chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/10/88)
I just ran into some fascinating Macintosh statistics, and I wanted to pass
them along to you folks along with a few cogent comments of my own. The
January 1989 Macazine has the results of a reader survey they did on Word
Processors. They got 1300 responses, which isn't bad.
Before I start, let me note that a survey of this kind isn't completely
scientific -- it tends to be skewed somewhat towards the high-end 'power'
users. I think the numbers somewhat point this out.
The first stat is % who use each product. The numbers are:
50% Word
17% MacWrite
15% WriteNow
7% FullWrite
4% WordPerfect
The only real surprises here are FullWrite and WordPerfect. While I know
Fullwrite has sold well, I didn't expect to see that kind of market
penetration. And it looks to me that WordPerfect isn't going over very well.
I would have expected these to be more or less at the same penetration
level, and they aren't.
Next: Amount of use. It's more or less as you might guess. The more you use
a Word processor, the more powerful a program you use. Word users average 14.5
hours a week. FullWrite users 14, WriteNow 12, WordPerfect 11, MacWrite 9.
Relative power: Fullwrite, not surprisingly, leads the pack. The numbers
match the general perception of the power curve: FullWrite, Word,
WordPerfect, WriteNow, Macwrite.
Ease of Use. Here's a category that surprised me. The numbers are pretty
much the opposite of relative power, which is what you'd expect. With one
MAJOR exceptions. From easiest to hardest, they are: MacWrite, WriteNow,
FullWrite, Word and WordPerfect.
Interlude here. Word gets a *lot* of hassle over the interface and ease
of use. Justifiably so in many cases. But I find it fascinating that
a survey of a large number of users, for all the gripes, WordPerfect is
rated even lower. Not by much (7.03 for Word vs. 6.93 for WP) but it's
there. FullWrite, the next easier, rated an 8.29, so there's a *big*
jump in difficulty of use -- these two programs are basically off on
their own at the bottom of the scale.
Speed: WriteNow wins going away, followed by Word, MacWrite, WP and
fullWrite. No surprises.
Documentation: WriteNow, WordPerfect, MacWrite, Word and FullWrite. Word and
FullWrite trail the pack (not surprisingly). WordPerfect's relatively high
scores shows that good documentation can't save a product that has problems.
Support: WordPerfect scores high, folowed by WriteNow. Word, MacWrite and
Fullwrite trail badly. Again, support can't save a product. The fact that
Fullwrite trails MacWrite (which is about as unsupported a product as you'll
find for everyone except those folks who upgraded to Claris) should *really*
worry Ashton-Tate. I'm not sure the rating is justified, but if I didn't
have a CompuServe account (where AT has a support group) I might think
differently.
Overall Evaluations:
Writenow: 9.22
Fullwrite: 9.07
MacWrite 8.72
Word: 8.24
WordPerfect: 7.75
What's all this mean? Well, a few things come to mind:
o For all the bitching and moaning, when people have work to get
done, they turn to word. It's not just dominant, it's overwhelming.
o Good support and good documentation can't save a faulty product.
People aren't buying WordPerfect, and those that are, aren't as
happy as folks with other products.
o On the other hand, some product faults aren't as important.
FullWrite has speed/performance problems, bad docuentation and bad
support -- yet it's doubled the market share of WordPerfect. It may
be slow, but it does things that the users want, so they're willing
to forgive, it seems.
And now on a semi-unrelated topic. One thing they did in the survey was ask
for type of machine. They were:
512/512ke: 5%
mac plus: 40%
mac se: 31%
mac 2: 21%
Lisa/Mac XL: 1%
This doesn't consider things like memory upgrades (my 2Meg 512ke's, for
instance) but it does give us an idea on how many of the older, small-memory
systems are around. Based on this number, at most 5% of the Mac's in
existences are 512K or smaller. If there are about a million Mac's out
there, that's no more than 50,000 -- a number that's probably much smaller
due to the memory upgrades and other bells and whistles we throw in the
machines these days. Extrapolate that to the number of 128K's or 512k's with
old ROMs, and you get a really tiny number.
And that, if you think about it, is why companies don't worry so much about
fitting in 128K or dealing with the old ROM's -- or even, to a great extent,
fitting in 512. There just aren't enough machines of that type to make
spending a lot of money on it cost effective. If you don't have a megabyte,
you don't count in the market anymore.....
chuq
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.moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (12/13/88)
In article <81009@sun.uucp> chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > o For all the bitching and moaning, when people have work to get > done, they turn to word. It's not just dominant, it's overwhelming. I often wonder if this isn't so much Word's abilities as Word's popularity. When writing articles for various magazines, I would prefer writing them in FullWrite; however, the editors and publishers don't have FWP, they have Word. I could always save the copy I send to them in MacWrite format, but often there are formats I've used (two columns, imbedded graphics, etc.) which cannot be ported into MacWrite. So I have to use Word. Gag. However, I don't know if that is a common complaint. When Ashton-Tate talked about FullWrite, I asked if there were any plans to have FWP save in Word 3.0 format. I was told later that Microsoft was very proprietary about other word processors using the Word 3.0 format. I've heard other stories from Microsoft, though (but I think they were talking about freeing up the format for *non*-word processors, like PageMaker, spelling checking utilities and other things that would either be utilities to Word, or not compete directly with Word). Anyone had experience with getting Word 3.0 format -- or using it in your program? "So we're not alone. Now I have to die -- *now*! Just when human history promises to become interesting!" --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (12/13/88)
In article <81009@sun.uucp> chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >And that, if you think about it, is why companies don't worry so much about >fitting in 128K or dealing with the old ROM's -- or even, to a great extent, >fitting in 512. There just aren't enough machines of that type to make >spending a lot of money on it cost effective. If you don't have a megabyte, >you don't count in the market anymore..... This was obviously the assumption the FullWrite folks made, and it was a valid one before Multifinder (i.e., when it didn't matter that a program used all your memory). But one of the things that makes Word such a win is that you really *can* run it and another program in 1 meg, simply because it doesn't require 1 meg all for itself. And since the majority of Mac owners still have 1 meg of memory, this is still an important consideration when designing an application. Smaller is still better. -- 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