pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au (11/15/90)
WingZ Is anyone who bought WingZ still using it? Or have we all drifted back to Excel/ Cricket Graph/ other graphing programs? I find the graphics in WingZ a pain: not easy to set defaults - cannot double click on most chart items to change them - too many menus - too many hierarchical menus - to many 'dividing line' in the menus - too few 'graphic menus' a.k.a. excel's or cricket graph's plot type menus - version 1.1 takes more RAM than version 1 All in all, a program fro which I paid over $200 for (including the upgrade) since I thought that anything would be better than Excel, is worse than Excel. Where is a 'scientific spreadsheet'? *====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* Phil Ryan ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics Canberra, Australia pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au phone:(61 6) 249 4678 fax:(61 6) 249 0741
mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) (11/15/90)
Sorry, dude, but I like WingZ. The way that I look at it, at least I could rewrite the entire program using the scripting functions. I dunno. I hate Excel and can't do enough with WingZ. You're right that in some cases WingZ is a pain, but I think that it's a minority of the time. For some of the presentations that I've done, Excel would cry and wimper and run back to Bill claiming that I was picking on it, but WingZ just stands there and churns 'em out. Mike. ----- mike@pyrite.som. oh shit, I forgot my address!
mday@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu (Mark Day) (11/16/90)
mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) writes: >Sorry, dude, but I like WingZ. The way that I look at it, at least I could >rewrite the entire program using the scripting functions. I dunno. I >hate Excel and can't do enough with WingZ. You're right that in some cases >WingZ is a pain, but I think that it's a minority of the time. ^^^^^^^^ Not for me. I notice the clumsiness of the WingZ interface *every* time I use it. I put up with it because it runs on our SPARCS (if Campus Technology would ever ship our order) as well as Macs. (BTW, I think that this type of cross platform compatiblilty will become much more prevalent in the future) The crux of the matter for me is that simple actions that I repeat all of the time can take way too much effort on WingZ. To wit: 1. After RTFM, I haven't found a way to set the default font. Everytime I start up, there's Geneva staring me in the face. Not real useful to anyone using a LaserWriter. 2. Changing style attributes involves *way* too many hierarchical menus. Separate ones for font, style, size, justification, etc. They desperately need a dialog box that allows you to set all these attributes at once. Decent product, lousy interface. Just my 2 cents... Mark Day Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry mday@zeno.mmwb.ucsf.edu University of California, San Francisco ..ucbvax!ucsfcgl!mday Voice: (415) 476-5326 FAX: (415) 476-0688
wiseman@tellabs.com (Jeff Wiseman) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov15.142402.9037@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) writes: >Sorry, dude, but I like WingZ. The way that I look at it, at least I could >rewrite the entire program using the scripting functions. I dunno. I >hate Excel and can't do enough with WingZ. You're right that in some cases >WingZ is a pain, but I think that it's a minority of the time. For I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Just think of all you actually get in only version 1.1! I figure that if they can release an initial version that is as orthogonal as this, that is significant. All that really appears to remain IMHO is the trim and performance issues (plus maybe one or two SIGNIFICANT bugs like not being able to lock a cells attributes leaving the data changable but hey! Nobody's perfect :-) Some of the "clumsyness" of Wingz seems to be because of its generic attributes (eg. since an object is considered part of a chart, you scroll it by scrolling the chart). In general, I have found that when you build a highly modular and structured system, it tends to be slow initially until you get the chance to add the performance enhancements. I dunno. I have been involved in real-time software engineering for over 17 years now and I feel that I would rather have a product that exhibits the generic, modular, and orthogonal attributes that Wingz appears to have and wait for the enhancements than to get a product that has such a seemingly bizzare structure with all kinds of side-effect type bugs in it as Excel does. I know what happens when you try to "fix" or "improve" poorly structured software. A lot can be told about the "guts" of