dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu (D. Pokrass Jacobs) (09/11/90)
I am seeking advice on Appleworks. I have a IIGS with only one 3.5 inch drive and 1.25 meg. I purchased Appleworks GS Ver. 1.0 about a year ago. It seems to do flakey things like get hung up, and is very slow to bring up. Claris is willing to either upgrade it to Appleworks GS Version 1.1 or Appleworks 3.0. Can anyone tell me what advantages either one of these products would have over the software I currently have? -- David P. Jacobs Department of CS, Clemson University, Clemson SC 29634-1906 (803) 656-5872 e-mail: dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu
mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) (09/13/90)
In-Reply-To: message from dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu Recommendation: Get Appleworks 3.0 Although the specs on Appleworks GS make it sound pretty neat, the implementation is much less than optimum. It is slow and still has bugs. On the other hand, Appleworks 3.0 has had its bugs fixed through the good fortune of dedicated programmers from Beagle Bros issuing patcher disks. And with the Timeout and Jem series of add-ins, you have a much more capable program overall than in the GS version, which really isn't a version of Appleworks, but an entirely different program that Claris just issued with the Appleworks name. You also have a much better support network in place for Appleworks 3.0. The National Appleworks Users Group (NAUG) issues monthly journals with all sorts of tips and techniques. The Appleworks Programmers Association offers support and templates and both have electronic bulletin board systems. If you get on a Proline bbs, you can get your questions answered by some of the programmers that wrote the code! ______________________________________________________________________________ Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58A
adamr@pro-novapple.cts.com (Adam Robey) (09/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu The new version has GS/OS 5.0 (that will improve the speed A LOT). There are some bug fixes. I have encountered a few very serious bugs in it even in Version 1.1 [particularly in the database module] but some of the bugs have been fixed. I would definitely advise an upgrade. -AMR _____________________________________________________________________________ | PROLINE: pro-novapple!adamr | UUCP: crash!pro-novapple!adamr | | ARPA: crash!pro-novapple!adamr@nosc.mil | INET: adamr@pro-novapple.cts.com | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jazzman@claris.com (Sydney R. Polk) (09/14/90)
From article <10411@hubcap.clemson.edu>, by dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu (D. Pokrass Jacobs): > I am seeking advice on Appleworks. > I have a IIGS with only one 3.5 inch drive and 1.25 meg. > I purchased Appleworks GS Ver. 1.0 about a year ago. > It seems to do flakey things like get hung up, > and is very slow to bring up. > Claris is willing to either upgrade it to > Appleworks GS Version 1.1 or Appleworks 3.0. > Can anyone tell me what advantages > either one of these products would have > over the software I currently have? > -- > David P. Jacobs > Department of CS, Clemson University, Clemson SC 29634-1906 > (803) 656-5872 > e-mail: dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu I would recommend either one. AWGS 1.1 loads about six times faster (with the system updgrade. seriously), it has MANY fewer bugs, (I haven't crashed it in months), and is much better about using memory. AppleWorks 3.0 is text-based and runs on 1 3.5 disk, basically. You might still need a data disk. I prefer AWGS because it is WYSYWIG, and with the upgrade, it is a really solid package. Boy, I wish I could of said that about version 1.0, but I didn't control when we shipped it. Sigh. -- Syd Polk | Wherever you go, there you are. jazzman@claris.com | Let the music be your light. GO 'STROS! | These opinions are mine. Any resemblence to other GO RICE! | opinions, real or fictitious, is purely coincidence.
jazzman@claris.com (Sydney R. Polk) (09/14/90)
From article <4381@crash.cts.com>, by mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman): > In-Reply-To: message from dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu > > Recommendation: Get Appleworks 3.0 First of all, I do not want to get in a flame war about AWGS. I don't disagree with this statement. > > Although the specs on Appleworks GS make it sound pretty neat, the > implementation is much less than optimum. It is slow and still has bugs. Have you tried version 1.1? Believe me, it is much better. While AW 3.0 is still faster (esp. sorting), AWGS is faster than MacWrite II on a similar Mac (a Mac SE) at everything in the Word Processor, for example. > > On the other hand, Appleworks 3.0 has had its bugs fixed through the good > fortune of dedicated programmers from Beagle Bros issuing patcher disks. And > with the Timeout and Jem series of add-ins, you have a much more capable > program overall than in the GS version, which really isn't a version of > Appleworks, but an entirely different program that Claris just issued with the > Appleworks name. I guess I am just one of those lazy Claris programmers (ex-StyleWare) who only worked 90+ hour weeks for two years on AWGS. > You also have a much better support network in place for Appleworks 3.0. The > National Appleworks Users Group (NAUG) issues monthly journals with all sorts > of tips and techniques. The Appleworks Programmers Association offers support > and templates and both have electronic bulletin board systems. If you get on > a Proline bbs, you can get your questions answered by some of the programmers > that wrote the code! I can't argue with some of that (the user group stuff). However, Claris has one of the best technical support staffs of any software company, period. Also, here on the Internet, you can get questions about AWGS answered by some of the programmers who wrote the code also (like me, for instance) Beagle Bros did a great job writing code. However, that is only about 35 to 45% of the work on a project. Claris did all of the testing (that in and of itself is another 30%), docs, tech support, marketing, what ever. We did not just "put our label" on somebody elses stuff. As I said, I think that using AWGS 1.1 or AW 3.0 is a matter of personal opinion. They are both powerful, well-rounded, solid products. -- Syd Polk | Wherever you go, there you are. jazzman@claris.com | Let the music be your light. GO 'STROS! | These opinions are mine. Any resemblence to other GO RICE! | opinions, real or fictitious, is purely coincidence.
rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) (09/15/90)
jazzman@claris.com (Sydney R. Polk) writes: >> >> Although the specs on Appleworks GS make it sound pretty neat, the >> implementation is much less than optimum. It is slow and still has bugs. >Have you tried version 1.1? Believe me, it is much better. While AW 3.0 >is still faster (esp. sorting), AWGS is faster than MacWrite II on a similar >Mac (a Mac SE) at everything in the Word Processor, for example. I'm not associated with Claris and I agree with Syd on AWGS. I love it. I have a Mac SE beside my IIGS with Microsoft Word, Excel, and other programs on it. I rarely turn the SE on. I prefer AWGS. I have used AppleWorks Classic and it is a great program for the IIe, IIc series machines, but if you have a GS, get GS software to take advantage of the WYSIWYG features and graphics. I realize that Classic AppleWorks has add-ons that allow the use of graphics, but it is cumbersome. AWGS 1.1 integrates things very nicely. The only real criticism that I have is that it doesn't print mailing labels in draft mode from the database. So I export it to the word processor and print from there. I just hate having to remember all those commands in the text oriented programs. I'm not programmer, not a neophyte, so you can't use that argument my preference for the graphical interface. The interface, lets me concentrate on my work, not on working the program. >> program overall than in the GS version, which really isn't a version of >> Appleworks, but an entirely different program that Claris just issued with the >> Appleworks name. >I guess I am just one of those lazy Claris programmers (ex-StyleWare) who >only worked 90+ hour weeks for two years on AWGS. How would you have implemented a graphical interface version of AppleWorks? I had no problem using it. The programmers who wrote it learned a lot from the things people did on the Mac and came up with a super program. AWGS might be kind of cumbersome to use with a one-floppy system, but if you put all of those add-ins into AppleWorks Classic it gets REAL cumbersome on floppies. There are a lot of restrictions about what folders stuff goes in. >As I said, I think that using AWGS 1.1 or AW 3.0 is a matter of personal >opinion. They are both powerful, well-rounded, solid products. Both from Claris too! ;-) I agree, some folks just work better in a text environment, I prefer the graphical environment. So, Syd what are you working 90 hours a week on NOW?! (Can't tell us huh?, well I'm sure it awesome. >Syd Polk | Wherever you go, there you are. >jazzman@claris.com | Let the music be your light. >GO 'STROS! | These opinions are mine. Any resemblence to other >GO RICE! | opinions, real or fictitious, is purely coincidence. Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) (09/27/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jazzman@claris.com
Can we IIgs users expect an upgrade to AWGS? I'm sure you've heard all of the
weak points concerning that otherwise nice program. What I'm especially
interested in is being able to invert text and/or rotate it in the DTP module,
some more advanced Terminal features, more advanced WP features (widow/orphan
protection and better margin handling).
I don't think I'm asking too much, nor is anyone else for the money we've paid
expecting something on par with the venerable "AppleWorks" (which I paid the
full $250 for). I'd like my investment to pay off with a product I can use
beyond its limited capabilities it now has. Oh, and one more thing, we all
could use some POWERFUL MACROS! I haven't seen anything on the market that
compares to UltraMacros or other packages I've seen for the Mac, Amiga, and
IBM clone machines. Please use your influence for good, not evil...
--
/
\ / /
\\\' , / //
______________________________________________________ \\\//, _/ //,
ProLine: pro-beagle!lhaider \_-//' / //<,
/\\ Internet: lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com \ /// <//`
//\\\ UUCP: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider / >> \\\`__/_
///\\\\ /,)-^>> _\` \\\
////\\\\\ The opinions expressed here belong to (/ \\ / \\\
// IIgs \\\ no entity(s), living or dead! // _//\\\
------------------------------------------------------ ((` ((shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) (10/02/90)
In article <23225.chatter.infoapple@pro-beagle> lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) writes: >Can we IIgs users expect an upgrade to AWGS? I'm sure you've heard all of the >weak points concerning that otherwise nice program. > [various desired features] I am a moderately heavy user of AWGS too, and I'd really like to see an upgrade, even though I didn't get the last upgrade (1.1?) since it didn't sound like any significant improvements. Is there anywhere where you can suggest ideas for upgrades and be listened to. And, Apple/Claris, are you still working on AWGS or is it dead? --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/03/90)
In article <94606@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) writes: >I am a moderately heavy user of AWGS too, and I'd really like to see an >upgrade, even though I didn't get the last upgrade (1.1?) since it didn't sound >like any significant improvements. Is there anywhere where you can suggest >ideas for upgrades and be listened to. >And, Apple/Claris, are you still working on AWGS or is it dead? Not any significant improvements?? If I'm correct, which I think I am (or roughly so on this issue), AppleWorks GS loads an order of magnitude faster.. I don't have AppleWorks GS, so I can't tell for sure... But I believe that it was advertized that AppleWorks GS now loads in ~15 seconds for all modules off of a hard disk (obviously with System 5.0x and using QuickLoad/FastLoad/whatever-it's- called)... So lets just double that to 30 seconds (so that I'm not taking the absolute minimum time)... 10* that would be 300 seconds, or 5 minutes.. Isn't it true that it used to take ~5 minutes to preload all modules? If that's way off, we can take the 15 second time, and 10* that would be 2.5 minutes.. I'm much more sure it took at least 2.5 minutes. An order of magnitude in loading sure seems like one hell of an improvement to me! Plus I believe it was faster in some modules but I don't remember in which ones or for what exact functions. -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) (10/03/90)
In article <7418@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >In article <94606@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM I write: >> [statement that AWGS 1.1 wasn't a significant enough difference for me to >> upgrade to it] > > Not any significant improvements?? > > If I'm correct, which I think I am (or roughly so on this issue), >AppleWorks GS loads an order of magnitude faster.. I don't have AppleWorks >GS, so I can't tell for sure... But I believe that it was advertized that >AppleWorks GS now loads in ~15 seconds for all modules off of a hard >disk (obviously with System 5.0x and using QuickLoad/FastLoad/whatever-it's- >called)... Yes, you're correct (at least, according to the flyers), but is this an upgrade worth the amount Claris was charging? If I recall correctly, the amount was in the $30-$50 range. Also, on my Transwarped system with a 19 ms. hard drive, it only takes me about 10-20 secs to load the modules I normally use (spreadsheet, word processor, and/or database) under 5.0.2, so any speed improvements (say 10 sec. ?) are unlikely to buy much. I guess the main reason I'm writing this is (if Claris is listening) to say that if Claris didn't get any sales on the upgrades, then I hope they don't assume it indicates a lack of interest in AWGS. I know others who felt the same way as I did about the upgrade, though I don't doubt that some people were well served by the upgrade. Either the upgrade was too little for too much or it's improvements were under-marketed. --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
joseph@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Seymour Joseph) (10/04/90)
Also it might be important to note that older versions of AppleWorks GS are not totally compatible with system 5.0.2. So even if you are loading it quickly off of hard disk (I was too). It loads even faster, runs faster and most important, is more reliable under system 5.02 than the older versions..... Seymour