moriarty@fluke.UUCP (05/15/87)
In article <6187@dartvax.UUCP> isle@dartvax.UUCP (Ken Hancock) writes: >I realize that Word 3.0 has a few bugs to say the least, but consider this. >The changes between 1.05 and 3.0 are immense. There is no possible way >they could have beta-tested it and found all these bugs. Given that there >are some which seem to be pretty obvious, but the majority that I have >read about seem pretty obscure and happen only when a selected series >of commands are used -- there is no way a beta-tester could go through >all the possible series of command. Of course not -- and, for light use of Word 3.0 (at home, composing short articles for the net and magazines), I haven't had that many problems, either. But anyone trying to get serious work out of it for the LaserWriter or the Linetronics can give you story after story about how they've lost work due to the bugs in this program. As you say, there will always be bugs in released software; the question is, how seriously do they (as a whole) impact the use of the program? For an informal user, not much; for someone taking MS Word 3.0 to the limits it has advertised, it appears there are enough to be more than an annoyance. It would also seem that Microsoft itself is displeased; after the error reports began swarming in, they fired the project manager for MS Word 3.0. As to how they're following up on the bugs -- kudos there. Microsoft certainly has one of the best user support networks in the microcomputer software industry. I use MS Word 3.0 extensively, and wouldn't switch back to 1.05 or MacWorks (which has a darned nice word processor), but it still isn't the WP I'm looking for. Tons of features, but not a user interface which allows you to access them intuitively. Yes, I know, software of this power has a steeper learning curve; but once you've immersed yourself in it, the curve should begin to level out. With MS Word, it seems like your always hanging on with your fingernails. Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off. Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
jlc@goanna.oz (J.L Cybulski) (05/18/87)
In article <882@sputnik.COM>, moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) writes: > > Of course not -- and, for light use of Word 3.0 (at home, composing short > articles for the net and magazines), I haven't had that many problems, > either. What really made me angry was the fact that the simplest things could not be done properly, eg. paragraph formating (hundreds of paragraphs get realligned, change justification, lose fonts as a side effect of formatting one paragraph only), try to convert Word 1.0 to Word 3.0, or even worse try to go back to your old format, you'll see headers running one letter per line, in font size 56, etc... > As you say, there will always be bugs in released software; the question is, > how seriously do they (as a whole) impact the use of the program? > After the error reports began swarming in, they fired the project manager > for MS Word 3.0. Well, I do not believe it is a problem of a single manager. The problem must exist in Microsoft internal management structure and its development and marketting policy. Also I believe that they must have immence staff problems to let the Word 3.0 disaster to happen (perhaps they reclassified their technical staff to management?). Obviously they had to find a scapegoat. Jacob
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/18/87)
>> Of course not -- and, for light use of Word 3.0 (at home, composing short >> articles for the net and magazines), I haven't had that many problems, >> either. It ain't bad for heavy use, either. I beat the heck out of Word 3.0 about 5 nights a week publishing a newsletter (using Word for the writing before it gets laid into RSG 3) and my own personal writing. I do a lot of worse case editing stuff (from the point of view of Words memory management) and generate a lot of words and a lot of documents. I'd say I'm well on the way to becoming a Word power user (if I'm not already there) and I find 3.0 to be a nice tool. It isn't the end-all of Word Processors, but if you look at the market, nobody has done a better job of doing what they did. Fullwrite might give them a run for their money, but I won't worry about that until Fullwrite is shipping. In about three months, maybe. Word, glitches, bugs, and all, is on the market, functional, and in daily use. You can bitch all you want, but until someone shows me a program that does what Word does at least as well as Word does it -- and does it for the power user, not the light duty folks [definition time: If a word processor does not have Postscript capability, style sheets, glossaries, first page header/footers, and a reasonable global search/replace functionality, I can't use it]. Nobody comes even close to Word 3.0 when you're talking about heavy-duty usage -- if you think MacWrite is good enough, you shouldn't be playing with Word, and you shouldn't gripe about it's being complicated. Yup. And that's because it does a lot of stuff. You may not need all that stuff, but there are lots of us out there who do. chuq > >What really made me angry was the fact that the simplest things could >not be done properly, eg. paragraph formating (hundreds of paragraphs >get realligned, change justification, lose fonts as a side effect of >formatting one paragraph only), try to convert Word 1.0 to Word 3.0, >or even worse try to go back to your old format, you'll see headers >running one letter per line, in font size 56, etc... > >> As you say, there will always be bugs in released software; the question is, >> how seriously do they (as a whole) impact the use of the program? >> After the error reports began swarming in, they fired the project manager >> for MS Word 3.0. > >Well, I do not believe it is a problem of a single manager. >The problem must exist in Microsoft internal management structure and >its development and marketting policy. Also I believe that they must >have immence staff problems to let the Word 3.0 disaster to happen >(perhaps they reclassified their technical staff to management?). >Obviously they had to find a scapegoat. > >Jacob Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM [I don't read flames] There is no statute of limitations on stupidity