heath@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Todd Heatherton) (11/05/88)
I read with interest the discussion that centered around the different properites of FullWrite, Word 3.0x and WordPerfect. There appeared to be a fair amount of enthusiasm for many packages. I've noticed that the most recent McUser chooses WriteNow 2.0 as the best word processor (although, I would concede that the specific author chose WriteNow as the best package for themselves personally). I have been using WriteNow because no-one has managed to convinve me that the other packages were worth the effort. However, I would hope that others have chosen different word processors for their specific needs. Why did discussion of word processors dry up? Is there a consensus as to the 'Net users" preferred word processing package? Which is best and why? I would be interested in seeing more about word processors discussed on the net (and, of course, if others disagree this topic can dry up quite quickly!) -- ************************************************************************ heath@gpu.utcs.edu or psyc.utoronto.edu!heath No disclaimer since nobody really cares what I think ************************************************************************
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/06/88)
>I've noticed that >the most recent McUser chooses WriteNow 2.0 as the best word processor >(although, I would concede that the specific author chose WriteNow as >the best package for themselves personally). That was Dan Shafer. Somehow, that doesn't fill me with gobs of confience over the choice.... (Seriously, the MacUser article was, if you ask me, rather on the fluffy side....) >However, I would hope that others have chosen different >word processors for their specific needs. Why did discussion of word >processors dry up? WEll, I just commented on why I switched back (am switching back. These things are time consuming... sigh) to Word 3 from Fullwrite. Most of the silence is probably caused by there being no new programs to yell about. When Word 4.0 ships, expect there to be enough discussion to make silence preferable.... >Is there a consensus as to the 'Net users" preferred >word processing package? Which is best and why? First, you have to break word processors down between high-end and low-end products. Comparing Microsoft Word and MacWrite is silly, because they're separate markets. I define high-end products as Word, FullWrite and WordPerfect. I define low-end products as MacWrite, Microsoft Write, WriteNow and everyone else. The breakdown is partially price-based and partially complexity/functionality/features (and up for negotiation). I haven't looked in the low-end market for a while, because they don't have enough power for the kind of writing I do. So I'll leave others to talk about them, rather than say something stupid and uninformed (I prefer to say things that are stupid and informed). Of the big three, here is my ranking: 1) nobody (maybe word 4.0, maybe fwp 2.0. maybe) 1.5) Word 3.0 (the program you love to hate, but it does the job better than anyone else right now) 1.75) FullWrite Pro (the program you want to love, but it just won't give you a commitment.) 5) WordPerfect (I hate it. I hate it. I always will. Your mileage may vary). I've looked at WordPerfect a couple of times. I hate it. Interface, internals, the color of its eyes. It makes my skin crawl. These are not objective comments, but that's life. I'm sure the WP fans will yell at me for it, but that's my reaction to the program. I'd cut off my hands first. As to Word and Fullwrite, I wrote an article on this within the last week, so I won't duplicate myself... Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM It's not justice you want, Roderick! It's blood!
bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) (11/06/88)
With respect to the comparisons of FullWrite, Word, and WordPerfect, does anyone know how to embed an EPS file in a FullWrite document?
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/07/88)
>With respect to the comparisons of FullWrite, Word, and WordPerfect, >does anyone know how to embed an EPS file in a FullWrite document? You wait for the next release. Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM It's not justice you want, Roderick! It's blood!
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (11/08/88)
Okay, I'll break the silence:
MacWrite is still used by some unfortunate souls here who just won't
switch (afraid to learn something new). In my mind, MacWrite is a toy
and is *soooooo* slow on large files.
I recently tried WriteNow 1.1 for about 5 minutes and it seemed quite
responsive on the files I tested. My personal biggest gripe about
version 1.1 is that it doesn't support the cursor keys and it's spell
checker is poor. More generally, I find WriteNow not as "feature-full"
as I'd like, although I understand version 2.0 addresses some of it's
deficiencies. It still doesn't appear to support automatic index generation
which is something I think is quite useful if implemented properly.
FullWrite: Well, it's quite an editor, but for my tastes it is simply too
slow, and I'm using a Mac II. I does like some of the concepts it has
put forward, but I would much prefer a table feature rather than a general
purpose graphics editor. A mini-spreadsheet would be ideal so that columns
of numbers could automatically summed. Many documents that I write are
"financial" in nature and I find this sort of feature useful.
WordPerfect: One of the worst Mac interfaces I've seen, but other than
that it has most of the major features one would expect (including math
columns). It's biggest problem is that it has carried over PC WordPerfect's
concept of hidden codes, which I never really did like and I like it even
less on a Mac. I've seen Wordperfect documents with formatting problems
that if it happened in any other editor I'd think it was a bug in the editor.
In WordPerfect, it's just a jumbled mess of hidden codes. Novice users can
really get themselves into trouble. So, I would only recommend WordPerfect
if PC compatibility is a must (and assuming all your PC buddies use
WordPerfect).
Word: This is my preferred editor primarily because it has the features
I need and because it is very, very speedy on even large documents. My
biggest complaint is manual repagination. It has its advantages in
large documents, but it can be a pain at times. Also, I find Word not
sufficiently WYSIWYG. Both of these complaints seem to be solved in the'
soon to be released version 4.0 (don't hold your breath). I'm really
looking forward to 4.0's much improved table feature. It essentially
has a built-in spreadsheet whose cells automatically resize for the text
you put in them. So, my editor of choice will probably still be my editor
of choice in the foreseeable future.
There, that should get the ball rolling. Please address any comments to
this newsgroup, not to me personally.
--
Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst
Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter
BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDUkehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (11/08/88)
In article <1988Nov4.221606.20356@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> heath@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Todd Heatherton) writes: >I read with interest the discussion that centered around the different >properites of FullWrite, Word 3.0x and WordPerfect. There appeared to >be a fair amount of enthusiasm for many packages. I've noticed that >the most recent McUser chooses WriteNow 2.0 as the best word processor >(although, I would concede that the specific author chose WriteNow as >the best package for themselves personally). I have been using WriteNow >because no-one has managed to convinve me that the other packages were >worth the effort. However, I would hope that others have chosen different >word processors for their specific needs. Why did discussion of word >processors dry up? Is there a consensus as to the 'Net users" preferred >word processing package? Which is best and why? I would be interested >in seeing more about word processors discussed on the net (and, of course, if >others disagree this topic can dry up quite quickly!) >-- >************************************************************************ > >heath@gpu.utcs.edu or psyc.utoronto.edu!heath >No disclaimer since nobody really cares what I think > >************************************************************************ Well, you gave me the perfect forum for something I was going to post anyways. I still get PC Magazine and was astounded to learn the following in an article about the newly released WordPerfect for the PC. "As of Version 5.0 and its subsequent enhancement, which fixed some initial bugs, WordPerfect is now the most powerful, configurable, and multitalented word processing program ever to appear on any class of computer system. And there are no gadgets to avoid: we've been offered instead a powerhouse program that * imports graphics and handles fonts better than any other program of its type;"...etc. The author goes on to describe this marvelous graphics handling that lets you move, scale, rotate, and invert the graphic and define various box types. Of course you don't get to see the actual graphic during normal text editing. There is a placeholding rectangle. All of this comes from Dean Hannotte, who is a data processing consultant with 20 years' experience on mainframes, minicomputers, and PCs. You'd think that in 20 years he just might have had a chance to notice that there is an obvious hole in his education. Oh well, let them dream on. Shirley Kehr
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (11/10/88)
I agree with Chuq's breakdown of word processors into a high-end/low-end
category. In the low-end, I don't know much about those programs, though I
am curious -- is WriteNow 2.0 out yet? I had understood it had been delayed
forever. Also, I'd recommend looking at the new word processor in
Microsoft Works -- it looks like it's getting to be quite a full-fledged
word processor (text wrapping around graphics, spelling checker, etc.)
In the high end, I will agree that WordPerfect causes my skin to crawl;
after working with it for three hours, my motto became Kill Ugly Software.
As to FullWrite and Word 3.0, I still use FullWrite, but I will be the first
to admit that the speed problems are REALLY getting to bug me. I know
people with Mac IIs (or accelerator cards) who love it -- apparently it runs
well with a 68020. But unless Ashton-Tate comes up with something for the
68000 users, I don't know what I'm going to do. I've played with the beta
for 4.0, and it really is a nice program (also, style sheets are SO much
easier to use).
Ashton-Tate is supposed to talk at the local Mac users group meeting next
week, and I will have some pointed questions for them at that time...
"I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork.
It's useless to fight the forms, you've got to
kill the people producing them."
-- Vladimir Kabaidze, General
Director of the Ivanovo Machine
Building Works
---
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! <*>twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) (11/10/88)
I'm not sure its a good idea to compare the range of Mac word processors against one standard. I think each has advantages for different people doing different things. For instance: MacWrite: Its easy to learn & its features are easy to figgure out without a manual. It is primitive and somewhat restricts what you can do with it. But for the casual user its ease of use makes it a natural. For most home work it is more then adequate. For people who mostly write letters, do school work, make lists & the such, MacWrite may be the perfect low cost, easy to learn & use solution. Don't underestimate the strength of Macwrite coupled with Ready Set Go. Also MacWrite has the advantage of having the universal file format. WriteNow: Same as MacWrite but has more capabilities and is a little harder to learn. It would appeal to the same users as MacWrite plus people who feel they need a little more control over the appearance of their documents. Word Perfect: This is a full featured word processor that would probably have the most appeal to people who reacently switched over from the DOS world. Esp if they used Word Perfect in DOS. This may well be the word processor of choice for these people. MSWORD: Full featured, semi-Maclike. Reasonably fast as long as you are not needing to do frequent repagination on long documents. Beta versions tend to get sold to the public maskerading as a completed product. Tends to break whenever Apple releases a new system. Not very intuitive. A real pain to the occasional user who needs to look things up every time they use it. On the other hand.. for someone who needs a full function, fast word processor, uses their word processor all the time, is a touch typest who doesn't like to take their hands off the keyboard, MS Word is the ticket. It would be a pain in the teehiney for an occasional non-power user. Fullwrite: This seems to be the power wordprocessor for people who feel they need a high powered word processor, insists on a Mac like interface and mayby dosn't use a word processor on a daily basis. Not as fast as MS Word. Likes to have multi-Meg RAM. The nice thing about the main word processors is that with the exception of WriteNow & MacWrite, they target different segments of the user population. I think ruther then say A is better then B period, one should say that A is better then B for X use by Y experianced person who uses their word processor about Z often. I didn't mention MS Write as I see it as just a crippled MS word. TeriAnn
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (11/10/88)
In article <68257@felix.UUCP| kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: |In article <1988Nov4.221606.20356@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu| heath@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Todd Heatherton) writes: ||I read with interest the discussion that centered around the different ||properites of FullWrite, Word 3.0x and WordPerfect. There appeared to |Well, you gave me the perfect forum for something I was going to post | |"As of Version 5.0 and its subsequent enhancement, which fixed some initial |bugs, WordPerfect is now the most powerful, configurable, and multitalented |word processing program ever to appear on any class of computer system. |And there are no gadgets to avoid: we've been offered instead a powerhouse |program that | * imports graphics and handles fonts better than any other program | of its type;"...etc. | |The author goes on to describe this marvelous graphics handling that lets you |move, scale, rotate, and invert the graphic and define various box types. Of |course you don't get to see the actual graphic during normal text editing. |There is a placeholding rectangle. A colleague where I work asked me to drop him a MacPaint file for him to import into a (PC) WordPerfect file. I did so, and while he could view the MacPaint file with some sort of "PC MacPaint Viewer program", WordPerfect would not recognize it, and the file conversion utility that WordPerfect supplies would choke on it and hang the system. He called WordPerfect support, and after he sent them a disk with the appropriate files, they said that he's right (it doesn't work, although other versions of the program read MacPaint files OK, or something like that), and that they are looking into it. Likewise with some other PC programs, even. They even implied that maybe the MacPaint file format has changed! :-) So much for PC WordPerfect and its graphics capabilities. I keep telling my friend here that he should have bought a Mac, and he keeps explaining how expensive a Mac is. He needs to look at how much his time is worth to him. -- Rich Straka att!ihlpf!straka Avoid BrainDamage: MSDOS - just say no!
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/12/88)
>MacWrite: >Don't underestimate the strength of Macwrite >coupled with Ready Set Go. I'll second this. If you need a simple processor with occasional leaps into "pretty words" then MacWrite and a formatting package like RSG or PageMaker is a great combo. >MSWORD: >Beta versions tend >to get sold to the public maskerading as a completed product. ARGH. This happened once. And not because they wanted to, but because some internal administration underestimated the amount of testing it needed. Compare that with Word Perfect, that literally sold Betaware to their customers, and then played "release of the day" with them for a few weeks after that, without bothering to change the release numbering so you couldn't even tell WHICH version of WordPerfect you got. Get pissed at them for botching it once, but don't call it a trend. Wait and see if they do it again with Word 4.0 and then you can call it a trend (based on my discussions with them, 4.0 will be quite stable when it hits, if you ask me). >Tends to >break whenever Apple releases a new system. Huh? MSWord 3.0 was buggy. It was replaced with 3.01. That was replaced with 3.02 with the IW2 and some printing related problems. I've run Word 3.01 on System 6.02, 5.0, and two releases prior to that. I've never seen ANY "upgrade and break" with Word -- which isn't true about Excel, 4D, or, for that matter, FullWrite Professional. As far as I'm concerned, this is completely false and you're giving Word a rap for something that isn't (unlike some of the other things Word gets bitched about) true. >I didn't mention MS Write as I see it as just a crippled MS word. Yeah. But if you're looking for a low-cost version of Word, it's not a bad option. A better option might be Works, though... Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM It's not justice you want, Roderick! It's blood!
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (11/13/88)
In article <5906@fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) writes: >I agree with Chuq's breakdown of word processors into a high-end/low-end >category. In the low-end, I don't know much about those programs, though I >am curious -- is WriteNow 2.0 out yet? I had understood it had been delayed >forever. Also, I'd recommend looking at the new word processor in >Microsoft Works -- it looks like it's getting to be quite a full-fledged >word processor (text wrapping around graphics, spelling checker, etc.) > >In the high end, I will agree that WordPerfect causes my skin to crawl; >after working with it for three hours, my motto became Kill Ugly Software. >As to FullWrite and Word 3.0, I still use FullWrite, but I will be the first >to admit that the speed problems are REALLY getting to bug me. ... Well, since someone asked... I've been using Word for years (after being weaned from MacWrite) and am, for the most part, satisfied. Word is fine for letters and simple documents, but I find it far too cumbersome for manuals and books. So I do most of my drafts with Word and then switch to XPress to do the layout, insert diagrams and the final edits. I think XPress is great (!), by the way. I used Pagemaker for a year (first version) and was too frustrated by the speed, bugs, and awkwardness. XPress is superfast (certainly faster than Word, not only for text editing but it also checks spelling faster than anything else I've seen), handles graphics very well (it can link to a graphic so that any changes you make there are automatically incorporated in the main document), can search and replace by content, font, size, etc., etc. But it doesn't qualify as a low-end w.p. I'm hoping Word 4.0 will raise the threshold beyond which I have to switch, but I'll still use XPress when appearance is important. (It's also much smarter about text than Word, in terms of leading, tracking, kerning, you name it). On the other hand, one of the main reasons I stick with Word is compatibility. XPress imports Word files smoothly, style sheets and all. In fact, XPress' command-key equivalents are obviously based on Word so the transition is smooth as well. Word is also understood by MacLink, which I use to transfer files between my Mac and my AT. And Word seems solid (since 3.02, anyway). I tried FW on the dealer's Mac II. It was nice but so slow that I gave up any hope for using it on my SE. Also, I prefer to pick and choose my drawing programs, and just don't believe any single package can be the best at everything (DeskDraw is a very nice alternative to an integrated drawing program, otherwise I use Cricket Draw or Illustrator). While on the topic, I have one major problem with Word. After a while, editing almost any file slows to a crawl. Even for a two-finger typist about 30% of the characters are lost. I have no idea why this happens but if anyone does, I'd sure like to know. (File size doesn't seem to be a factor, and neither does 'fast save'.) BTW, a while ago I asked for information on packages which generate indices (or even just word lists), other than by embedding special information in the document (as Word requires). The only response I got mentioned something called Sonar. Anybody know what this is and where I can find it? -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
rudolph@m.cs.uiuc.edu (11/14/88)
Here's a complaint about Word for Microsoft: A friend of mine who's a computer novice just bought Word, and found that it came with a reference manual, but no basic "getting started" type manual or tutorial. In fact, the reference book even says something like, "this manual is not intended for those who have not had previous experience with Word." It then goes on to recomend that such people buy a copy of "Learning Word." An order form included with the package says that will run $20 (or 25?). It seems to me that after putting down over $200 for a program, one should not have to go out and pay another $20 for a manual. Since when don't programs come with manuals?
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (11/14/88)
In article <4783@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (me) writes: > ... >BTW, a while ago I asked for information on packages which generate >indices (or even just word lists), other than by embedding special >information in the document (as Word requires). The only response I >got mentioned something called Sonar. Anybody know what this is >and where I can find it? OK, I picked up a copy of MacGuide today and it lists Sonar as a smart multi-file word search utility, and I now know where to get it (although I haven't found a local dealer yet). But the question remains: can it generates indices? Has anyone used it? -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (11/15/88)
In article <4783@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: >While on the topic, I have one major problem with Word. After a while, >editing almost any file slows to a crawl. Even for a two-finger >typist about 30% of the characters are lost. I have no idea why this >happens but if anyone does, I'd sure like to know. (File size doesn't >seem to be a factor, and neither does 'fast save'.) I'd be interested in the "why" also. I suspect it's not giving back memory that was in use prior to save. I've simply become accustomed to interpreting the Low on Memory, Close Windows and Save message as Save and Quit Word. It's a pain, but quitting Word and restarting seems to solve performance problems. Shirley Kehr
julian@riacs.edu (Julian E Gomez) (11/16/88)
In article <8400044@m.cs.uiuc.edu> rudolph@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
" Here's a complaint about Word for Microsoft: A friend of mine who's a
" computer novice just bought Word, and found that it came with a reference
" manual, but no basic "getting started" type manual or tutorial. In fact,
" the reference book even says something like, "this manual is not intended
" for those who have not had previous experience with Word." It then goes on
" to recomend that such people buy a copy of "Learning Word." An order form
" included with the package says that will run $20 (or 25?).
"
" It seems to me that after putting down over $200 for a program, one should
" not have to go out and pay another $20 for a manual. Since when don't
" programs come with manuals?
Your friend got taken. Word comes with "Learning Microsoft Word", an
introduction to using the program. I suggest your friend return the
package for a complete one.
--
Succumb to peer pressure! Just say no!
Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
julian@riacs.edu || {...decvax!}ames!riacs!julianrdsesq@Jessica.stanford.edu (Rob Snevely) (11/17/88)
Sounds to me like your friend got the academic version of Word which does not come with the learning word tutorial. But it should not have cost $200. Here the price is about $79.00. I would suggest getting "Working with Word" from Microsoft Press rather than learning word. It's much better and only 2 dollars more. rob rdsesq@jessica.stanford.edu ****** DON'T BLAME ME... I VOTED FOR BILL AND OPUS ******
jimd@gssc.UUCP (James DePorter) (11/17/88)
In article <430058@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) writes: > >WriteNow: Same as MacWrite but has more capabilities and is a little harder >to learn. It would appeal to the same users as MacWrite plus people who >feel they need a little more control over the appearance of their documents. > One other comment about WriteNow is that you can't move the insertion point without using the mouse. I tried QuickKeys to be able to use the arrow keys, page keys etc in WriteNow. I could move up and down the doc, but found no way to move the insertion point (start typing and the screen would return to the previous location). QK's has a mouse click under the menu, but sure wouldn't do anything in WriteNow. MS Word may be harder, but at least Word allows me to use either the keyboard or the mouse. jimd Bush is giving cabinet posts to the people that helped him the most with his campaign... Dukakis should end up with a good government job after all.
arons@ccnysci.UUCP (Michael Arons) (11/18/88)
In article <8400044@m.cs.uiuc.edu> rudolph@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Here's a complaint about Word for Microsoft: A friend of mine bought Word, >and found that it came no basic "getting started" type manual or tutorial. >... after putting down over $200 for a program, one should not have to go out > and pay another $20 for a manual. It may be that your friend purchased WORD via the recent educational discount program costing $49.95. With that offer, they provided the Reference Manual but no tutorial. If that was the case, I think he has no gripe-it was a good deal even without the tutorial manual. If he really paid $200, the gripe is justified. Mike Arons City College of New York
hal@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Hal Perkins) (11/18/88)
In article <5797@gssc.UUCP> jimd@gssc.UUCP (James DePorter) writes: >One other comment about WriteNow is that you can't move the insertion point >without using the mouse. This is supposed to change shortly. Version 2.0 is advertised as supporting cursor keys. Hal Perkins hal@cs.cornell.edu