an application by looking at how it's interface behaves...even on a Mac which has a formalized type interface. Structure promotes more structure and ensuing solidness. A lack of structure always encourages entropy. From what I have seen, Wingz exhibits a lot of attributes that promote the notion that it has been built relatively well. I have seen very little in Microsoft products to make me feel this way. Don't get me wrong! I am NOT saying that MS products are bad or anything like that (I'll let the "net-wars" determine that :-). I am saying that I do not trust MS products (not to mention the fact that MS expected me to shell out $100.00 for an upgrade that should have been an upDATE just so my spreadsheet would use all the memory in my mac available to it and NOT ASSUME that it was still running on a PC's architecture). 'course then there are marketing and support issues, but what can I say? I'm an engineer! I want a sound product. Not necessarily one that everyone else buys, or is faster, or has more third party support. I want a product that regardless of how it behaves, it is predictable and stable, at least for my own use. But then again, even my friends think I'm weird at times :-) -- Jeff Wiseman: ....uunet!tellab5!wiseman OR wiseman@TELLABS.COM
patrinos@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Anthony J. Patrinos) (11/16/90)
In article <mday.658693872@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu> mday@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu (Mark Day) writes: >mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) writes: > >>Sorry, dude, but I like WingZ. The way that I look at it, at least I could >>rewrite the entire program using the scripting functions. I dunno. I >>hate Excel and can't do enough with WingZ. You're right that in some cases >>WingZ is a pain, but I think that it's a minority of the time. > ^^^^^^^^ >Not for me. I notice the clumsiness of the WingZ interface *every* time I use it. >I put up with it because it runs on our SPARCS (if Campus Technology would ever >ship our order) as well as Macs. (BTW, I think that this type of cross platform >compatiblilty will become much more prevalent in the future) > >The crux of the matter for me is that simple actions that I repeat all of the time >can take way too much effort on WingZ. To wit: > >1. After RTFM, I haven't found a way to set the default font. Everytime I start > up, there's Geneva staring me in the face. Not real useful to anyone using > a LaserWriter. > >2. Changing style attributes involves *way* too many hierarchical menus. > Separate ones for font, style, size, justification, etc. They desperately > need a dialog box that allows you to set all these attributes at once. > > >Decent product, lousy interface. >Just my 2 cents... >Mark Day >Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry mday@zeno.mmwb.ucsf.edu >University of California, San Francisco ..ucbvax!ucsfcgl!mday >Voice: (415) 476-5326 FAX: (415) 476-0688 To: mday@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu Subject: Re: Scientific Spreadsheet? WingZ is crap! Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps In-Reply-To: <mday.658693872@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu> References: <1990Nov15.100655.3353@csc.anu.oz.au> <1990Nov15.142402.9037@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Cc: Bcc: In article <mday.658693872@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu> you write: ... > >>Sorry, dude, but I like WingZ. The way that I look at it, at least I could >>rewrite the entire program using the scripting functions. I dunno. I >>hate Excel and can't do enough with WingZ. You're right that in some cases >>WingZ is a pain, but I think that it's a minority of the time. > ^^^^^^^^ >Not for me. I notice the clumsiness of the WingZ interface *every* time I use it. >I put up with it because it runs on our SPARCS (if Campus Technology would ever >ship our order) as well as Macs. (BTW, I think that this type of cross platform >compatiblilty will become much more prevalent in the future) > >The crux of the matter for me is that simple actions that I repeat all of the time >can take way too much effort on WingZ. To wit: > >1. After RTFM, I haven't found a way to set the default font. Everytime I start > up, there's Geneva staring me in the face. Not real useful to anyone using > a LaserWriter. > >2. Changing style attributes involves *way* too many hierarchical menus. > Separate ones for font, style, size, justification, etc. They desperately > need a dialog box that allows you to set all these attributes at once. > > >Decent product, lousy interface. >Just my 2 cents... >Mark Day >Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry mday@zeno.mmwb.ucsf.edu >University of California, San Francisco ..ucbvax!ucsfcgl!mday >Voice: (415) 476-5326 FAX: (415) 476-0688 It's fairly easy in Wingz to write macros (either using Hyperscript or recording the keyboard and mouse actions). Writing a macro to globally change the font attributes and saving it as Startup would make it be invoked every time you start the program. The menus in Wings are fully customizable, so if you don't like them you can change their positions, add new ones or remove the ones you don't need. The manual has examples of how this can be done. (Again, saving everything in the Startup macro sheet makes the changes essentially become defaults.) Regards Tony Patrinos
changwoo@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Chang P. Woo) (11/16/90)
mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) writes: >Sorry, dude, but I like WingZ. The way that I look at it, at least I could >rewrite the entire program using the scripting functions. I dunno. I >hate Excel and can't do enough with WingZ. You're right that in some cases >WingZ is a pain, but I think that it's a minority of the time. For >some of the presentations that I've done, Excel would cry and wimper and >run back to Bill claiming that I was picking on it, but WingZ just stands >there and churns 'em out. The major problem that I have had with Wingz is the way it deals with charts. Quite often I need to paste charts to word processors, and doing it with Wingz is a painful exercise: the idea of changing the background brush (or whatever) to white and other weird stuffs are ways above my comprehension level. Of course, the clunky user interface, as mentioned by others, tries my patience. I am using Excel these days. I miss all the neat things that I used to do with the Hyperscript, but I need to have things *done* in a reasonable amount of time. As a related subject, is there anyone who wants buy my copy of the academic edition of Wingz 1.1? It is complete with the new 1.1 manual (along with Hyperscript manual). I would sell it for $50 (I paid $89 + $5 s/h + $40? for upgrade to the version 1.1 manuals). Since it is the academic edition, the buyer needs to be in an academic institution. Chang -- Chang P. Woo Chang.P.Woo@dartmouth.EDU (preferred) changwoo@eleazar.dartmouth.EDU
typ125m@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr John Wilkins) (11/16/90)
pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: >WingZ >Is anyone who bought WingZ still using it? Or have we all drifted back to >Excel/ Cricket Graph/ other graphing programs? >I find the graphics in WingZ a pain: not easy to set defaults - cannot >double click on most chart items to change them - too many menus - too many >hierarchical menus - to many 'dividing line' in the menus - too few >'graphic menus' a.k.a. excel's or cricket graph's plot type menus - version >1.1 takes more RAM than version 1 >All in all, a program fro which I paid over $200 for (including the >upgrade) since I thought that anything would be better than Excel, is >worse than Excel. >Where is a 'scientific spreadsheet'? >*====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* >Phil Ryan >ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics >Canberra, Australia Yes, we still use it. Once you get to know the ENORMOUS hyperscript language, it actually is very nice. As usual, it's horses for courses Phil. Choice of software standard packages often seems to me a very aesthetically based one, not unlike the choice of a religion -- you tend to stick to, or measure by, the first one you met. Think of all the WordStar fools there are out there. -- John Wilkins, Manager, Publishing & Advertising, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Internet: john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au Disclaimer (in Quantificational Calculus):
wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov16.025616.878@rodan.acs.syr.edu> patrinos@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Anthony J. Patrinos) writes: > >It's fairly easy in Wingz to write macros (either using Hyperscript or >recording the keyboard and mouse actions). Writing a macro to >globally change the font attributes and saving it as Startup would >make it be invoked every time you start the program. ...but Wingz doesn't have a global font attribute. Or if they do, they don't know about, and haven't told me when I've called... >The menus in Wings are fully customizable, so if you don't like them >you can change their positions, add new ones or remove the ones you >don't need. The manual has examples of how this can be done. (Again, >saving everything in the Startup macro sheet makes the changes >essentially become defaults.) ...inclusion of customizable menus is a negative sign to me, in a number of ways. It tends to signal that the program isn't well-designed enough to supply well-done menus on its own. The feature itself isn't a problem; it's merely that its inclusion tends to worry me. Witness Microsoft and MSWord. - Lee | William Lee Nussbaum, Jr. | wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
simon@cs.ualberta.ca (Simon Tortike) (11/17/90)
pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au writes: >WingZ >Is anyone who bought WingZ still using it? Or have we all drifted back to >Excel/ Cricket Graph/ other graphing programs? >worse than Excel. >Where is a 'scientific spreadsheet'? Well, I have been using Trapeze for several years and have found it much better for my purposes than Excel. I have only used the demos for WingZ, so can not comment too much on it, but it looked like it had more of the whiz-bang business graphics than scientific/engineering type stuff. When Trapeze is not enough, I use Igor (you should see the ternary phase diagrams!). Note that these programs will not help you with 3-d perspective plots. If you have enough money, or can put together a bulk education order (much cheaper), try MatLab. If you ever missed the functionality of APL (can you say `linear algebra' and smile?) and wanted the ease of using the Mac, try some of these programs. You might have trouble getting Trapeze, but version 2.1 still runs fine on a MacIIx and System 6.0.5. with MultiFinder. >*====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* >Phil Ryan >ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics >Canberra, Australia >pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au phone:(61 6) 249 4678 fax:(61 6) 249 0741 Regards, -- W. Simon Tortike, | tel : 403/492-3338 Dept of Mining, Metallurgical | fax : 403/492-7219 and Petroleum Engineering, | CA*net : simon@cs.UAlberta.CA University of Alberta, | uucp : simon@alberta.uucp Edmonton, AB, CANADA T6G 2G6. | CA*net : simon@mmpe.mineral.UAlberta.CA
mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) (11/18/90)
In article <mday.658693872@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu> mday@pollack.mmwb.ucsf.edu (Mark Day) writes: >The crux of the matter for me is that simple actions that I repeat all of the time >can take way too much effort on WingZ. To wit: > >1. After RTFM, I haven't found a way to set the default font. Everytime I start > up, there's Geneva staring me in the face. Not real useful to anyone using > a LaserWriter. > >2. Changing style attributes involves *way* too many hierarchical menus. > Separate ones for font, style, size, justification, etc. They desperately > need a dialog box that allows you to set all these attributes at once. O.K., I can understand those gripes, but that's what the scripting feature is all about: you can customize the interface to your own needs. If you have some set of commands you repeat all the time, just turn on the scripting, and create a macro by doing what you do. If you don't like the menu structure, rearrange it! WingZ is only a clumsy as you let it be. At least I have a choice of how I want it. Mike.
mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) (11/18/90)
In article <25793@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> changwoo@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Chang P. Woo) writes: >The major problem that I have had with Wingz is the way it deals with >charts. Quite often I need to paste charts to word processors, and doing >it with Wingz is a painful exercise: the idea of changing the >background brush (or whatever) to white and other weird stuffs are ways >above my comprehension level. Of course, the clunky user interface, as >mentioned by others, tries my patience. > >I am using Excel these days. I miss all the neat things that I used to >do with the Hyperscript, but I need to have things *done* in a >reasonable amount of time. I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about. WingZ allows you to customize everything and anything. WingZ by itself is simply a scripting processor with some built in functions (i.e. a language interpreter). If you don't like something about it, CHANGE IT! The details are right in the manual, and there are a bunch of books out there with neat routines that make the program very powerful indeed. I am screwed with Excel because obviously Microsoft and I think differently 'cause they make EVERYTHING complicated. I agree that the standard WingZ interface is clunky, but my customized one isn't. The only thing that limits your ability in WingZ is the amount of effort you are willing to put into designing your own spreadsheet. If you're willing to let someone else control the way you do things, then go with Excel. If you want to do it your way, read the WingZ manual and DO IT!!! Mike.
Bruce.Hoult@actrix.co.nz (Bruce Hoult) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov16.181000.23961@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) writes: > >The menus in Wings are fully customizable, so if you don't like them > >you can change their positions, add new ones or remove the ones you > >don't need. The manual has examples of how this can be done. (Again, > >saving everything in the Startup macro sheet makes the changes > >essentially become defaults.) > > ...inclusion of customizable menus is a negative sign to me, in a number of > ways. It tends to signal that the program isn't well-designed enough to > supply well-done menus on its own. The feature itself isn't a problem; it's > merely that its inclusion tends to worry me. Witness Microsoft and MSWord. > > - Lee It is my understanding that Wingz is in fact *not* the spreadsheet program that you see when you use it, but is actually an "engine" for creating spreadsheet programs. The standard interface is simply a HyperScript program that happens to be supplied with Wingz, in a non-human-readable form. -- Bruce Hoult Bruce.Hoult@actrix.gen.nz
pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au (11/19/90)
As the person who started this thread, I thought I'd add some more fuel to the fire about WingZ's problems. (for those who are interested the two best 'scientific spreadsheets' appear to be Trapeze and Igor. Igor is actually an incredibly fast graphing program, going at warp speed cf cricket graph, excel or wingz. ) In article <1990Nov17.165806.27579@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) writes: > In article <25793@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> changwoo@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Chang P. Woo) writes: >>The major problem that I have had with Wingz is the way it deals with >>charts. Quite often I need to paste charts to word processors, and doing [stuff deleted] > > I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about. WingZ allows you to > customize everything and anything. WingZ by itself is simply a scripting > processor with some built in functions (i.e. a language interpreter). If you > don't like something about it, CHANGE IT! The details are right in the manual, > and there are a bunch of books out there with neat routines that make the > program very powerful indeed. I am screwed with Excel because obviously > Microsoft and I think differently 'cause they make EVERYTHING complicated. I agree that Excel is not great, but WingZ is not the answer to all our prayers. > I agree that the standard WingZ interface is clunky, but my customized one > isn't. The only thing that limits your ability in WingZ is the amount of > effort you are willing to put into designing your own spreadsheet. If you're > willing to let someone else control the way you do things, then go with > Excel. If you want to do it your way, read the WingZ manual and DO IT!!! WingZ is still SLOOOOW, just like Excel. It doesn't like large data files, like Excel, it doesn't do x versus y versus z 3d charts, it only spreads out along a 'z axis' x versus y charts. The lack of 'interactivity' via double clicking on chart items really bugs me! Why couldn't the interface as shipped be more friendly? Surely some decent testing of the program by Mac users would have enlightened Informix? Icon-craziness is another thing: the icon bar is not obvious! How many have tried to plot a 'chart' by selecting a region of the spreadsheet only to then select the incorrect tool. In my opinion, this method of getting a chart in the first place is just as loopy as Excel's (where you have to select 'New' from the menu). I read the manual, and the Hyperscript manual, and thought that it was quite powerful and that it would be able to do what I wanted, but in the final analysis, the lack of speed generally and lack of logic with the graphics was just too much. I would love to see someone who does use WingZ extensively post their 'startup' docs or other useful Macros so that we who are complaining about it could see how it might be possible to improve it. I would like to be proved wrong - I want to use it but it bugs me every time I do 'n' heirarchical menus! *====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* Phil Ryan ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics Canberra, Australia pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au phone:(61 6) 249 4678 fax:(61 6) 249 0741
wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov18.054809.21637@actrix.co.nz> Bruce.Hoult@actrix.co.nz (Bruce Hoult) writes: >It is my understanding that Wingz is in fact *not* the spreadsheet program >that you see when you use it, but is actually an "engine" for creating >spreadsheet programs. The standard interface is simply a HyperScript >program that happens to be supplied with Wingz, in a non-human-readable >form. Ok. Makes a little more sense when you present it as a HyperScripted program (though, thinking about its dialog boxes, I should've realized that in the first place...), indicating, in some ways, that a lot more thought was put into the core than the interface. As long as that's under a modular system, it makes sense. It was just the thought of Wordliness that disturbed me... :-) -Lee | William Lee Nussbaum, Jr. | wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu