jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (03/05/87)
[ For those that don't have FTP access to SUMEX, here's a copy of the
review I intended posted to INFO-MAC. I've update it somewhat. ]
About my background:
I've been using MacWrite for 3 years. I've used Write for both camera-ready
user manuals and book (draft) manuscripts, as well as letters, articles, and
short reports. I've owned Word 1.0 since it came out, but haven't used it
much, primarily due to slowness, no significant feature enhancements, and
one-way document compatibility.
Currently using MacWrite 4.5 full-time for 60-90 page (double-spaced)
chapters (split into 2 documents to reduce risk of crashes), but will be
switching to 3.0 on a trial basis.
Short Menus
Very good. Both short & long menus have a sensible way of formatting headers,
almost (not quite) like MacWrite, easier to figure out than Word 1.0's.
Also has quasi-MacWrite rulers, with justification and spacing icons.
Spelling checker
Fair. It lets words like 'Q-ray' and 'lo' through. It requires you define
both plural and possessive for any word in your custom dictionary. User
dictionaries not well integrated - require manual loading, defining
multiple variants (which don't apply to standard, read-only dictionary.)
Standard dictionary has Pascal but not Ada! Macintosh but not Lisa!
No batch mode checking, and word-at-a-time checking is a pain.
Illustrates why a context-sensitive usage checker is better than a 'dumb'
spelling checker.
Outlining
Very good. To me, the most useful feature (when combined with styles).
Illustrates why outlining belongs in a word processor, rather than the other
way around.
Somewhat awkward at first to build an outline. Inflexible in formatting the
outline view (it would be nice to be able to print the headings in outline
mode with their standard formats, ala More).
Styles
Very good. [changed] Nicely integrated with outlining. Styles can be
defined in terms of other styles, allowing you to easily change all
occurences of Geneva to Helvetica without changing the Couriers. Or
change all your heading fonts. However, can't directly redefine one
style in terms of the other -- if you change Normal from 'Double' to
'Single', it will go from
Normal = Double
Normal = Single + 24 pt.
(i.e., changing what a style is based on cannot change the properties.)
One trick: attributes are XOR'd: if the text is Bold and the style is also
Bold, the text will be printed not Bold. Make the text plain.
Documents
Excellent. Allows you to save your document Text-only, text-only with
breaks, MacWrite, Word 1.0, Word normal, Word MS-DOS, or RTF (MS plain
text with formatting). External conversion utility for DCA.
If you open with one of these formats, it allows you to resave with the
same format, unlike MacWrite, SuperPaint and other idiotic programs
that leave your document 'untitled' unless saved to the standard format.
Unlike some programs, allows you to resave in place with a different format
and the same document name. Pretty good for reading large 'TEXT' source
files. Has a read-only check box.
Page layout/graphics
Good. Much better than MacWrite (which rates a poor), but still no
PageMaker or Full(vapor)Write. With indexing, columns, and some graphics
wrap-around, probably adequate for 95% of developer user manuals.
Macintosh interface
Fair. Reasonable undo. No Select All, awkward help. (step down from
Excel). Fonts in numeric ('FOND') order rather than alphabetic, not all
fonts shown.
A lot of use of Command-Shift equivalents. Allows additional equivalents,
awkward to type, very non-standard, doesn't allow equivalents to be shown
on menus. As before, evidence Apple should address this issue in the
interface (because most major products indicate 26 equivalents to be
inadequate.)
Program seems more compatible with IBM PC version than with the Mac.
Worst example: Clear key doesn't clear; it is the numeric keypad lock key,
ala IBM AT! With numeric on (N in title bar), pad works normal; off, 8
becomes an up-arrow key.
Speed
Good. [Changed] Much better than 1.05. Some noticeable pauses with
ImageWriter; LaserWriter not available, but presumably faster than 1.05.
Gets behind at strange places when typing (heap compaction?). Very
slow to load. Pagination not automatic, but fast.
Reliability
Fair. It crashed in the first three hours with a standard Mac Plus and
System/Finder configuration. Dictionaries lost in a crash. No documented
way of reloading from the temp file on disk, and several obvious approaches
at using the temp files didn't work.
Clutters System Folder with temp files that it doesn't delete, for
some reason. (I have 8 so far)
Documentation
Fair. The organization is good, but the actual writing ranges from good to
poor. Sometimes you just have to try it to find out. Somewhat better than
1.0, but still plenty of room for a good third-party book.
Idiocies:
Bizarre non-standard printing dialogs. Whoever thought of this should be
shot.
Always leaves word's directory as the default directory after launch,
destroying the previous setting. A pain if you're launching
say Paint then Word to work on documents in the same project.
Spelling checker treats ^ and _ as words or parts of words.
You can't add command-keys to custom menus. No way (I know of) to make
a font change a single-character command key, my #1 'custom' requirement.
You can't add dictionaries to custom menus or have your own standard
dictionary always open.
Word underline underlines tabs.
Overall impression:
Value to buy at $295 list: fair
Value to upgrade at $100: good to very good
Overall rating: Good. Worth considering if you want just one word
processor, with more capabilities than MacWrite.
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news)
jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you mustclive@druhi.UUCP (Clive Steward) (03/06/87)
in article <2809@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, jww@sdcsvax.UUCP says: > Reliability > Fair. It crashed in the first three hours with a standard Mac Plus and > System/Finder configuration. Dictionaries lost in a crash. No documented > way of reloading from the temp file on disk, and several obvious approaches > at using the temp files didn't work. > > Clutters System Folder with temp files that it doesn't delete, for > some reason. (I have 8 so far) and then > PageMaker or Full(vapor)Write. With indexing, columns, and some graphics Just wondering about this (relative) slam on FullWrite. Their ad in March MacUser (the one with *two* reviews of Word) is very, very impressive, at a lower list price. I called them up a week ago, and got an April release month, which they seemed very firm about. Let's be fair, boys. Clive
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (03/08/87)
In article <1742@druhi.UUCP>, clive@druhi.UUCP (Clive Steward) writes: > in article <2809@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, I wrote > > PageMaker or Full(vapor)Write. With indexing, columns, and some graphics > > Just wondering about this (relative) slam on FullWrite. The actual quote was : > > Page layout/graphics > > Good. Much better than MacWrite (which rates a poor), but still no > > PageMaker or Full(vapor)Write. If you look closely, I say 'FullWrite' is better than 'Word'. That is not a 'slam' in my book. I heard a very strong recommendation from another author for FullWrite's design. However, it is not yet a released product. There is a game some wimps in this industry play. It goes something like My product will be available Real Soon Now, and it's *MUCH* better than the product you're selling today. Maybe the product is finished on time, maybe it's later or never finished. Maybe it lives up to its advanced billing, maybe it's a dud. You can't tell until it's released. The word 'vaporware' was invented to distinguish between hype and reality. I'm sure most industry professionals would accept the definition 'an announced or advertised product that is not yet available for sale.' Incidentally, Word 3.0 was #1 on the vaporware charts for about three months, if measured by advance hype in Macworld. That has no bearing on its actual value now that it is available. > Their ad in March MacUser (the one with *two* reviews of Word) is > very, very impressive, at a lower list price. 'Word Tools' also had nice ads. I hope you didn't buy a copy. > Let's be fair, boys. Right. A fair statement is 'As of March 7, 1987, Microsoft sells a better word processor than Ann Arbor Softworks, because Ann Arbor doesn't have one to sell (yet).' -- Joel West {ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww (ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news) jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu if you must
julian@riacs.UUCP (03/17/87)
In article <1742@druhi.UUCP> clive@druhi.UUCP (Clive Steward) writes: > Just wondering about this (relative) slam on FullWrite. > > Their ad in March MacUser (the one with *two* reviews of Word) is > very, very impressive, at a lower list price. > > I called them up a week ago, and got an April release month, which > they seemed very firm about. > > Let's be fair, boys. > > Clive All right, let's be fair. On March 16 Word 3.0 is a product that has been shipped to a number of people, and FullWrite is a series of ads in various Mac magazines. Like many other people, I prefer word processors made out of software rather than pieces of glossy paper. The former lets me produce text, the latter is fireplace fodder. The ads can say whatever they want, the electrons moving the speaker in your telephone can make whatever sounds they want. Why do you think the acronym "RSN" is so commonly understood? -- "Physicists are mathematicians in a hurry" B. Mandelbrot Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez julian@riacs.edu || {...decvax!}ames!riacs!julian
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/17/87)
In article <408@hydra.riacs.edu> julian@hydra.riacs.edu.UUCP (Julian E. Gomez) writes: >In article <1742@druhi.UUCP> clive@druhi.UUCP (Clive Steward) writes: >> Just wondering about this (relative) slam on FullWrite. >> >> Their ad in March MacUser (the one with *two* reviews of Word) is >> very, very impressive, at a lower list price. > >All right, let's be fair. On March 16 Word 3.0 is a product that has >been shipped to a number of people, and FullWrite is a series of ads >in various Mac magazines. Like many other people, I prefer word >processors made out of software rather than pieces of glossy paper. >The former lets me produce text, the latter is fireplace fodder. To attempt to continue being fair, I'd like to point out a few other things. On March 16 Word 3.0 is a product that is out on the makert and shipped to a large number of people. This product has been glowingly reviews by a number of magazines. It has also significantly underwhelmed many of the people who have used the product, myself included. It is buggy, many of the features are ill-thought out and unwieldy (in some cases useless) and there are some nasty glitches in the user interface. On the plus side, there is a lot of neat new functionality, it is fast, it DOES work, mostly, and I wouldn't consider for a moment switching back to 1.05 or any other existing WP. I'm still fumbling through many of the features, trying to figure out how to really use them well, and I expect that as I get more used to it, my fumbling will lessen. My opinion is that Microsoft rushed 3.0 out the door, before it was ready. I'm hoping that they are already getting 3.05 ready, because they need it, and I'm not going to be happy until some of the bugs are cleaned up. And Fullwrite doesn't exist, except on paper, so for all we know it will have all these same problems as well. Or it might be perfect, you never know, until it is out. Which is probably what's twitted me off the most on these Word reviews. They all were written from Beta software (fairly obviously) and discussed bugs/misfeatures that the reporters hoped would be fixed. Many weren't. And I sort of feel many of the glowing reviews came from people who talked to glowing Microsoft PR people, or from reporters blessed with early copies and joyous to thank the publisher for them, or something. Microsoft Word 3.0 is not a bad product. But it certainly isn't the product I'm reading about in all the rags. I think 3.05 might be, but they certainly didn't ship ME the software all the reviewers are drooling over. this is a quick list of the problems I know about from reading delphi, here, and talking to folks (if you don't care, stop now): o Bombs with ID=84 (purged menu) in short memory situation. Evidently an optimizer went overboard somewhere and set something purgeable they shouldn't. o If you open and close lots of files, Word can hang, forcing a reboot. o Word leaves lots of temp files in various places (have you looked in your System folder recently?) o the spell checker is primitive, and I think it is buggy -- I've seen it let words through that I don't see HOW they could be in the dictionary, but I haven't had time to track this. It is not quite bad enough for me to re-load Spellswell (a mediocre spellchecker in the WP is better than a separate application, but ask me again after I get 2 Meg and load them both into switcher) but close. o the outliner is useless. Thank god for Acta. o If you're running a LW, and switch to manual feed, Word STAYS on manual feed, rather than switching back to tray feed. You have to switch it back manually. This is different from every other application in the world, and has to be considered a bug. o I've had it randomly switch back from landscape mode to portrait mode when my back was turned. Not sure how or why. o The menu modification is neat, but woefully limited. You can't add all the menu items you might want, especially in the font and style areas. foo. And you can only change certain menus -- if you never plan on using the outliner, for instance, you can't pull it from the menu. A neat feature half done. o They mucked with all the dialog boxes, especially for page setup and printing. And they are all so crowded as to be basically impossible to read. Try to bring up Page Setup and quickly see if you are in portrait or landscape mode. Then get asprin for eyestrain. whoever 'designed' the dialog boxes has no sense for user interface. They're ugly. o Word isn't just unhelpful if you're trying to use a file format other than 3.0, it is downright antagonistic. Since all layout programs need to be revised to read the new file format, if you want to import into PageMaker or RSG, you need to save stuff in 1.05 format. When you open a 1.05 file, it converts it, and turns it into an Untitled file. When you save it, you have to go in and change the file format, then tell it YES DAMMIT I DO WANT TO OVERWRITE THE STUPID FILE and then it saves it and TURNS THE WINDOW BACK INTO AN UNTITLED WINDOW. If you save it as a word 1.05 file and then immediately close it, it ASKS YOU IF YOU WANT TO SAVE IT. (do this on 15 files, one after another, and you can understand why I'm a bit ticked. This liturgy gets old, fast). Why Microsoft doesn't allow a default file format to be defined (and WHY won't they remember that I clicked the stupid "Make Backup" box? It is basically useless, since I have to remember to use 'save as' to make a backup every time. Once I set it, it should STAY SET.) o And yes, converting 1.05 files to 3.0 seems okay, but going the other way has problems. o I've yet to figure out how to redefine styles, despite their mountains of documentation. Delete the old style, redefine it, and store the new version under the old name. Of course, when you do, any stlyes that depend on the style you deleted get mucked up... o They changed a number of keyboard commands. You now can't get a glossary entry without the mouse, since you can't type the glossary name and then hit the keystroke to activate it - you now activate the glossary and type the glossary name down in the corner. chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM [I don't read flames] There is no statute of limitations on stupidity
jmm@thoth29.BERKELEY.EDU (03/18/87)
I just got my copy yesterday, much earlier than I thought it was going to get to me. Their 800 word line was saying four to six weeks, and it only took two. To redefine styles, bring up the define style box, click on the style you want to change, and then just start selecting new options. Another bug: dialog boxes don't accept the number pad keys as valid inputs. (Actually, I'd go a bit further and say their entire scheme of deling with the keypad is a bug |-(, but I like to use the mouse and some people don't.) When you click in the page number box, it inverts and the word "code" appears. Anyone figure out what this does yet? James ...!ucbvax!jade!bartleby!jmm
ngg@bridge2.bridge (Norman Goodger) (03/18/87)
I believe that MS will have to release an update, otherwise it may
never sell in the market after it hits the stores...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Goodger @Bridge Communications !bridge2!ngg
(415) 969 4400 Ex:445 Sysop-MACINFO BBS @415-795-8862
------------------------------------------------------------------------------coffee@aero.UUCP (03/19/87)
In article <15152@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >o I've yet to figure out how to redefine styles, despite their mountains of > documentation... As I read it, the documented procedure seems to work: Pull up "define styles," select the style to be redefined, then go through whatever machinations are needed to describe what you now want. Click on "define," and all instances of that style are updated with the new definition. >o They changed a number of keyboard commands. You now can't get a glossary > entry without the mouse, since you can't type the glossary name > and then hit the keystroke to activate it - you now activate the > glossary and type the glossary name down in the corner. Right, but command-backspace (the same old keychord) also prompts for glossary name; only the sequence has changed (keys, _then_ name). I learned both of these things the hard way last night, and hope I have the details right (the Mac is at home), but both can definitely be done. Cheers, Pc^2