dcaffey@hydra.unm.edu (Dom Caffey) (05/03/90)
To whoever would like to offer comments: I've been using WordPerfect at my local university's computing facilities for quite some time but recently discovered how neat it is to be able to work in a multitasking, windowing environment such as MS-Windows for the 386 machines. I heard a lot about Microsoft word for windows being a good wordprocessor of the same caliber as WordPerfect 5.0 & 5.1. What are the big differences between the 2? What will I be able to do in one that I won't be able to do in the other? I will be getting a Zenith 386SX pretty soon and will need to get a good wordprocessing package that can do both text & graphics. I would like capabilities as close to WordPerfect as I can get but that I can run in MS-Windows and be able so resize windows and not have to run something with a pif file. Any & all comments on the above are welcome & encouraged. Thanks, Dominic Caffey +-------------------------------+ | Dominic Caffey, | | Student, Ph#: (505)-296-1942 | | University of New Mexico, USA |
Hubert Lai <LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (05/04/90)
You ask about how Microsoft Word for Windows and WordPerfect 5.x compare, and whether Word for Windows has all of the features and capabilities of WordPerfect. In short, the answer is yes. Word and WordPerfect are each approximately equal in terms of their feature sets. However, as you are obviously aware, Word for Windows is a graphically oriented application, whereas WordPerfect is not. If you are interested in that graphical orienta- tion, then Word for Windows is for you. I think the computing world is unquestionably shifting towards a richer graphical environment. I am using it on a 16 MHz 386 with an ATI VGA Wonder running at 1024x768x16. However, I have colleagues who are using it on a 12 MHz 286 and an 8 MHz 286, respectively, both with Hercules. All of us find the performance of Word for Windows quite acceptable. I don't think you'll have any problems with your 12 MHz 286. In short, it sounds like you would really be pleased by Word for Windows. If you still aren't sure, why not call Microsoft and ask them to send you the demonstration version of Word for Windows? Then you can play with it yourself and see what it's really like. It only costs $4.95, I think. Unfortunately, WordPerfect does not offer a demo, so you won't be able to do a head-to-head comparison unless you know someone who will let you play with WordPerfect on their machine.
eric@clutx.clarkson.edu (Eric France) (05/04/90)
Friendly, opposing viewpoint: I am currently using both WordPerfect 5.0
and WinWord on separate, identical computers. There are some differences
which should be noted:
WinWord has a problem with importing graphics (even from other Microsoft
products) -- see recent appends for more information. WP 5.0, on the
other hand, comes not only with a screen cap util which manufactures
disk files it can import, it also has a format converter which will
import *many* other formats -- even MS formats ;) -- into .WPG
(WordPerfect Graphics format).
The nifty WYSIWYG interface that WinWord boasts means processing
overhead -- I'm a fast worker and I find myself being slowed down
when I use WinWord. Windows is continuously paging memory from the
hard disk, which only exacerbates the condition. WP, OTOH, fairly
zips along with me.
I have a 1.2M disk with a functional WP environment (if you don't
need the speller or thesaurus, it's really not very big). I carry
it around campus and use it on any machine I encounter. This is
*very* handy for me -- your actual mileage may vary.
When printing from WinWord, you better not be in a hurry. You can
still work at your console while the print queue is cranking, but
doing so creates a visible slowdown in printing (even worse than
normal). WP -- no sweat. You initiate the print sequence, and
drop back into the editor. Almost transparent.
Disclaimer: I don't hate WinWord, in fact I'm rapidly getting used
to it. If you have a fast system and a *really* fast hard disk,
the GUI is a nice way to go. (There, I damned it with faint
praise....heheheheheh) ;)
Eric France | Don't look back, look straight ahead,
Clarkson University | don't turn away to the voice, it said,
| don't look back, yesterday's gone,
eric@clutx.clarkson.edu | don't turn away, you can take it on.... -RBakm@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (05/04/90)
In article <2591@ariel.unm.edu> dcaffey@hydra.unm.edu (Dom Caffey) writes: > >To whoever would like to offer comments: > > I've been using WordPerfect at my local university's computing >facilities for quite some time but recently discovered how neat it >is to be able to work in a multitasking, windowing environment such >as MS-Windows for the 386 machines. Well, I find that ability to jump between tasks (mainly communication and word processing for me) the main reason I went for WinWord. I also think that WinWord is a really inutuitive program (I am gung ho for icons/graphics objects, mice etc). I've been working on a complicated manual with graphics, and other such things, and I can work on it and then log into my Univ's machines to get stuff (because of Windows, and WinQVT or Telix running in a Window. Try it. I think you'll like it. kartik ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Department of Computer Science akm@oregon.BITNET University of Oregon
jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Confusion Reigns) (05/06/90)
In article <90123.173417LAIH@QUCDN.BITNET> LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Hubert Lai) writes: >You ask about how Microsoft Word for Windows and WordPerfect 5.x compare, >and whether Word for Windows has all of the features and capabilities of >WordPerfect. In short, the answer is yes. Word and WordPerfect are each >approximately equal in terms of their feature sets. WordPerfect 5.1 introduces a VERY useful feature for which there is no parallel in WFW: the Equation Editor. Many people may have no use for this, but I am an undergrad at a science/engineering school, and thus use it very frequently. On the other hand, I know there is a dedicated equation generator for the Mac (the name escapes me at the moment); is there one for Windows? In article <1990May4.041614.7089@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >Well, I find that ability to jump between tasks (mainly communication >and word processing for me) the main reason I went for WinWord. I also >think that WinWord is a really inutuitive program (I am gung ho for >icons/graphics objects, mice etc). I've been working on a complicated >manual with graphics, and other such things, and I can work on it and >then log into my Univ's machines to get stuff (because of Windows, and >WinQVT or Telix running in a Window. With DESQview (or Windows, for that matter), I can get WP running in one window, Kermit in another, Telix in another, and DOS in one more. What's your point? :) -- Jason Merrill jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu
u803535@lanl.gov (Wayne A. Vieira) (05/06/90)
In article <6992@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Confusion Reigns) writes: >With DESQview (or Windows, for that matter), I can get WP running in one >window, Kermit in another, Telix in another, and DOS in one more. What's >your point? :) For me, the point is that while using DesqView on a 386 with 4 megs of memory performance isn't too bad, but if you own a 286 with only 1-2 megs of memory and financial considerations do not allow hardware upgrades soon, "multitasking" programmes whose sum memory requirements total more than 640K (independent on the amount of memory you have) is technically impossible with making a purchase of additional "special" hardware. Other 286 Desqview users can confirm this. REAL multitasking beyond 640K on a 286 requires enhanced EMS4.0 (I think AST and Intel are the only manufact- urers of such an animal) 98% (un-scientific estimate on my part) of extended and expanded memory boards for 286's DO NOT SUPPORT this! This is not a requirement of WINDOWS. While under some conditions, DV shows better performance, on a 286 there are just some limitations that aren't there on Windows. Until I can afford a decent 386 system with lots of memory, Windows Apps better fill my requirements that "normal" apps under desqview. -- Wayne A. Vieira |Disclaimer: Right!!! Cray Research Inc. | As if someone would let *me* waynev@craywr.cray.com | speak on their behalf...
root@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Rooter) (05/07/90)
Followup-To: Distributio Organization: Stanford University, Computer Science Department Keywords: From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) Path: jessica.stanford.edu!aaron In article <6992@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Confusion Reigns) writes: >WordPerfect 5.1 introduces a VERY useful feature for which there is no >parallel in WFW: the Equation Editor. Many people may have no use for Um, I just got finished with a report that I did with WFW and used WFW's built-in equation handling facility. Now, I don't know how it compares to WordPerfect's, but it does do integrals, summations, matrices, radicals, super/subscripting, and so forth. What I like is the ability to split the screen and have the "final" equation in one pane and the equation codes in the other. It's much easier to double-check a derivation if you can see more than a single equation, too. Oh, and there is (going to be?) a Windows version of Math Text, one of the Macintosh dedicated equation editors. Should list for $149 and be just like the Mac version. Aaron Wallace
kleonard@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Ken Leonard) (05/07/90)
In article <1990May3.231155.18625@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> eric@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
* Friendly, opposing viewpoint: I am currently using both WordPerfect 5.0
* and WinWord on separate, identical computers. There are some differences
---
I'm in a similar situation, except I'm using Word 5.0
---
* which should be noted:
*
* WinWord has a problem with importing graphics (even from other Microsoft
---
Word 5.0 also has some problems (which the MS folk _absolutely_ refuse to
acknowledge.) But sinec my application is limited (mostly) to using
Postscript drawing files, I've worked up a Word macro to do the fixup I need.
Since doing the fix (over a year ago,) It works just fine.
---
* products) -- see recent appends for more information. WP 5.0, on the
---
Interrogative "recent appends." What do you mean?
---
* other hand, comes not only with a screen cap util which manufactures
* disk files it can import, it also has a format converter which will
* import *many* other formats -- even MS formats ;) -- into .WPG
* (WordPerfect Graphics format).
---
But I find it _very_ cumbersome to use.
---
* The nifty WYSIWYG interface that WinWord boasts means processing
* overhead -- I'm a fast worker and I find myself being slowed down
---
How much WYSIWYG do you have turned on? Or is that a non-question with
WFW? With my Word 5.0, The WYSIWYGness is selectable--I don't need
to turn it on until I'm ready to very final version of my document.
And I find Word much more predictable in what it will do with certain
things in the document, so I actually need WYSIWYG less often than with
WordPerfect.
---
* when I use WinWord. Windows is continuously paging memory from the
* hard disk, which only exacerbates the condition. WP, OTOH, fairly
---
Is your system just a little bit short on memory? If you want the
full WYSIWYG, you've got to allow room for it to be done.
---
* zips along with me.
*
* I have a 1.2M disk with a functional WP environment (if you don't
* need the speller or thesaurus, it's really not very big). I carry
* it around campus and use it on any machine I encounter. This is
---
Word 5 could live in the same environment--don't forget that WFW _does_
effectively carry full WIN around with it.
---
* *very* handy for me -- your actual mileage may vary.
*
* When printing from WinWord, you better not be in a hurry. You can
* still work at your console while the print queue is cranking, but
---
Are you using WIN printdrivers? They _are_ notoriously slow. Try
running WPerf under windows with output via the spooler and it will
be just as slow.
---
* doing so creates a visible slowdown in printing (even worse than
* normal). WP -- no sweat. You initiate the print sequence, and
* drop back into the editor. Almost transparent.
*
* Disclaimer: I don't hate WinWord, in fact I'm rapidly getting used
* to it. If you have a fast system and a *really* fast hard disk,
* the GUI is a nice way to go. (There, I damned it with faint
* praise....heheheheheh) ;)
---
And I'm getting accustomed to Wperf, but still _hate_ the functionkey
interface and the way the tabular menus work.
-------------------------------
regardz,
Keneric@clutx.clarkson.edu (Eric France) (05/08/90)
kleonard@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Ken Leonard): > * ME!! > * Friendly, opposing viewpoint: I am currently using both WordPerfect 5.0 > * and WinWord on separate, identical computers. There are some differences > --- > I'm in a similar situation, except I'm using Word 5.0 > --- > * which should be noted: > * > * WinWord has a problem with importing graphics (even from other Microsoft > --- > Word 5.0 also has some problems (which the MS folk _absolutely_ refuse to > acknowledge.) But sinec my application is limited (mostly) to using > Postscript drawing files, I've worked up a Word macro to do the fixup I need. > Since doing the fix (over a year ago,) It works just fine. > --- > * products) -- see recent appends for more information. WP 5.0, on the > --- > Interrogative "recent appends." What do you mean? > --- You should get away from the terminal for a while -- you're starting to sound like Robby the Robot. "Interrogative Recent Appends?" ;) By "appends" I meant articles -- too much time spent hanging around IBM. ;) I was referring to the guy who couldn't import a) .MSP files from WinPaint b) MacWord graphics (or WinWord graphics into MacWord). > * other hand, comes not only with a screen cap util which manufactures > * disk files it can import, it also has a format converter which will > * import *many* other formats -- even MS formats ;) -- into .WPG > * (WordPerfect Graphics format). > --- > But I find it _very_ cumbersome to use. > --- As always, your actual mileage may vary -- I have found it to be blissfully simple. > * The nifty WYSIWYG interface that WinWord boasts means processing > * overhead -- I'm a fast worker and I find myself being slowed down > --- > How much WYSIWYG do you have turned on? Or is that a non-question with > WFW? With my Word 5.0, The WYSIWYGness is selectable--I don't need > to turn it on until I'm ready to very final version of my document. > And I find Word much more predictable in what it will do with certain > things in the document, so I actually need WYSIWYG less often than with > WordPerfect. > --- No argument -- if you can turn down the WYSIWYG, then you'll decrease overhead and increase throughput (great ghu, now I'M starting to sound like Robby....). However, I was directly responding to a guy who was plugging WinWord based on its WYSIWYG interface...WinWord specifically, no mention of PlainWord ;), I have no experience with it. > * when I use WinWord. Windows is continuously paging memory from the > * hard disk, which only exacerbates the condition. WP, OTOH, fairly > --- > Is your system just a little bit short on memory? If you want the > full WYSIWYG, you've got to allow room for it to be done. > --- Is my wallet just a little bit short of money? I did specify that I was running both programs on identical systems -- so it is a fair comparison. However, I am willing to stipulate that if your system has an extravagant amount of memory, WinWord performance may increase dramatically, and WP performance probably won't, being "just" a DOS app. > * zips along with me. > * > * I have a 1.2M disk with a functional WP environment (if you don't > * need the speller or thesaurus, it's really not very big). I carry > * it around campus and use it on any machine I encounter. This is > --- > Word 5 could live in the same environment--don't forget that WFW _does_ > effectively carry full WIN around with it. > --- Again, the comparison was between WinWord and WP. > * *very* handy for me -- your actual mileage may vary. > * > * When printing from WinWord, you better not be in a hurry. You can > * still work at your console while the print queue is cranking, but > --- > Are you using WIN printdrivers? They _are_ notoriously slow. Try > running WPerf under windows with output via the spooler and it will > be just as slow. > --- Admittedly, the fault lies with Windows, not WinWord. However, as intricately intertwined as they are, what's the difference which process is eating up all the cycles? > * doing so creates a visible slowdown in printing (even worse than > * normal). WP -- no sweat. You initiate the print sequence, and > * drop back into the editor. Almost transparent. > * > * Disclaimer: I don't hate WinWord, in fact I'm rapidly getting used > * to it. If you have a fast system and a *really* fast hard disk, > * the GUI is a nice way to go. (There, I damned it with faint > * praise....heheheheheh) ;) > --- > And I'm getting accustomed to Wperf, but still _hate_ the functionkey > interface and the way the tabular menus work. > ------------------------------- > regardz, > Ken Ah, but they're getting better! Salutationz, Eric France | Don't look back, look straight ahead, Clarkson University | don't turn away to the voice, it said, | don't look back, yesterday's gone, eric@clutx.clarkson.edu | don't turn away, you can take it on.... -RB
gchow@itcyyz.ipsa.reuter.com (george chow) (05/08/90)
In article <9339@lindy.Stanford.EDU> root@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Rooter) writes: >Oh, and there is (going to be?) a Windows version of Math Text, one of the ^^^^^^^^^ >Macintosh dedicated equation editors. Should list for $149 and be just >like the Mac version. I think the name is MathType.
todd@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Todd Ogasawara) (05/29/90)
In article <54571@microsoft.UUCP> georgem@microsoft.UUCP (George MOORE) writes: >I personally find that nothing compares to Winword in the amount of >malleability it provides. I've been really disappointed in what the I use Windows Word and found that it lacks a bunch of features that are in the older Word 5.0. 1. It cannot shade paragraphs, etc. 2. You cannot arbitrarily place lines around paragraphs (try this.. How can you place lines above and below the same paragraph?). There are other oddities.. I find it odd that Windows Word cannot do a number of things that are easy to do in Word 5.0. Conversely, there are things that Winword can do that are terribly hard to do in Word 5.0 (table creation comes to mind). >To me, as a C programmer, the most powerful aspect of Winword is the >fact that the entire program sits on top of a BASIC interpreter. Now >I know a lot of you shudder at the mention of the word "BASIC", but I happen to think that WordBASIC is a neat idea myself. But the darn thing sure is slow (and I use Winword on a 25MHz 386 with 32K of instruction cache and 5M of expanded RAM). BTW.. If you want to see WordBASIC die real bad, try this... Go through the motions that are needed to send a document to the printer. When you get to the point where Winword wants either "Ok" to send it or "Cancel" to abort the print request, select "Cancel". Then have fun watching Winword totally barf while trying to get out of printing. You will also find that a number of parameters are set very oddly (view is set to "all" and measurement is set to "points" no matter what the settings were before you entered the print request). I find that I like Winword a lot, but it sure is a buggy piece of software. It feels more like a beta version than a production release...todd -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU