is that Microsoft is trying to be very, very careful; after the fiasco with Word 3.0, people will be shining all sorts of lights into 4.0 when it's released. As to P-code, the early (and perhaps present) beta releases were done in P-code, and were thus slower than regular versions (the one I saw demonstrated in June, however, was pretty durn fast on a Mac SE). However, neither 3.0x nor the 4.0 release version is in interperted P-code (unless Microsoft is making one heck of a dramatic change for 4.0!). Gee... Ashton-Tate might actually release FullWrite 2.0 near to 4.0's release date.... ...nah! :-) "Thank you for not seating us. I'm sorry, our children are animals!" "Oh, come on now, Eleanor; in a sense, we are all animals, don't you think?" "McDONALDS, McDONALDS!!" -- Duck's Breath Homemade Radio --- 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! <*>
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/02/89)
>As to the delay in Word 4.0's release, I can't say; I doubt it is "excessive >bugs", as I know a beta tester who has used various beta versions instead of >Word 3.02 for some time now, and has had nary a crash. The current beta of 4.0 is very stable. Also, from what I can tell, faster than 3.01. It does have some bugs, but the one's I've run into are in the category I'd call "obscure and nitpicky" -- the kind of bug that wouldn't bother me in a final release, for that matter. I won't go into details, since I'm under non-disclosure, but I'm really happy with 4.0 so far, and using it exclusively these days. >Gee... Ashton-Tate might actually release FullWrite 2.0 near to 4.0's >release date.... Not unless 4.0 slips a long, long time. FullWrite 2.0 is tentatively scheduled (according to sources) in at least April. When it'll really ship depends on whether Ashton-Tate is better at matchings schedules than Ann Arbor was. Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM When you're up to your *ss in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/02/89)
>> | It would be interesting if those who has had >> | real experience with the program could post their >> | observations to the net, or better to me directly. The problem is that everyone who's done any work with 4.0 is either a Microsoft employee (and smart enough to keep quiet) or a beta tester (which implies signing a non-disclosure. People who sign non-disclosures SHOULD be smart enough to keep quiet). Until the thing really ships, any discussion of 4.0 is premature. >BTW, I assume that Word 4.0 will be able to read 3.0x files, including >style sheets? I think it's safe to say this won't be a problem. Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM When you're up to your *ss in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
stuartb@microsoft.UUCP (Stuart Burden) (01/03/89)
In article <801@tasis.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) writes: | In article <129@microsoft.UUCP> stuartb@microsoft.UUCP | (Stuart Burden) writes: | >>In article <456@tekn01.chalmers.se> d83_sven_a@tekn01.chalmers.se | >>(Sven (Sciz) Axelsson) writes: | >> | It would be interesting if those who has had | >> | real experience with the program could post their | >> | observations to the net, or better to me directly. | >Well... it's tempting... nah.. :-) :-) | Don't do this Stu. NEVER, EVER, tease people (like me, | for e.g.) who are spittin' chips because Word 3.0x don't | work proper an' all, when some of us are DEPENDING on it | to. You tired of living or something? 1. This was not intended to be a "tease". 2. I have no business discussing specific features of an unreleased product, other than those that have been announced (by program managment.. and then I should think twice.. and do!) 2. It would be far better that the net do it's own critique of a product. Don't you think it would be a tad biased if I did a review?.. that's why I haven't... that's why the smiley faces Ben! | BTW, I assume that Word 4.0 will be able to read 3.0x | files, including style sheets? Word 3.xx does not have style sheets. The PC version of Word uses seperate sheets/documents to store styles, the Macintosh versions of Word have never done this. Styles on Macintosh Word are stored with the document that you "attach" them to. Word 4.0 will read Word 3.x styles. | Ben Lian | Benjamin Y H Lian | ben%tasis.utas.oz.au@uunet.uu.net University of Tasmania Stu. __Paths to my door:_______________________ microsoft!stuartb@beaver.cs.washington.edu - Usual disclaimer, that all microsoft!stuartb@uw-beaver.arpa - the above is pure fantasy microsoft!stuartb@uunet.UU.NET - and Microsoft only [DE01HB]stuartb@DASNET# {from AppleLink} - gave me the Mountain Dew stuartb@microsoft.uucp {well connected} - to dream it all in a D2012 {@applelink.apple.com - shared acct} - caffeine haze :-) __________________________________________________________________________
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (01/03/89)
I just got a postcard from MS saying that 4.0 won't be released till
spring (but all reserved update copies will be shipped ahead of all
others when the release happens).
My last communication from them was a postcard saying that it was
slipped to fall ('88).
/JBL
UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463
INTERNET: levin@bbn.comkehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (01/04/89)
In article <83416@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
<>Gee... Ashton-Tate might actually release FullWrite 2.0 near to 4.0's
<>release date....
<
<Not unless 4.0 slips a long, long time. FullWrite 2.0 is tentatively
<scheduled (according to sources) in at least April. When it'll really ship
<depends on whether Ashton-Tate is better at matchings schedules than Ann
<Arbor was.
Well...all they're promising on their latest postcard is sometime this
quarter...maybe.
Shirley Kehrsbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (01/04/89)
In article <83416@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>As to the delay in Word 4.0's release, I can't say; I doubt it is "excessive >>bugs", as I know a beta tester who has used various beta versions instead of >>Word 3.02 for some time now, and has had nary a crash. > >The current beta of 4.0 is very stable. Also, from what I can tell, faster >than 3.01. This sounds great, Chuq. Can you tell us whether it's suffered from ``program bloat'', a la Ready,Set,Go! 4.5? For those who don't know, RSG is a wonderful program, but jumped in size from around 220K in version 4.0 to over 500K in version 4.5. Unfortunately, while 4.5 is much better than 4.0, it isn't twice as good.... On the other hand, at least it, unlike PageMaker, can still be fit on a floppy disk.... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) (01/04/89)
In article <164@microsoft.UUCP> stuartb@microsoft.UUCP (Stuart Burden) writes: >In article <801@tasis.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) writes: > | In article <129@microsoft.UUCP> stuartb@microsoft.UUCP > | (Stuart Burden) writes: > | >>In article <456@tekn01.chalmers.se> d83_sven_a@tekn01.chalmers.se > | >>(Sven (Sciz) Axelsson) writes: > | >> | It would be interesting if those who has had > | >> | real experience with the program could post their > | >> | observations to the net, or better to me directly. > | >Well... it's tempting... nah.. :-) :-) > > | Don't do this Stu. NEVER, EVER, tease people (like me, > | for e.g.) who are spittin' chips because Word 3.0x don't > | work proper an' all, when some of us are DEPENDING on it > | to. You tired of living or something? [ Deleted.] >Don't you think it would be a tad biased if I did a review?.. that's why I >haven't... that's why the smiley faces Ben! And I forgot my smiley faces. Sorry. I understand your position perfectly. I REALLY thought you were teasing, but I wasn't REALLY threatening you with grevious bodily harm. [Sorry for the inane drivel folks. No more. Promise.] > | BTW, I assume that Word 4.0 will be able to read 3.0x > | files, including style sheets? > >have never done this. Styles on Macintosh Word are stored with the >document that you "attach" them to. Uh, of course. That's what I meant. Ben Lian --------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Y H Lian ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Dept. of EE & CS ARPA : ben%tasis.utas.oz.au@uunet.uu.net University of Tasmania BITnet: munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben@ GPO Box 252C uunet.uu.net (I think) Hobart, Tasmania 7001 UUCP : {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}! Australia. munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/04/89)
> FullWrite 2.0 is tentatively ><scheduled (according to sources) in at least April. >Well...all they're promising on their latest postcard is sometime this >quarter...maybe. Shirley, I think you're mistaking Fullwrite 1.1 and Fullwrite 2.0. FWP 1.1 is a maintenance release that cleans up some bugs and fixes some crashing problems using the outlining. It doesn't add any new functionality and it doesn't deal with the memory or performance aspects. FWP 2.0 is a major rewrite of lots of the internals to fix the memory and performance problems as well as adding a bunch of stuff. From what I've heard, 1.1 has gone golden (or soon will). 2.0 is out a ways, and they're working hard at getting it done. The move from AAS to A-T and the relocation of the staff to the Bay Area (first to temporary quarters, then to a permanent building) hurt the development cycle. Now everyone's settled in and things should be moving forward.... Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM When you're up to your *ss in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP (01/05/89)
[discussion about MSWORD 4.0...]
I've seen and used the beta, 4.0b8. It appears bugless. At least as fast
as 3.02. Runs fine on my SE and a friend's 512E. The application itself is
625K. { Very nice new features, not the least of which is the ability to
operate on text while in Page Preview mode. Wonderful, wonderful. At any rate,
it will NOT be a repeat of the 3.02 fiasco.
Ron
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> Ron Morgan {ames, utah-cs, uunet, gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo <
> Univ. of Texas {harvard, pyramid, sequent}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo <
> Austin, Texas osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP osmigo@emx.utexas.edu <
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+