forrest@sybase.com (04/19/91)
I just received my upgrade to Quattro Pro 3.0. Although it is very
nice I think that if you don't want or need the WYSIWYG feature,
or the other presentation features, that it isn't worth upgrading
from QP 2.0. The WYSIWYG mode is much slower than the standard
display mode on my 20Mhz 386 (on a standard VGA display) and it is
harder to read. I probably won't use it 98% of the time. The other new
features are nice but in my opinion Borland should not have come out
with QP 3.0 so soon. Instead, they should have added more features so
that people not interested in WYSIWYG would be happier.
I've toyed with the idea of sending it back under the 60day guarantee
but it isn't worth the trouble since the upgrade only costs $49.95.
I don't want this to sound like there's anything wrong with QP 3.0.
There isn't and I'd still recommend it to anybody. It's just important
for people who are thinking about upgrading to make sure they know
what they're getting.
----
Anything you read here is my opinion and in no way represents Sybase, Inc.
Jon Forrest WB6EDM
forrest@sybase.com
{pacbell,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!forrest
415-596-3422leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) (04/19/91)
How much more disk space does this new version need. It seems like everytime a new version of a program comes out, the disk space it consumes is 50% greater than the last version. Windows programs are even worse, at maybe 100% increase. This has to stop! Mark
TEMNGT23@ysub.ysu.edu (Lou Anschuetz) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr19.165121.18856@pa.dec.com>, leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) says: > >How much more disk space does this new version need. >It seems like everytime a new version of a program comes >out, the disk space it consumes is 50% greater than the >last version. Windows programs are even worse, at maybe >100% increase. This has to stop! > It takes up about 3.8MB on my disk. I can't remember the size of 2.0 but I am sure it was less. Another beef: in WYSIWYG mode my mouse driver (though date late 1990) must not be 101% fully Microsoft compatible since a line is left at the bottom position of each pull down menu when it is removed. This is irritating in a program I just update twice in the last few months. You can fix it by hitting the WYSIWYG macro key, but that is not great programming.... Had I really understood the benefits better, I too would not have upgraded (and that is unusual with a Borland product). Lou Anschuetz temngt23@ysub.ysu.edu (virtual witty saying located here)
nfs@elan.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr19.165121.18856@pa.dec.com> leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) writes: >How much more disk space does this new version need? Quattro Pro 3.0 seems to take about 100Kb more space on my hard disk than 2.0. That is inconsequential, unlike the code bloat that we see in numerous other pieces of software. You want to see something huge -- buy Borland C++ and watch it eat 15 Mb. Norbert
gwni@troi.cc.rochester.edu (G. Wayne Nichols) (04/23/91)
Here's my 2 cents on the Quattro Pro upgrade to 3.0: I felt the upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 had more to offer than the "upgrade" frmm 1.0 to 2.0. In my opinion, 2.0 was really 1.1 (which followed 1.01), and V3 is really the first *real* upgrade to Quattro Pro. After all, how much "upgrading" can you do when the spreadsheet file format hasn't changed over the last 2 "major" upgrades?? (smiley face) *ONLY* because it is cheaper to upgrade from V2 to V3 than it is from V1 to V3, do I feel I got *any* real benefit from the V2 upgrade! P.S. - I don't really think V3 uses much more disk space than V2, but I haven't measured it, either. Somewhat depends on how many fonts you have generated. The sample spreadsheets seem to gone, though. By the way, you can save a good chunk of disk space by deleting Q1.MU (and probably 123.MU, also).
millerje@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (Jeff Miller) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr22.164953.26544@newross.Princeton.EDU> nfs@elan.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) writes: >In article <1991Apr19.165121.18856@pa.dec.com> leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) writes: >>How much more disk space does this new version need? > >Quattro Pro 3.0 seems to take about 100Kb more space on my hard disk >than 2.0. That is inconsequential, unlike the code bloat that we >see in numerous other pieces of software. > >You want to see something huge -- buy Borland C++ and watch it eat >15 Mb. > >Norbert Two points: 1. Unless you have <40MB of disk space, I personally think the quality of program is MUCH more important than the disk space it uses, and 2. We bought Borland c++ at work, and without the windows stuff and the examples, it fits in approx. 9 MB, which is not shabby considering that's a c, c++ compiler, debugger, assembler and profiler. _____________________________________________________________________________ | | | "NUKE THE UNBORN GAY WHALES!" | Jeff Miller | | - graffiti | millerje@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
mcastle@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Mike Castle {Nexus}) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr19.165121.18856@pa.dec.com> leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) writes: >How much more disk space does this new version need. >It seems like everytime a new version of a program comes >out, the disk space it consumes is 50% greater than the >last version. Windows programs are even worse, at maybe >100% increase. This has to stop! > >Mark My datastructures teacher is fond of saying "Memory is cheap" Maybe he should add, "but disk space is not." :-> -- Mike Castle (Nexus) s087891@umrvma.umr.edu or mcastle@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu Feel lonely? Want someone to send you e-mail? Just post to *.test with a Reply-To: field, and watch your mailbox explode!!
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (04/24/91)
In article <2653@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> mcastle@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Mike Castle {Nexus}) writes: >In article <1991Apr19.165121.18856@pa.dec.com> leadfoot@leftlane.ucs.dec.com (Mark Curtis) writes: >>How much more disk space does this new version need. >>It seems like everytime a new version of a program comes >>out, the disk space it consumes is 50% greater than the >>last version. Windows programs are even worse, at maybe >>100% increase. This has to stop! >> >>Mark > >My datastructures teacher is fond of saying "Memory is cheap" > >Maybe he should add, "but disk space is not." Heck, disk is cheaper than memory. $2500/1.2G = $2.08/1M RAM still goes for $50/1M. Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet