zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) (01/09/91)
Does anybody know when a better version of WordPerfect that will
function well under 2.0 will be out? Will there be an upgrade to 5.0,
5.1, or even (drool) 6.0?
Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240
Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.34MASRB@CMUVM.BITNET (JOHN OBERMESIK) (01/10/91)
When will the new WP be out?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa! In two weeks. Everyone knows that. At least that's what they've been telling me for the last three months when I call them every two weeks. Mind you, I am referring to the update on 4.1, not 5.0, 5.1, or even 6.0 or 9.756! If they cannot produce an update, how on earth will they make the giant leap to multiple fonts, graphics, etc. Sorry for the sarcasm, just being realistic. Still, all in all, I would choose WP over any of the other available wordprocessors for the Amiga. I can wait. Need more info? Tech support ph. 1-800-321-3204. John Obermesik 34MASRB@CMUVM.BITNET
Radagast@cup.portal.com (sullivan - segall) (01/11/91)
>Does anybody know when a better version of WordPerfect that will >function well under 2.0 will be out? Will there be an upgrade to 5.0, >5.1, or even (drool) 6.0? The last I heard, WP Corp. was only doing bug fixes for Amiga Word- Perfect, and had no plans to upgrade to 5.0. If they do start working on it again, it will undoubtedly skip rev 5. (Bug fixes have become available from time to time ever since support was diminished.) -kls
wally@pallas.athenanet.com (Wally Hartshorn) (01/12/91)
I bought a used copy of WordPerfect. I have the manual, the original disks, and it was registered by the original owner. After a time I heard that there was an upgrade available. I called WordPerfect to find out what I needed to do to get the registration transferred over to my name. They needed the registration number (which I have) and a letter from the original owner transferring his rights to me. Unfortunately, the original owner sold it because he was in the process of getting a divorce from his wife. The last I heard of him, he was living in a motel somewhere. :-( Anyway, I know someone who thinks they can get in touch with him, so I'll get that taken care of eventually. I use version 5.1 at work on a DOS machine and am VERY envious! I'd be happy if WordPerfect would just port over the non-graphics features and release a 4.5 or something. Perhaps now that the A3000 is out and seems to be gaining popularity with the professional crowd we might be able to talk WordPerfect into upgrading the Amiga version. -- Wally (uunet!pallas!wally or wally@athenanet.com) "Signature needed. Apply within."
ben@contact.uucp (Ben Eng) (01/13/91)
In <510@pallas.athenanet.com> wally@pallas.athenanet.com (Wally Hartshorn) writes: >I use version 5.1 at work on a DOS machine and am VERY envious! I'd >be happy if WordPerfect would just port over the non-graphics features >and release a 4.5 or something. Perhaps now that the A3000 is out and >seems to be gaining popularity with the professional crowd we might be >able to talk WordPerfect into upgrading the Amiga version. I can't see what is so desirable about WordPerfect 5.1 on a DOS machine, that cannot be done better on an Amiga without WordPerfect. WP5 is slow, clunky, chunky, over-weight, overbearing, and lacking in usefulness. If you really wanted to do "professional" typesetting, especially without graphics, then you should be using TeX. AmigaTeX in particular by Tomas Rokicki is by far the most wonderful piece of software that is available on the Amiga for any type of textual output. It is especially suited to "professionals" who need to typeset mathematics and tables. Unlike a WYSIWYG system, such as WP5 or a page layout program, TeX handles all the kerning, paragraphing, spacing, margins, page breaks, indenting, centering, and other subtle details automatically. Title pages, Abstracts, Tables of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables, Chapters, Sections, Subsections, Bibliographies, References, footnotes, figures, tables, references to numbering of tables/figures/etc, ALL numbering (page, chapter, section, etc.), and virtually everything else is all done for you. You just have to supply the meat and potatoes along with a bit of spice (some magic keywords) to do anything in LaTeX. And if you do want to include IFF or PostScript graphics in your document, that is possible too without any more effort than inserting a line of text. Additionally, the Amiga is such a superior environment for TeX because it is multitasking. Arexx allows one to have a completely integrated environment. With ARexx, CygnusEd, TeX, preview, ISpell, MetaFont, and some DVI printer drivers the AmigaTeX environment becomes much more desirable than WP5 or any other WYSIWYG system. Of course, these are only my opinions (subjective as they may be). I don't have any affiliation with Radical Eye Software. I just fell in love with AmigaTeX, and I think every Amiga owner should at least look into what AmigaTeX is, to see what they are missing. Ben -- Ben Eng | ben@contact.uucp (416)-431-3333 150 Beverley St. Apt #1L | Bix: jetpen Toronto, Ontario M5T 1Y6 | UofT Engineering Science: engb@ecf.toronto.edu _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_| Home: (416)-979-7885, (416)-979-8761
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (01/13/91)
In article <1991Jan12.223304.28382@contact.uucp> ben@contact.uucp (Ben Eng) writes: >I can't see what is so desirable about WordPerfect 5.1 on a DOS >machine, that cannot be done better on an Amiga without WordPerfect. >WP5 is slow, clunky, chunky, over-weight, overbearing, and lacking in >usefulness. > Many people trash WP. Many of those people (I obviously don't know you) never bothered to learn it. Word Perfect has a steep learning curve, but once you get the hang of it, WP is very powerful and producive. At that point, it is neither slow, nor clunky, nor chunky, nor over-weight, maybe overbearing but certainly not useless. >If you really wanted to do "professional" typesetting, especially >without graphics, then you should be using TeX. AmigaTeX in >particular by Tomas Rokicki is by far the most wonderful piece of >software that is available on the Amiga for any type of textual >output. It is especially suited to "professionals" who need to >typeset mathematics and tables. > Well if we want to talk about WP/editors that have a steep learning curve, TeX takes the cake. You can certainly become proficient in WordPerfect in the same time it takes to be proficient at TeX. WordPerfect handles kerning, etc., including high-quality fonts. Admittedly its main failing is that WP5.1 isn't available for the Amiga. Basically, WP just gets a lot more criticism than it deserves. It isn't the greatest thing the world has ever seen, but then it isn't the worst either. -- Ethan "Don't forget the importance of the family. It begins with the family. We're not going to redefine the family. Everybody knows the definition of the family. ... A child. ... A mother. ... A father. There are other arrangements of the family, but that is a family and family values." -- Dan Quayle, of course. Our beloved Vice President. It's just too easy!
skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (01/13/91)
In article <1991Jan12.223304.28382@contact.uucp> ben@contact.uucp (Ben Eng) writes: >In <510@pallas.athenanet.com> wally@pallas.athenanet.com (Wally Hartshorn) writes: > >>I use version 5.1 at work on a DOS machine and am VERY envious! I'd >>be happy if WordPerfect would just port over the non-graphics features >>and release a 4.5 or something. Perhaps now that the A3000 is out and >>seems to be gaining popularity with the professional crowd we might be >>able to talk WordPerfect into upgrading the Amiga version. > >Additionally, the Amiga is such a superior environment for TeX because >it is multitasking. Arexx allows one to have a completely integrated >environment. With ARexx, CygnusEd, TeX, preview, ISpell, MetaFont, >and some DVI printer drivers the AmigaTeX environment becomes much >more desirable than WP5 or any other WYSIWYG system. I'd like to put in a plug for MSS Excellence. For those of you who don't need the powerfull mathematical formatting capabilities of TeX there is MSS Excellence. Excellence 2.0 is a WYSIWYG word processor that supports postscript (even color postscript!), and virtual memory. The program is stable under 2.0 and seems to multitask very well. Excellence has a large dictionary (to check your spelling :) and a large thesarus (for those hard to describe things). I've heard that it is similar to Microsoft Word, though I've never used Word. That may or may not be a good point for people here. At least using the PostScript fonts, Excellence seems to be reasonably true to its WYSIWYG claim. -- George L. Skank | skank@iastate.edu |Fast cars, fast women, fast computers... Senior, Electrical Engineering |(not necessarily in that order)
tj@pons.cis.ohio-state.edu (Todd R Johnson) (01/14/91)
>> I'd like to put in a plug for MSS Excellence. For those of you >>who don't need the powerfull mathematical formatting capabilities of TeX >>there is MSS Excellence. Excellence 2.0 is a WYSIWYG word processor that >>supports postscript (even color postscript!), and virtual memory. The >>program is stable under 2.0 and seems to multitask very well. Excellence >>has a large dictionary (to check your spelling :) and a large thesarus (for >>those hard to describe things). I've heard that it is similar to Microsoft >>Word, though I've never used Word. That may or may not be a good point for >>people here. At least using the PostScript fonts, Excellence seems to be >>reasonably true to its WYSIWYG claim. Excellence 2.0 is in no way comparable to MS Word. It doesn't even come close. It is somewhat comparable to MacWrite II, but not as polished. I'll discuss the specific reasons below, but first I should start at the beginning of the story. Installation My cousin bought Excellence 2.0 over Christmas break. The first thing we tried to do was install it on is HD. No problem, I thought, the program comes with an installation program for HD. I followed the the instructions for starting the installation, but the installer wouldn't run. It turned out that it had been renamed on the disk. Once I ran the renamed version is started up and then shut down. I could never get the installer to work. Ok, I thought I'd just look inthe manual to see where to put the various files and what I'd need. Surprise, the manual just indicates that the installer program will put the files in the correct directory. Even finding the necessary assigns was difficult. After about an hour or so of frustration the program was finally installed. Inital Run Excellence 2.0 claims to run in 1 meg. That's true enough, it just doesn't do much. With a virus checker and dmouse running there wasn't even enough memory to bring up a file requestor. I tried to turn on the virtual memory option, but it didn't seem to work. On a one meg Mac you can run MS Word 4.0 just fine. You can't multitask (you can't even run Multifinder), but Word will work well. I wouldn't seriously consider Excellence unless you have more than one meg. Most of the functions wouldn't run in 1 meg. Printing Printing (to a 24 pin epson) was Ok. Nothing great. No where near as good as LaTeX output to the same printer. I suspect that the best way to print is to use postscript output and then print using Post. Features Where excellence really loses (as compared to MS Word) is in its lack of styles. In Word you can create named paragraph styles that indicate how to format a paragraph. For example, you can create a quote style that indents the right and left margin .5 inches and sets the font to 10 point (down from 12 point used in the rest of the document). Whenever you want a long quote, you just type it in and apply this style. Later on, you might decide that you want a different format quotes (perhaps you want 12 point text). Without styles you would have to go to each quote in your document and change each paragraph format. With styles, you just edit the quote style and all paragraphs with that format are automatically changed. Paragraph styles include many different parameters. You can set spacing, margins, tabs, space before and the parargaph, and many more. Styles are also hierarchically related in that lower styles can inherit features from higher styles. Thus, if all of your styles are organized under the normal style, you can change the font type of the normal style and the font type of every paragraph in your document will change. Instead of styles, Excellence has rulers that can be placed in the text. This is equivalent to MacWrite II. The problem is that there is no way to make global formatting changes. You must change every instance. You also don't have as many parameters to set, so you don't have as much control over the formatting. Finally, there is no way to automate bibliogrphies in Excellence. With Word, I use a program called EndNote that keeps a database of entries. When I want to reference an entry, I just place a pointer in the Word document to the entry. When I'm ready to print, EndNote reads the Word file and spits out another Word file with my bibliogrphy entries and in-text citations formatted according to a desired bibliographic style. EndNote also works with many other Mac WP's. If you really want to do WP on the Amiga, I'd suggest that you either buy AmigaTeX (or use a PD LaTeX) and resign yourself to the fact that some simple things will be impossibly difficult to do (just try to change a font or go from single to double spacing), or buy AMax II and Word 4.0 (which works well under Amax), or buy a Mac and Word. Another nice aspect of Word is that the educational discount price is only $69. I would caution, however, that all WYSIWYG word procesors (including Word and FrameMaker) still have serious limitations (No cross-referencing in Word 4.0, for example). If you absolutely must have the best, and you have the time to invest (you'll need lots if you really want to customize things), TeX or LaTeX is the only way to go. ---Todd -- Todd R. Johnson tj@cis.ohio-state.edu Laboratory for AI Research The Ohio State University
taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (01/14/91)
In <510@pallas.athenanet.com> wally@pallas.athenanet.com (Wally Hartshorn) writes: >>I use version 5.1 at work on a DOS machine and am VERY envious! I'd >>be happy if WordPerfect would just port over the non-graphics features >>and release a 4.5 or something. Perhaps now that the A3000 is out and >>seems to be gaining popularity with the professional crowd we might be >>able to talk WordPerfect into upgrading the Amiga version. And in <1991Jan12.223304.28382@contact.uucp> <ben@contact.uucp> writes: >If you really wanted to do "professional" typesetting, especially >without graphics, then you should be using TeX. AmigaTeX in >particular by Tomas Rokicki is by far the most wonderful piece of >software that is available on the Amiga for any type of textual >output. It is especially suited to "professionals" who need to >typeset mathematics and tables. Talk about a steep learning curve! TeX is fine, as long as you have a degree in typesetting or have a lot of time to learn to use it. TeX is powerful, but is in the same category with programs like AutoCAD in terms of how easy it is to learn to use it. And in <1991Jan13.092642.1759@news.iastate.edu> <skank@iastate.edu> writes: > I'd like to put in a plug for MSS Excellence. For those of you >who don't need the powerfull mathematical formatting capabilities of TeX >there is MSS Excellence. Excellence 2.0 is a WYSIWYG word processor that >supports postscript (even color postscript!), and virtual memory. The >program is stable under 2.0 and seems to multitask very well. Excellence >has a large dictionary (to check your spelling :) and a large thesarus (for >those hard to describe things). I've heard that it is similar to Microsoft >Word, though I've never used Word. That may or may not be a good point for >people here. At least using the PostScript fonts, Excellence seems to be >reasonably true to its WYSIWYG claim. Excellence! has the most misleading name of any Amiga program yet. It is better named 'mediocrity!' because that is exactly what it is. None of the Amiga word processors (yes, I have tried them all) can even begin to hold a candle to Microsoft Word for the Macintosh. Anyone who doubts this has never even tried Microsoft Word. All of the Amiga word processors (yes, *ALL* of them) are but fancy text editors compared to MS Word. Sure, the basic features are there -- such as color graphics, a thesaurus, a spell checker, and maybe a grammatics tool -- but none of them have any depth whatsoever. And it is in depth that MS Word truly excels over any other word processor. If anyone doubts that MS Word is not vastly better than any of the Amiga word processors, I suggest you take a look at the book entitled 'Working with Word, Second Edition'. This book is over 700 pages long, and yet none of it is fluff. Every one of the 700+ pages is filled with information on using MS Word. I had been using MS Word for over a year, and did not realize just how powerful this word processor is until I got this book. MS Word has features that go well beyond just word processing, and well into desktop publishing and typesetting. It rivals TeX capabilities, and yet is as easy-to-use as any of the Amiga word processors. I find, as I read the Amiga newsgroups and talk to Amiga users, that Amiga users think that the Amiga word processors are good simply because they have never seen anything powerful like MS Word. If they did, they would realize just how incredibly weak these word processors are. As for the original poster's question about when WordPerfect for the Amiga will be significantly upgraded, the answer is probably never. The WordPerfect company lost a lot of money on the Amiga, mostly out of stupidity on their part. They produced a non-graphics word processor for a graphics-oriented computer, and wondered why it wasn't selling. They know that if they had produced a non-graphics word processor for the MAC, it would have been regarded as an insult to the MAC, and they would be lucky to sell 10 copies. Yet they did precisely this to the Amiga. Unfortunately, Amiga users are more forgiving than MAC users, and it sold well for a while, but then sales slumped and they didn't know why. Finally, they threatened to cut Amiga support entirely, blaming the Amiga for lackluster sales when their own total stupidity was to blame. Don't try to pursuade Word Perfect into better supporting the Amiga, because it won't work. When WordPerfect Corp. threatened to cut development of Amiga WordPerfect entirely, I organized massive letter writing campaign (by leaving messages on CI$, and writing letters to a couple of Amiga magazines -- letters that were printed, BTW), and this only succeeded in getting them to keep a pathetic two programmers to update the Amiga version of WordPerfect. By comparison, WordPerfect keeps a staff of over 30 programmers to update the MAC version. The really sad part of this is that other big-name companies like Microsoft, Lotus, Aldus, and Adobe will probably never write software for the Amiga, because one big-name company tried to support the Amiga and lost a lot of money. -MB-
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > >In <510@pallas.athenanet.com> wally@pallas.athenanet.com (Wally Hartshorn) writes: > >>>I use version 5.1 at work on a DOS machine and am VERY envious! I'd >>>be happy if WordPerfect would just port over the non-graphics features >>>and release a 4.5 or something. Perhaps now that the A3000 is out and >>>seems to be gaining popularity with the professional crowd we might be >>>able to talk WordPerfect into upgrading the Amiga version. > >And in <1991Jan12.223304.28382@contact.uucp> <ben@contact.uucp> writes: > >>If you really wanted to do "professional" typesetting, especially >>without graphics, then you should be using TeX. AmigaTeX in >>particular by Tomas Rokicki is by far the most wonderful piece of >>software that is available on the Amiga for any type of textual >>output. It is especially suited to "professionals" who need to >>typeset mathematics and tables. > > Talk about a steep learning curve! TeX is fine, as long as you have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >a degree in typesetting or have a lot of time to learn to use it. TeX >is powerful, but is in the same category with programs like AutoCAD in >terms of how easy it is to learn to use it. > >And in <1991Jan13.092642.1759@news.iastate.edu> <skank@iastate.edu> writes: > >> I'd like to put in a plug for MSS Excellence. For those of you >>who don't need the powerfull mathematical formatting capabilities of TeX >>there is MSS Excellence. Excellence 2.0 is a WYSIWYG word processor that >>supports postscript (even color postscript!), and virtual memory. The >>program is stable under 2.0 and seems to multitask very well. Excellence >>has a large dictionary (to check your spelling :) and a large thesarus (for >>those hard to describe things). I've heard that it is similar to Microsoft >>Word, though I've never used Word. That may or may not be a good point for >>people here. At least using the PostScript fonts, Excellence seems to be >>reasonably true to its WYSIWYG claim. > > Excellence! has the most misleading name of any Amiga program yet. >It is better named 'mediocrity!' because that is exactly what it is. None >of the Amiga word processors (yes, I have tried them all) can even begin >to hold a candle to Microsoft Word for the Macintosh. Anyone who doubts >this has never even tried Microsoft Word. > > All of the Amiga word processors (yes, *ALL* of them) are but fancy >text editors compared to MS Word. Sure, the basic features are there -- >such as color graphics, a thesaurus, a spell checker, and maybe a >grammatics tool -- but none of them have any depth whatsoever. And it >is in depth that MS Word truly excels over any other word processor. ^^^^ > > If anyone doubts that MS Word is not vastly better than any of the >Amiga word processors, I suggest you take a look at the book entitled >'Working with Word, Second Edition'. This book is over 700 pages long, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and yet none of it is fluff. Every one of the 700+ pages is filled >with information on using MS Word. I had been using MS Word for over >a year, and did not realize just how powerful this word processor is >until I got this book. MS Word has features that go well beyond just >word processing, and well into desktop publishing and typesetting. >It rivals TeX capabilities, and yet is as easy-to-use as any of the >Amiga word processors. > > I find, as I read the Amiga newsgroups and talk to Amiga users, that >Amiga users think that the Amiga word processors are good simply because >they have never seen anything powerful like MS Word. If they did, they >would realize just how incredibly weak these word processors are. > > As for the original poster's question about when WordPerfect for the >Amiga will be significantly upgraded, the answer is probably never. The >WordPerfect company lost a lot of money on the Amiga, mostly out of >stupidity on their part. They produced a non-graphics word processor >for a graphics-oriented computer, and wondered why it wasn't selling. >They know that if they had produced a non-graphics word processor for >the MAC, it would have been regarded as an insult to the MAC, and they >would be lucky to sell 10 copies. Yet they did precisely this to the >Amiga. Unfortunately, Amiga users are more forgiving than MAC users, >and it sold well for a while, but then sales slumped and they didn't >know why. Finally, they threatened to cut Amiga support entirely, >blaming the Amiga for lackluster sales when their own total stupidity >was to blame. > > Don't try to pursuade Word Perfect into better supporting the Amiga, >because it won't work. When WordPerfect Corp. threatened to cut >development of Amiga WordPerfect entirely, I organized massive >letter writing campaign (by leaving messages on CI$, and writing >letters to a couple of Amiga magazines -- letters that were printed, >BTW), and this only succeeded in getting them to keep a pathetic >two programmers to update the Amiga version of WordPerfect. By >comparison, WordPerfect keeps a staff of over 30 programmers to >update the MAC version. > > The really sad part of this is that other big-name companies like >Microsoft, Lotus, Aldus, and Adobe will probably never write software >for the Amiga, because one big-name company tried to support the Amiga >and lost a lot of money. > > > -MB- WHo cares about Fancy Dancy big name companies. Most Microsoft stuff is crap, Lotus is a company whom I feel everyone should boycott(because of some of the stuff they are trying to do with copyright laws, databases of credit info, etc See comp.org.eff.talk, or the LPF at GNU) If Word is so great, why does it take 700 pages to describe how it works? Word Processors are supposed to be intuitive! You keep citing the 'depth' that Word has over other word processors, how about listing SPECIFIC examples and features? And how do you know what big name companies think? Lotus, Microsoft, etc don't lose money porting software, they MAKE money. I recall a discussion on a local net a while back that said Lotus requires you to pay them between $7-15 million to do a port (more than Commodore's profit for 1 year.) Even if they sold only 1 copy, they still made plenty. I just got a demo of TurboText (an Amiga editor from abcfd20). This is THEE best text editor I have ever seen. It blows Emacs, CED, TxEd, BRIEF out of the water. Marc, are you certain you own every Amiga word processor on the market? Are you a pirate? Why don't you post a complete list of every word processor on the Amiga (since you've tried them all) and what they are lacking to Word? It all boils down to 'bandwagon' and 'big-name.' Alot of people aren't using things because of their quality, but because of their name/reputation. People don't wear rolexes because they are the most technically superior watch on the market. They wear them because they are 'in' and expensive. The same thing applies to things like WordPerfect, 1-2-3, IBM. Generally, I am skeptical about statements like 'I have tried EVERYTHING else on the market, and noneof them compare to XYZ.'.
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > >It is better named 'mediocrity!' because that is exactly what it is. None >of the Amiga word processors (yes, I have tried them all) can even begin "I have tried them all" - Very impressive. Considering your vast experience I wouldn't dream of arguing with your conclusions. I would suggest trying new versions of those programs though. Prowrite 3.1 is a quite decent mid- range wp. The market for high-end wp and other expensive programs will grow for the amiga due to the price of the A3000. It is much easier to sell a program that costs less than the cpu. I won't keep you from testing more software now... /Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est." Credo in absurdum est?
glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) (01/14/91)
>It all boils down to 'bandwagon' and 'big-name.' Alot of people aren't using >things because of their quality, but because of their name/reputation. >People don't wear rolexes because they are the most technically superior >watch on the market. They wear them because they are 'in' and expensive. >The same thing applies to things like WordPerfect, 1-2-3, IBM. > >Generally, I am skeptical about statements like >'I have tried EVERYTHING else on the market, and noneof them compare to >XYZ.'. The Amiga has absolutely nothing that compares to WP, Lotus 123 or even DBase 3. So don't be so skeptical, _WE_ amiga users need these packages and the people, like you, who claim we don't, obviously don't have a need for such software. _F*CK_, I had to buy a bridgeboard just to use a good spreadsheet! Matt Crowd.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan14.092400.10827@marlin.jcu.edu.au> glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) writes: >The Amiga has absolutely nothing that compares to WP, Lotus 123 or even >DBase 3. So don't be so skeptical, _WE_ amiga users need these packages >and the people, like you, who claim we don't, obviously don't have a >need for such software. _F*CK_, I had to buy a bridgeboard just to use a >good spreadsheet! > >Matt Crowd. Now, now. Amiga "business" software isn't BAD. Current software is good, perhaps even quite good, however we do not have the highest support. Specifically, we lack good graphing utilities, which is surprising considering the Amiga has such good graphics. Most of the better Amiga graphing programs are mathematics packages, not spreadsheet/statistics. However, Analyze from GoldDisk and SuperBase from Precision are both good programs very usable for most people, just not the most demanding. -- Ethan "Don't forget the importance of the family. It begins with the family. We're not going to redefine the family. Everybody knows the definition of the family. ... A child. ... A mother. ... A father. There are other arrangements of the family, but that is a family and family values." -- Dan Quayle, of course. Our beloved Vice President. It's just too easy!
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/15/91)
God I hate my self for saying this but, Mark Barret is right about the
applications in the Amiga world. Have any of you who are flaming MB tried
Word or 123? Word for the MAC is one of the best, if not the best,
wordprocessors around. I have tried both Excellence and ProWrite (Yes, the
latest versions) and still they don't compare to Word. How do I try all of
these new programs? I told several friends that there were no Amiga
wordprocessors that compare to Word, and it has become their single goal in
life to prove me wrong. I hope that they do, but for now the Word is still
the best. As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the
standard (please no flames :) ). Go into any major company and see which
spredsheet they use, 9 times out of 10 it will be 123. You can complain all you
want about their lawsuits, but their support of their product is incredible,
and I for one am praying that they soon port 123 to the Amiga. So if you
want to flame Mark Barret, please try the programs you are taling about.
Ajaieas3714@isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story ) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan14.090123.15984@cs.umu.se> dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes: >In article <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> >>It is better named 'mediocrity!' because that is exactly what it is. None >>of the Amiga word processors (yes, I have tried them all) can even begin > >"I have tried them all" - Very impressive. Considering your vast experience >I wouldn't dream of arguing with your conclusions. I would suggest trying >new versions of those programs though. Prowrite 3.1 is a quite decent mid- >range wp. The market for high-end wp and other expensive programs will grow >for the amiga due to the price of the A3000. It is much easier to sell a >program that costs less than the cpu. I won't keep you from testing more >software now... > >/Jorgen Just curious about Prowrite 3.1... DOes it have decent text output on a dot matrix printer (9-pin).. I saw it on a friends computer and it seemed that it could only get good text output by using the graphics output of the printer.. really stupid and unacceptable.. not everyone can afford to wait for 20 mins while it prints out a page of text.. and its "Draft" mode using the printer's fonts didn't format well at all... came out all screwed up... I think I'll stick to my myriad PD text editors until SOMETHING with decent text output comes along. There is a REASON printers have a text mode... not everyone can afford a postscript or super 24-pin printer. ---Ezra -- "That's a rather moist turtle you have there!" Ezra Story, a student at RIT, and eas3714@isc.rit.edu, his mailing address.
epeterso@houligan.encore.com (Eric Peterson) (01/15/91)
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: | Most Microsoft stuff is crap, Is this a statement of personal experience or one of second-hand information? Sounds to me more like the latter, especially since Microsoft puts out some of the highest quality software in the MS-DOS world. | Lotus is a company whom I feel everyone should boycott(because of | some of the stuff they are trying to do with copyright laws, databases of | credit info, etc See comp.org.eff.talk, or the LPF at GNU) As has been discussed at length on various news groups, Lotus Marketplace contains *no* information that is subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. They are *not* distributing credit information. They are, however, including estimates of personal income which consumers have freely provided, generally through product registration cards. But that's besides the point. | If Word is so great, why does it take 700 pages to describe how it works? | Word Processors are supposed to be intuitive! Word is intuitive, just as much as any other GUI product. I've sat down at a Mac and churned out documents with Word without ever touching the manual or calling up the help screen. Of course, what I think you really meant is WordPerfect, not Word (two diferent products), which is also intuitive, both in the MS-DOS version (5.1) and in the AmigaDOS version (4.1). I think 700 pages is an appropriate size for such a manual, which probably does not cover the complete functionality of Word or WP. But it's long enough to include most everything you could want to do without scaring people away from itself. Remember that this is the *reference* manual we're talking about, not the *user* manual. | You keep citing the 'depth' that Word has over other word processors, how | about listing SPECIFIC examples and features? Oh, please, let's not get into a features war here (and if we do, let's take it to .advocacy so that those of us concerned with real issues don't have to watch). | And how do you know | what big name companies think? Lotus, Microsoft, etc don't lose money | porting software, they MAKE money. When you do the port yourself, as WordPerfect is doing, you lose money when your money invested in the port doesn't return your original investment. | I recall a discussion on a local net | a while back that said Lotus requires you to pay them between $7-15 million | to do a port (more than Commodore's profit for 1 year.) Even if they sold | only 1 copy, they still made plenty. True in Lotus' case, but not in the case of WordPerfect, which I believe is the topic here. | I just got a demo of TurboText (an Amiga editor from abcfd20). This is | THEE best text editor I have ever seen. It blows Emacs, CED, TxEd, BRIEF out of | the water. TurboText is a *text*editor*, not a *word*processor*. There is a VERY big difference between the two, in addition to the fact that your statement is yet again irrelevant. | It all boils down to 'bandwagon' and 'big-name.' It all boils down to "quality" and "functionality", not "image". | Alot of people aren't using | things because of their quality, but because of their name/reputation. | People don't wear rolexes because they are the most technically superior | watch on the market. They wear them because they are 'in' and expensive. | The same thing applies to things like WordPerfect, 1-2-3, IBM. WordPerfect is a *very* powerful word processor. If you'd ever actually tried to use it beyond demonstrating to yourself that you hate it, you would know that. It's not elegant, but it works. And it would be particularly wonderful if there was an Amiga version of 5.1, which is what this thread was all about in the first place. Personally, I'd love to see WP5.1 ported to the Amiga. (Actually, I'd like to see FrameMaker for the Amiga, but this is probably possible under Amiga Unix). Ugh. Eric -- Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208 Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.
ifarqhar@sunb.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > The really sad part of this is that other big-name companies like >Microsoft, Lotus, Aldus, and Adobe will probably never write software >for the Amiga, because one big-name company tried to support the Amiga >and lost a lot of money. Yes, but it was WordPerfects amazing stupidity that lost money. Let's look at a prime example of how to release a product that nobody will loose money: a) Release a product that does not support the user interface of the target machine properly. b) Release an older version of a product when newer versions are being released one other machines. c) Promise updates versions and don't deliver. I am also getting to the point where I seriously believe that a company that announces a product (eg. Borland) should be legally held to producing that product. I am 90% certain that this view is legally upholdable, if only from the point that the original announcement was false advertising. -- Ian Farquhar Phone : 61 2 805-9400 Office of Computing Services Fax : 61 2 805-7433 Macquarie University NSW 2109 Also : 61 2 805-7420 Australia EMail : ifarqhar@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au
palmerc@infonode.ingr.com (Chris Palmer) (01/15/91)
In article <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > >Have any of you who are flaming MB tried >Word or 123? Word for the MAC is one of the best, if not the best, >wordprocessors around. >As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the >standard (please no flames :) ). Go into any major company and see which >spredsheet they use, 9 times out of 10 it will be 123. I will agree with you 100% that Microsoft Word (for the Mac) is one of, if not the, best word processing programs I have ever used and that includes different programs on at least six different machines and operating systems plus several dedicated word processing units. The ease of use, speed, and sheer power of it make it a winner. It still has some faults (spell checking comes to mind), but its virtues outweigh them. I use WordPerfect on my Amiga because it is the only program I have found that is both powerful and fast. It is by no means pretty, easy to use, or flexible, but I've had to learn to live with it. I have to disagree, however, about Lotus 1-2-3. I do not believe that being an industry standard says very much about the quality of your product (look at IBM, :-) ). It would look good to potential business customers to have 1-2-3 available for the Amiga, but I don't know how many hardcore Amiga people would use it. I've used 1-2-3 many times, and every time I use it I am amazed at how much I don't like it. Analyze!, or even several PD programs like AnalytiCalc, are as powerful and more easy to use and even 1-2-3 compatible to some extent. I hate to give so much good press to MicroSoft considering their prejudice against non-IBM/Mac stuff, but MicroSoft Excel on the Mac is an excellent spreadsheet. To be extra fair on the above reviews, I worked during college doing typing, data-entry, and desktop publishing on Macintoshes at a local business. We had tons of software at our disposal, but Word, Excel, Adobe Illustrator, and Aldus Pagemaker were used 100 times more often than any other packages. Ironically, I haven't found Amiga software in the same niches that are half as nice as the above mentioned four packages. P.S. I've run all four packages on IBM compatibles (386-based, Windows, etc.) and I must say that I was not at all impressed. I guess I'm really prejudiced against IBM systems. -- | Christopher M. Palmer # | / Intergraph Corporation # \ \ Internet: b14!abulafia!palmerc # / | UUCP : ...uunet!ingr!b14!abulafia!palmerc # |
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (01/15/91)
In article <1092@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> ifarqhar@sunb.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) writes: > Yes, but it was WordPerfects amazing stupidity that lost money. Let's > look at a prime example of how to release a product that nobody will > loose money: > > a) Release a product that does not support the user interface of the > target machine properly. They were close enough. All of WP's versions of WP go by the function keys, but the Mac, Amiga, ST versions ALSO permit you to use the the pull-down windows. I've helped (Amiga only) people get up to speed on AmigaWP and they didn't have any problem. > b) Release an older version of a product when newer versions are being > released one other machines. > c) Promise updates versions and don't deliver. Both true... though I think c) is more due to rumors started outside of the company not coming true. Your first statement about losing money is not completely correct. WP made BIG bucks on AmigaWP when it was first released. They were often quoted as paying their development costs in 2 or 3 months. That's a great trick. They lost money when they didn't think before they moved into Germany. They heard that there were tons of Amigas in Germany so they paid big $$$ to translate the manuals, etc. What they didn't know (though they could have asked ANYONE) is that piracy is so bad in Germany, you can't spend big $$$ and still make a profit. If you're going to produce products for Germany you have to spend very little money. WordPerfect Corp. refuses to do that. They will only make a top of the line program with a better-than-top manual. So, they lost big. Tom's big tip for the day: :-) "Remember folks, if you want to make money by selling software in Germany, you have to do a rush job and spend as little as possible. Sure this means you'll produce total crap and most likely a useless product, but it's caled Economic Reality. Software piracy leads to crappy software." Tom -- tlimonce@drew.edu Tom Limoncelli "Flash! Flash! I love you! tlimonce@drew.bitnet +1 201 408 5389 ...but we only have fourteen tlimonce@drew.uucp limonce@pilot.njin.net hours to save the earth!"
LDSHANER@MTUS5.BITNET (Leon D. Shaner) (01/15/91)
>the best. As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the >standard (please no flames :) ). Go into any major company and see which >spredsheet they use, 9 times out of 10 it will be 123. You can complain Since when does the 'Standard' do any justice... Just look at all those who deem the IB* as standard - we all know how much they are missing, since the Amiga is far superior regardless of its acceptance... Where spread sheets are concerned, MicroSoft Excell is for more versatile and user friendly than L123 could ever hope to be... Yet because it is not the 'standard' we are to ignore it and settle for an inferior product???! I make up my own mind .... (sounds like an ad slogan - now where have I heard that before??? ;^{) ). --Leon +--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | LEON D. SHANER <LDSHANER@MTUS5> :BBS: AMIGA BITSWAP CENTRAL DISPATCH: | OR <LDSHANER@MTUS5.CTS.MTU.EDU> : (906)482-8248 DIALOG PRO! BETA : | MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY : FREE! :24 HOURS :80 MB :2 LINES!: +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (01/15/91)
In article <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > > As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the >standard (please no flames :) ). Go into any major company and see which >spredsheet they use, 9 times out of 10 it will be 123. Speaking of 123, does anyone at all know that the Amiga with a bridgeboard is THE ULTIMATE platform to run 123??? Proof: 123 knows about a dual monitor mode. You keep your spreadsheet with all the figures in text mode on one monitor and have the graphics representation of these figures on another monitor in some graphics mode. The graphics can be set up a way so that it automatically changes when the figures change. ONLY ON THE Amiga you can do this on ONE SINGLE monitor! You configure 123 for this dual mode, set its graphics up for CGA mode (well, here the bridgeboard way doesn't shine soooo bright :-) and open both a mono and a color PC window. If you adjust the sizes of these windows properly and drag the text screen down, then you can input your figures at the lower end of your screen and watch the graphics change accordingly at the top of the screen! This always makes up for a real good demo on fairs. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (01/15/91)
In article <Jan.14.18.59.41.1991.29710@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes: > >Your first statement about losing money is not completely correct. WP >made BIG bucks on AmigaWP when it was first released. They were often >quoted as paying their development costs in 2 or 3 months. That's a >great trick. They lost money when they didn't think before they moved >into Germany. They heard that there were tons of Amigas in Germany so >they paid big $$$ to translate the manuals, etc. What they didn't >know (though they could have asked ANYONE) is that piracy is so bad in >Germany, you can't spend big $$$ and still make a profit. Oh, please come on, don't stomp on us this way. It's really insulting to blame one certain country for things happening everywhere. In my eyes WP had other problems (at least at that time, don't know about current status): 1. Quality. WP crashed faster than I could type. 2. Manual. Yes, it was German, but it wasn't very helpfull, in that it hid some vital features of the printer drivers from me. So I just couldn't get my printer to work properly. Together with 1. this caused me to flush it from my disk. 3. Price. A price of ca. 1000 DM for the mentioned quality was simply not adequate. You told correctly that they made good money in the beginning. Do you also know from whom? Commodore! Commodore Germany bought lots of packages and lost BIG money because it couldn't sell all. >Tom's big tip for the day: :-) I will not cite it here, because it is too insulting. Please stop such utterings. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) (01/15/91)
In article <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > > God I hate my self for saying this but, Mark Barret is right about the >applications in the Amiga world. Have any of you who are flaming MB tried >Word or 123? Word for the MAC is one of the best, if not the best, >wordprocessors around. I have tried both Excellence and ProWrite (Yes, the If all these word processor programs are so good, then use them! After all the Amiga is a multi-environment system. Hell, use GnuEmacs if you like. Thats the great thing about this computer, if you don't like what Amiga software has to offer, well go ahead and use an IBM product (gasp!) or a Mac product. These days, IBM compatiblity is getting cheaper (ATOnce for instance) and a lot of people have the AMAXII program, so whats the big deal. Got the point? (now, if Amiga can come out with a program that lets you watch TV within the operating system, well..never mind. :-) Sri
epeterso@houligan.encore.com (Eric Peterson) (01/15/91)
orovner@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oleg Rovner) writes: | Why are we discussing MS-DOS and Mac applications on | c.s.AMIGA.applications? The original question in this thread was basically "When is WordPerfect gonna port WP5.1 to the Amiga?" This thread then dissolved into a "my word processor can beat up your word processor" war. However, there is a good point in all of this -- that Amiga general productivity software is not up to the quality of that available in the Mac and PC world. Why this is so, however, is debateable. | Better yet, why are people | whining about the word processors available on the amiga | rather than talking about those areas where the Amiga | has a clear cut edge? Because (a) this is an applications group, (b) people use word processors, (c) people use word processors on their Amigas, and (d) people want to share experiences with them, both good and bad. What's the point about talking to each other about how great we all are all the time? | What about the APPALING lack of capability | on the IBM version of VideoToaster? My God, they are still | on board revision 0.0 :-). What about the current generation of | under $500 RGB to NTSC 24 bit boards on the Mac? Sheesh, they are | years behind HAM-E and DCTV! Who cares? Let the people in comp.sys.mac.apps and comp.os.msdos.apps discuss that. Or, better yet, "Take it to .advocacy" (tm). | The point is, some machines do some | things better. So, let us discuss the Amiga applications that are | designed for the Amiga's strong points, things that make it unique | and differentiate it from any other PC on the market. Let us discuss whatever people want to discuss in whatever forum is appropriate for that discussion. This is a discussion group, not a "pat-each-other-on-the-back-for-being-so-wonderful" group. | People managed | to get along with feathers, pens, pencils, and even typerwriters as | their primary word processors. Surely we can get along with | WordPerfect, AmigaTeX, dbMan, and Advantage for our business needs. Of course we can. I got along with WordPerfect 4.1 for my Amiga for a year or so in college before I got a chance to work on WordPerfect 5.0 for MS-DOS. And I got to wondering -- when will 5.0 become available for the Amiga, which is what this thread was all about to begin with. Eric -- Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208 Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/16/91)
>> >>Have any of you who are flaming MB tried >>Word or 123? Word for the MAC is one of the best, if not the best, >>wordprocessors around. >>As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the >>standard (please no flames :) ). Go into any major company and see which >>spredsheet they use, 9 times out of 10 it will be 123. >I will agree with you 100% that Microsoft Word (for the Mac) is one of, if >not the, best word processing programs I have ever used and that includes >different programs on at least six different machines and operating systems >plus several dedicated word processing units. The ease of use, speed, and >sheer power of it make it a winner. It still has some faults (spell checking >comes to mind), but its virtues outweigh them. I use WordPerfect on my Amiga Compaired to the spell checkers on Excellence! and Prowrite, the Word spell- checker is a speed demon >because it is the only program I have found that is both powerful and fast. >It is by no means pretty, easy to use, or flexible, but I've had to learn to >live with it. >I have to disagree, however, about Lotus 1-2-3. I do not believe that >being an industry standard says very much about the quality of your product >(look at IBM, :-) ). It would look good to potential business customers to >have 1-2-3 available for the Amiga, but I don't know how many hardcore >Amiga people would use it. I've used 1-2-3 many times, and every time I >use it I am amazed at how much I don't like it. Analyze!, or even several >PD programs like AnalytiCalc, are as powerful and more easy to use and even >1-2-3 compatible to some extent. I hate to give so much good press to >MicroSoft considering their prejudice against non-IBM/Mac stuff, but >MicroSoft Excel on the Mac is an excellent spreadsheet. I'll aggree with you that 123 does have some major flaws; however, there is nothing that comes close to what it does. What I mean is try to take a 123 program with macros and run it in Excel or any other "compatible" spreadsheet. I've tried this and found it to causes major head aches. Also the only way Amigas will make it into the mainstream is if businesses start to purchase Amigas, and without programs like 123 this will not happen. >To be extra fair on the above reviews, I worked during college doing typing, >data-entry, and desktop publishing on Macintoshes at a local business. We >had tons of software at our disposal, but Word, Excel, Adobe Illustrator, >and Aldus Pagemaker were used 100 times more often than any other packages. >Ironically, I haven't found Amiga software in the same niches that are half >as nice as the above mentioned four packages. >P.S. I've run all four packages on IBM compatibles (386-based, Windows, etc.) > and I must say that I was not at all impressed. I guess I'm really > prejudiced against IBM systems. >-- >| Christopher M. Palmer # | >/ Intergraph Corporation # \ >\ Internet: b14!abulafia!palmerc # / >| UUCP : ...uunet!ingr!b14!abulafia!palmerc # |
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/16/91)
Path: psuvm!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!mtus5!ldshaner Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ. Date: Monday, 14 Jan 1991 23:55:48 EST From: Leon D. Shaner <LDSHANER@MTUS5.BITNET> Message-ID: <91014.235548LDSHANER@MTUS5.BITNET> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications Subject: Re: When will new WordPerfect be available? References: <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> <1991Jan14.073918.27523@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jan14.092400.10827@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Jan14.104559.23914@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> >>the best. As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the >>standard (please no flames :) ). Go into any major company and see which >>spredsheet they use, 9 times out of 10 it will be 123. You can complain > >Since when does the 'Standard' do any justice... Just look at all those >who deem the IB* as standard - we all know how much they are missing, >since the Amiga is far superior regardless of its acceptance... Yes, but with out business acceptance you will not have a successful computer. Ask Steve Jobs why an educational only computer fails. I repeat, the Amiga needs professional quality programs to succeed in business. > >Where spread sheets are concerned, MicroSoft Excell is for more versatile >and user friendly than L123 could ever hope to be... Yet because it is >not the 'standard' we are to ignore it and settle for an inferior >product???! That is not the only reason try to convert 123 macros to Excel. I've tried and finally gave up. > >I make up my own mind .... (sounds like an ad slogan - now where > have I heard that before??? ;^{) ). > >--Leon >+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ >| LEON D. SHANER <LDSHANER@MTUS5> -BBS: AMIGA BITSWAP CENTRAL DISPATCH- >| OR <LDSHANER@MTUS5.CTS.MTU.EDU> - (906)482-8248 DIALOG PRO! BETA - >| MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY - FREE! :24 HOURS :80 MB :2 LINES!- >+------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/16/91)
Path: psuvm!cunyvm!uupsi!rpi!zaphod!swrinde!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc13!orovner From: orovner@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oleg Rovner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications Subject: Re: When will new WordPerfect be available? Message-ID: <15621@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> Date: 15 Jan 91 06:35:35 GMT References: <1991Jan14.092400.10827@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Jan14.104559.23914@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: sdcc13.ucsd.edu >Why are we discussing MS-DOS and Mac applications on >c.s.AMIGA.applications? Better yet, why are people >whining about the word processors available on the amiga >rather than talking about those areas where the Amiga >has a clear cut edge? So MS Word has DTP features, BFD, there are Amiga DTP applications that are QUITE nice, such as ProPage2.0, PageStream 2.1... What about the APPALING lack of capability on the IBM version of VideoToaster? My God, they are still on board revision 0.0 :-). What about the current generation of under $500 RGB to NTSC 24 bit boards on the Mac? Sheesh, they are years behind HAM-E and DCTV! The point is, some machines do some things better. So, let us discuss the Amiga applications that are designed for the Amiga's strong points, things that make it unique and differentiate it from any other PC on the market. People managed to get along with feathers, pens, pencils, and even typerwriters as their primary word processors. Surely we can get along with WordPerfect, AmigaTeX, dbMan, and Advantage for our business needs. And if we cannot, there is always ATonce for $300, and A-MaxII for $400 (with Mac ROMs, drive) to let us run pretty much everything else. OR PS I STILL want Red Baron, Tempest, and Battlezone for the Amiga! :-) -- "Nobody in this city would get shot if they just did what the cops told them to." San Diego Police Department Officer Shane Martin (in SD Union, December 23, 1990)
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/16/91)
>Why are we discussing MS-DOS and Mac applications on >c.s.AMIGA.applications? Better yet, why are people >whining about the word processors available on the amiga >rather than talking about those areas where the Amiga >has a clear cut edge? So MS Word has DTP features, BFD, there are >Amiga DTP applications that are QUITE nice, such as ProPage2.0, >PageStream 2.1... What about the APPALING lack of capability >on the IBM version of VideoToaster? My God, they are still >on board revision 0.0 :-). What about the current generation of >under $500 RGB to NTSC 24 bit boards on the Mac? Sheesh, they are >years behind HAM-E and DCTV! The point is, some machines do some >things better. So, let us discuss the Amiga applications that are >designed for the Amiga's strong points, things that make it unique >and differentiate it from any other PC on the market. People managed >to get along with feathers, pens, pencils, and even typerwriters as >their primary word processors. Surely we can get along with >WordPerfect, AmigaTeX, dbMan, and Advantage for our business needs. >And if we cannot, there is always ATonce for $300, and A-MaxII for >$400 (with Mac ROMs, drive) to let us run pretty much everything >else. > Yes, you can get along with a pen and paper, but in business and most other places, you use a word processor, and the Amiga does not have any realy good ones (by good I mean Word quailty). For the average user yes you can get a brigecard and Amax; however, when business buy a computer, they do not want to have to go to that hassle. >OR > >PS I STILL want Red Baron, Tempest, and Battlezone for the Amiga! >:-) > >-- >"Nobody in this city would get shot if they just did what the cops >told them to." San Diego Police Department Officer Shane Martin >(in SD Union, December 23, 1990)
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/16/91)
To any brave soul, if you want to make alot of money in the Amiga world,
make a good (MS Word quality) wordprocessor for the Amiga, or a spreadsheet
that can use lotus files macros and all. If you do this, I promise that you
will have at least one sale, from me.
Ajaidaveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/16/91)
In article <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > > God I hate my self for saying this but, Mark Barret is right about the >applications in the Amiga world. Have any of you who are flaming MB tried >Word or 123? Word for the MAC is one of the best, if not the best, >wordprocessors around. I have tried both Excellence and ProWrite (Yes, the >latest versions) and still they don't compare to Word. What do you want a word processor for anyway? Real Men write directly in DTP programs. Or in markup languages, like TeX or Scribe. No word processor is powerful enough. >As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the standard (please >no flames :) ). I shouldn't have to point it out, but that statement is identical to saying "As for Operating Systems, MS-DOS is the best. Why, because it is the standard". I don't hear that one, even from PC enthusiasts, all that often. Being the standard may, in some cases, make something very useful, since it can tap into lots of work that's been done already. It is never sufficient to make it "The Best". And in many cases, the leader in a field falls behind in terms of functionality, simply because there's no strong force driving any improvements. If all everyone ever hears is "Spreadsheet == 123", and its difficult to get any work done in a business environment with any other spreadsheet, then 123 could be the worst, in terms of actual features, and still lead the pack. While its doubtful 123 is the worst, its equally doubtful that its the best, especially since Lotus themselves has developed a "better" spreadsheet that's not 123 any more than Gold Disk's or MicroSoft's spreadsheets are. > Ajai -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/16/91)
In article <epeterso.663882600@houligan> epeterson@encore.com (Eric Peterson) writes: >rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >| Most Microsoft stuff is crap, > >Is this a statement of personal experience or one of second-hand >information? Sounds to me more like the latter, especially since >Microsoft puts out some of the highest quality software in the MS-DOS >world. Personal Experience. AmigaBasic, Windows1.0/2.0, MS-DOS, etc. Microsoft may put out quality software, but only after plenty of revisions. I have never seen Microsoft get it right in the first revision. >| Lotus is a company whom I feel everyone should boycott(because of >| some of the stuff they are trying to do with copyright laws, databases of >| credit info, etc See comp.org.eff.talk, or the LPF at GNU) > >As has been discussed at length on various news groups, Lotus >Marketplace contains *no* information that is subject to the Fair >Credit Reporting Act. They are *not* distributing credit information. >They are, however, including estimates of personal income which >consumers have freely provided, generally through product registration >cards. But that's besides the point. Even before Lotus marketplace, Lotus was guilty of trying to copyright various aspects of their user interface. All in all, I don't agree with their business practices. >| If Word is so great, why does it take 700 pages to describe how it works? >| Word Processors are supposed to be intuitive! > >Word is intuitive, just as much as any other GUI product. I've sat >down at a Mac and churned out documents with Word without ever >touching the manual or calling up the help screen. Of course, what I >think you really meant is WordPerfect, not Word (two diferent >products), which is also intuitive, both in the MS-DOS version (5.1) >and in the AmigaDOS version (4.1). > >I think 700 pages is an appropriate size for such a manual, which >probably does not cover the complete functionality of Word or WP. But >it's long enough to include most everything you could want to do >without scaring people away from itself. Remember that this is the >*reference* manual we're talking about, not the *user* manual. Thats larger than most programming manuals i've seen. If it has that many functions, why not learn TeX? TeX can do more, and you get to use your favorite text editor! >| You keep citing the 'depth' that Word has over other word processors, how >| about listing SPECIFIC examples and features? > >Oh, please, let's not get into a features war here (and if we do, >let's take it to .advocacy so that those of us concerned with real >issues don't have to watch). Well if your going to claim something is better than ALL availible software on the Amiga, your going to have to give reasons. >| I just got a demo of TurboText (an Amiga editor from abcfd20). This is >| THEE best text editor I have ever seen. It blows Emacs, CED, TxEd, BRIEF out of >| the water. > >TurboText is a *text*editor*, not a *word*processor*. There is a VERY >big difference between the two, in addition to the fact that your >statement is yet again irrelevant. I put that statement in there, because this is an Amiga product that beats anything i've seen on Mac/IBM, just as Word supposedly beats all Amiga WP's. I know the difference between WP's and Text editor's but the differences can be debated. Today, Word Processor means WYSIWYG. Years ago, Text editors were Word Processors. There were no fonts, hi-res bitmap images, etc. Just Text. >| It all boils down to 'bandwagon' and 'big-name.' > >It all boils down to "quality" and "functionality", not "image". Sorry, I don't buy that. A few messages ago, someone said 'Every business I have ever seen uses 1-2-3.' as if quantity justifies quality. We all know thats not true, IBM is proof of that. >| Alot of people aren't using >| things because of their quality, but because of their name/reputation. >| People don't wear rolexes because they are the most technically superior >| watch on the market. They wear them because they are 'in' and expensive. >| The same thing applies to things like WordPerfect, 1-2-3, IBM. > >WordPerfect is a *very* powerful word processor. If you'd ever >actually tried to use it beyond demonstrating to yourself that you >hate it, you would know that. It's not elegant, but it works. And >it would be particularly wonderful if there was an Amiga version of >5.1, which is what this thread was all about in the first place. There are equally powerful Amiga wordprocessors that support full Commodore graphics and interface standards, along with postscript, iff files, etc. >Eric >-- > Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson > Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208 >Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/16/91)
In article <91015.122517AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> > Yes, you can get along with a pen and paper, but in business and most > other places, you use a word processor, and the Amiga does not have any > realy good ones (by good I mean Word quailty). For the average user yes > you can get a brigecard and Amax; however, when business buy a computer, > they do not want to have to go to that hassle. Well what did people use before Word came out?How come when a new product comes out and is good, it instantly makes all the other products bad? Does Ghost or Home Alone make every other movie truly bad because they surpassed them? What does it exactly mean to be Word Quality? If everyone thought like this, a word processor market wouldn't even exist. There would only be 1 word processor, Word. How come a word processor has to live up to Word quality & features before its even considered to be quality? I think this stagnates creativity with the interface. No wonder companies who dominate the market are trying to copyright their user interfaces, because people won't even buy other products unless they use the same interface people are 'used to' on the big name products. Naturally those companies feel they should be able to copyright their GUI, since everyone else is cloning it and invading their market. Oh well. I've had enough of this thread. You can buy a Mac if you like, I'll stick to Emacs, TeX, and nr/troff for my WP use. >> >>PS I STILL want Red Baron, Tempest, and Battlezone for the Amiga! >>:-) >> >>-- >>"Nobody in this city would get shot if they just did what the cops >>told them to." San Diego Police Department Officer Shane Martin >>(in SD Union, December 23, 1990)
LDSHANER@MTUS5.BITNET (Leon D. Shaner) (01/16/91)
>That is not the only reason try to convert 123 macros to Excel. I've >tried and finally gave up. I realize that many people may be in the disadvantaged position of having started with 123... My point is that if you are in a position to make a choice, starting from scratch, go with the best product - Excel... Although it is nice when a product manufacturer makes porting your old work to their platform easy, it is not always so... They really have no obligation to make their product compatible with product X, it is just nice when it is... Sometimes they have to think of satisfying the user who wants power and is willing to spend a little time to get it... In the case of Excel, it is well worth the effort to convert and if you were to start from scratch using Excel from the start I think you'd see that the macro definitions would be more straightforward and powerful than with 123... Just my $.02 --Leon
jra1@ra.MsState.Edu (Mephisto) (01/16/91)
While on the subject of Word, let me just say that I tried it. Had to install the mouse driver too. Got 1 page in and ran out of memory. What good is it if it is such a pain in the a**? In the end, I wrote my paper with prowrite on my amiga... I didn't need all those features anyway. jeff
taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (01/16/91)
In article <17621@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > What do you want a word processor for anyway? Real Men write directly in > DTP programs. Or in markup languages, like TeX or Scribe. No word processor > is powerful enough. Microsoft Word is, period. Microsoft Word, in one package, includes ALL the tools that you would ever need to typeset a book. Is that powerful enough for you? MS Word is not really a word processor at all; it is a typesetting package. MS Word works like a word processor, but includes many features -- including style sheets, key glossaries, templates, ability to incorporate PostScript in documents, a simple programming langauge within mail-marge, and a TeX-like mathematical typesetting language -- that are usually only found in dedicated typesetting packages such as TeX. In addition, it has features like a thesaruus and spelling checker that are found in word processors. To polish everything off, it has text and graphic layout features usually only found in DTP programs. In short, I disgree with you. Real men use Microsoft Word. > -- > Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, > gonna be alright" -Bob Marley -MB-
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan14.174429.9314@isc.rit.edu> eas3714@isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story ) writes: > >Just curious about Prowrite 3.1... DOes it have decent text output on a >dot matrix printer (9-pin).. I saw it on a friends computer and it >seemed that it could only get good text output by using the graphics >output of the printer.. really stupid and unacceptable.. not everyone >can afford to wait for 20 mins while it prints out a page of text.. and >its "Draft" mode using the printer's fonts didn't format well at all... >came out all screwed up... > >I think I'll stick to my myriad PD text editors until SOMETHING with >decent text output comes along. There is a REASON printers have a text >mode... not everyone can afford a postscript or super 24-pin printer. > > ---Ezra > I had similar problems when switching between Prowrite (2.04), Word Perfect 4.x and CED about a year ago. I don't remember quite how I got it to work but your friend should be able to fix it by playing with the settings. I remember that it was trivial once I found it :-) /Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est." Credo in absurdum est?
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (01/16/91)
In article <epeterso.663882600@houligan> epeterson@encore.com (Eric Peterson) writes: >rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >| Most Microsoft stuff is crap, > >Is this a statement of personal experience or one of second-hand >information? Sounds to me more like the latter, especially since >Microsoft puts out some of the highest quality software in the MS-DOS >world. > True, there is LOTS of poor software on the PC. Bad amiga software is seldom as bad as bad ms-dos software and with the exception of Word I find microsoft products mediocre to bad. /Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est." Credo in absurdum est?
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.192859.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >In article <17621@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >> What do you want a word processor for anyway? Real Men write directly in >> DTP programs. Or in markup languages, like TeX or Scribe. No word processor >> is powerful enough. > > Microsoft Word is, period. Microsoft Word, in one package, includes >ALL the tools that you would ever need to typeset a book. Is that powerful >enough for you? > > MS Word is not really a word processor at all; it is a typesetting >package. MS Word works like a word processor, but includes many features >-- including style sheets, key glossaries, templates, ability to >incorporate PostScript in documents, a simple programming langauge >within mail-marge, and a TeX-like mathematical typesetting language -- >that are usually only found in dedicated typesetting packages such >as TeX. In addition, it has features like a thesaruus and spelling >checker that are found in word processors. To polish everything off, >it has text and graphic layout features usually only found in DTP >programs. > > In short, I disgree with you. Real men use Microsoft Word. Nope, I disagree. Real men program their own word processors in binary on the fly with a monitor. For layout they use scrap paper! TeX is, period. Whatever thats supposed to mean. In truth, real men use what they like, and what they want, not what the 'industry' standard is. For doing school reports, I use a text editor. Which is better than a typewriter. Fancy graphics and fonts are ok, but I don't think they are going to enhance your grade unless your teacher is impressed by bells and whistles. dme ram:report cp report >prt: There's simplicity for ya. >> -- >> Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" >> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy >> "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, >> gonna be alright" -Bob Marley > > > -MB-
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan16.024225.12117@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jan15.192859.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >>In article <17621@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> >>> What do you want a word processor for anyway? Real Men write directly in >>> DTP programs. Or in markup languages, like TeX or Scribe. No word processor >>> is powerful enough. >> In short, I disgree with you. Real men use Microsoft Word. > For doing school reports, I use a text editor. Which is better than >a typewriter. Fancy graphics and fonts are ok, but I don't think they are >going to enhance your grade unless your teacher is impressed by bells >and whistles. Actually, there was a study reported in Science News (I think, or the WSJ) where students using Mac's tended to produce more-polished papers that were somewhat inferior on content to ones produced on other machines. The assumption (far from proven) was that students on the macs spent more of their time "prettying" their papers, laying them out, selecting fonts, and less time reworking the wording or thinking about the contents. There could be plenty of other explanations, and this was one smallish survey. -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
lhotka@incstar.uucp (Glamdring) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan14.224413.22111@infonode.ingr.com>, palmerc@infonode.ingr.com (Chris Palmer) writes: > In article <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> >>Have any of you who are flaming MB tried >>Word or 123? Word for the MAC is one of the best, if not the best, >>wordprocessors around. >>As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the >>standard (please no flames :) ). Go into any major company and see which >>spredsheet they use, 9 times out of 10 it will be 123. > > [stuff about Word removed...] > > I have to disagree, however, about Lotus 1-2-3. I do not believe that > being an industry standard says very much about the quality of your product > (look at IBM, :-) ). It would look good to potential business customers to > have 1-2-3 available for the Amiga, but I don't know how many hardcore > Amiga people would use it. I've used 1-2-3 many times, and every time I > use it I am amazed at how much I don't like it. Analyze!, or even several > PD programs like AnalytiCalc, are as powerful and more easy to use and even > 1-2-3 compatible to some extent. I hate to give so much good press to > MicroSoft considering their prejudice against non-IBM/Mac stuff, but > MicroSoft Excel on the Mac is an excellent spreadsheet. > I would say that you are right about 1-2-3, it would be a great shot in the arm from a business viewpoint, but... Personally I want to see Excel written for the Amiga. We use Excel (under Windows 3.0) at work every day. While I have not seen all the Amiga spreadsheets, I *have* seen the ones listed above and IMHO none of them come anywhere near the power of Excel :-( The ability of Excel to create powerful macros with custom requestors, to create tables and other documents using shading, multiple fonts, etc and Excel's graphing abilities (which are truely awesome) make it something to be desired! I feel that you are incorrect in assuming that Amiga users would not want the power of 1-2-3 or Excel on their machine. I have many times considered getting a bridgeboard just to run Excel - Maxiplan (my current Amiga spreadsheet) just doesn't compare... ______________________________________________________________________ / Rockford Lhotka INCSTAR Corp \ | Applications Project Leader 1990 Industrial Blvd | | incstar!lhotka@uunet.uu.net PO Box 285 | \ 612/779-1701 Stillwater, MN 55082 / -------------Amiga - The computer for the creative mind.--------------
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (01/16/91)
In article <91015.123437AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > > To any brave soul, if you want to make alot of money in the Amiga world, >make a good (MS Word quality) wordprocessor for the Amiga, or a spreadsheet >that can use lotus files macros and all. If you do this, I promise that you >will have at least one sale, from me. > > Ajai I bought a copy of LOGiSTiK for $10 from someone about 3 years ago. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it reads 123 files and macros (and SuperCalc files which is what we Osborne owners REALLY needed). I think Precision is carrying it now. I guess I should dig up that magazine article about 123 and DBase clones for the Amiga. It's real nice to insert a PC disk into your Amiga drive and read in a 123, DBase, or WordPerfect file, edit it and then write it back to the disk. For me it makes compatibility a non-issue. -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, I loved the peace and solitude | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and so much, I invited my friends. | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (01/17/91)
In article <1991Jan15.202005.4403@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >I think 700 pages is an appropriate size for such a manual, which > >probably does not cover the complete functionality of Word or WP. But > >it's long enough to include most everything you could want to do > >without scaring people away from itself. Remember that this is the > >*reference* manual we're talking about, not the *user* manual. > > Thats larger than most programming manuals i've seen. If it has > that many functions, why not learn TeX? TeX can do more, and you get to use > your favorite text editor! Why not learn TeX? In two words: "My Mother". You see, I know and use TeX but there is no way I could ever teach my mother TeX. I could spend days writing macros for her or I could set her up with LaTeX and still she wouldn't be able to use it. Think about it. Disclaimer: Maybe your mother is Grace Hopper, but I was quite impressed that my mother could understand the concept of different ON/OFF switches for the computer *and* the monitor. Personally I use them all. My Amiga has AmigaTeX and AmigaWordPerfect. My Zenith PC has WordPerfect 5.1 (I started with 4.1 and upgraded to 5.0 then to 5.1). My other PC (A Leading Edge XT, the one that my mother uses) has WordPerfect 5.1 (upgraded from 5.0). (Yes, I have separately purchased copies of all those WordPerfects). I decide which to use based on my location and what kind of document I'm going to produce. Tom -- tlimonce@drew.edu Tom Limoncelli "Flash! Flash! I love you! tlimonce@drew.bitnet +1 201 408 5389 ...but we only have fourteen tlimonce@drew.uucp limonce@pilot.njin.net hours to save the earth!"
AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/17/91)
Dave Haynie wrties: >What do you want a word processor for anyway? Real Men write directly in >DTP programs. Or in markup languages, like TeX or Scribe. No word processor >is powerful enough. Because as I stated before, most people do not want to learn a new language just to type up a document. MS Word for the Mac not only allows the power user (like yourself) to creat close to DTP documents, while at the same time allowing novices to type up quality reports eaisly. Yes you do not have to read the 700 page manual to work Word, just boot up and go. If someone can make a wordprocessor like this or if you, Dave, can convince Microsoft to port word over, I would be the first buyer. >>As for Spreadsheets, 123 is the best. Why because it is the standard (please >no flames :) ). >I shouldn't have to point it out, but that statement is identical to saying >"As for Operating Systems, MS-DOS is the best. Why, because it is the >standard". I don't hear that one, even from PC enthusiasts, all that often. >Being the standard may, in some cases, make something very useful, since it >can tap into lots of work that's been done already. It is never sufficient >to make it "The Best". And in many cases, the leader in a field falls >behind in terms of functionality, simply because there's no strong force >driving any improvements. If all everyone ever hears is "Spreadsheet == 123", >and its difficult to get any work done in a business environment with any >other spreadsheet, then 123 could be the worst, in terms of actual features, >and still lead the pack. While its doubtful 123 is the worst, its equally >doubtful that its the best, especially since Lotus themselves has developed >a "better" spreadsheet that's not 123 any more than Gold Disk's or MicroSoft's >spreadsheets are. The main advantage to 123 2.2 and 3.0 is the ability to make larger spread sheets. The older version of 123 2.01 put most of the info in a spreadsheet into the 640 memory, and did not use extended or expanded memory very well. The new version gets around the 640 barrier, this is very important when LAN's are installed into companies. Additionally, the spreadsheets that I have seen that were created with 123 are much more powerful than any Excel spreadsheet that I have seen created. This maybe in part due to the users; however, I think that is is because 123 is a better program. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome Excel with open arms if were to enter the Amiga market. Ajai >- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, > gonna be alright" -Bob Marley Ajai
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Adam Hill) (01/17/91)
.. And to interject even more IBM stuff in the Amiga Group......
I WISH SOMEONE WOULD PORT HARVARD GRAPHICS!!! You have to use this program
with Draw Partner to appreciate it. I whipped out some variations of our
company logo and logos for each depts in under 20minutes! I did a a few
graphs of sales vs. X and a few others in another 20. It was INCREDIBLY
easy. (And I haven't even seen the AutoGraphix Slide and Transparancy Service
in action!!)
Also 123 now has a QUICK way to do graphs called WYSIWYG. And Quattro 2.0
.... Lets not even begin to discuss its 3D'ness that would port well to the
Amiga.
But remember.. You can't format a disk at the same time :-)
--
adam hill
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu Make Up Your Own Mind.. AMIGA!
Amiga... Multimedia NOW
Most Common Phrase at DevCon '90 - "Shhhhhhh.." AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu (01/17/91)
Sorry sports fans, pilot error on the last try, so here we go again:
Like I said elsewhere, I
would welcome Excel into the Amiga market, but I personally perfer 123. This
is due to past experiences with both Excel and 123 (also Borland's Quatro).
Hey if Excel comes on the market, I'll buy it; however, 90% of the
spreadsheets that I work with are 123 spread- sheets with macros. What does
this mean, alot of conversion time.
Ajaidaveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan15.192859.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >In article <17621@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> What do you want a word processor for anyway? Real Men write directly in >> DTP programs. Or in markup languages, like TeX or Scribe. No word processor >> is powerful enough. > Microsoft Word is, period. Microsoft Word, in one package, includes >ALL the tools that you would ever need to typeset a book. Is that powerful >enough for you? If I can't write programs in it, it's really not enough. Which is why I like Scribe (one of these days I'll learn TeX, since its on the Amiga) and Emacs. Typesetting a book is easy, _any_ DTP type program can do that. Some make it easier than others. The goal of a wordprocessor, of course, is one of two things -- either come close enough to automating all the publishing you would care to do, or to make writing alone so easy you do all your writing in the wordprocessor and then load that file into the DTP program. Now, I haven't used Word, maybe it is good. I have yet to see any word processor on any system that does what I want, though. First off all, it has to be a good text editor. Meaning fast and flexible. I want to set up the editing commands as I like them, and that means from the keyboard, Emacs-like. Any good text editor allows this, even if it's not Emacs (CED, for instance). I want a good macro capability, with a real programming language like AREXX or E-Lisp. I want word abbrevs. I want active spelling check. Next comes the formatting part. It must be 100% WYSIWYG, or I might as well use a markup language. Of course it knows about different text environments (what that call style sheets these days. It should be able to use graphics, tables, formulas, etc. as easily as simple text, and text in any font. Of course tables, figures, etc. can be attached to any other object, and it's easy to move them anyway if the wordprocessor decides to put them in the wrong place. The rules for such placement should be easily definable, anyway, to help avoid this. It should know about headers, sections, subsections, etc. and let me define them as I like them, arbitrarily deep. It should know about structured documents, so that the guts of my "Chapter 5" in my "Everything about the A3000" manual sits in a subfile and also stands alone as the entire "Zorro III Bus Specification" manual. Anything externally referenced, such as subdocuments and graphics, should know ask for file notification so that it can update itself at runtime. It should know how to handle contents, table, and figure pages, index, and bibliography. The bibliography and footnote style should be independent of the entry format, so I can pick IEEE or ACS or whatever as I wish. Well, that's at least scratching the surface. I know far more folks out there who've only used wordprocessors, any of them, and are happy with them than those who've used TeX or Scribe extensively and have found wordprocessors that really make them happy. Unfortunately, if you're in school today, or probably for the past several years, you're only exposed to wordprocessors. Which may explain why most of the wordprocessors out there are weak compared to markups which have been around for 10 or 20 years. > -MB- -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (01/18/91)
In article <1092@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>, ifarqhar@sunb.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Ian Farquhar) writes: > In article <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> The really sad part of this is that other big-name companies like >>Microsoft, Lotus, Aldus, and Adobe will probably never write software >>for the Amiga, because one big-name company tried to support the Amiga >>and lost a lot of money. > > Yes, but it was WordPerfects amazing stupidity that lost money. Let's > look at a prime example of how to release a product that nobody will > loose money: > > a) Release a product that does not support the user interface of the > target machine properly. ABSOLUTELY > b) Release an older version of a product when newer versions are being > released one other machines. YES, EXACTLY!! > c) Promise updates versions and don't deliver. TO ME TOO! What about d) Call the version sold "English" and have only American spellings. e) Include multiple non-functional printer drivers. f) No file requesters- not even Charlie Heath's PD one. > > I am also getting to the point where I seriously believe that a company > that announces a product (eg. Borland) should be legally held to > producing that product. I am 90% certain that this view is legally > upholdable, if only from the point that the original announcement was > false advertising. > A dollar/day/user should put the wind up them. Product releases should be anounced at the packaging stage, not while in beta testing. Regards Alan > -- > Ian Farquhar Phone : 61 2 805-9400 > Office of Computing Services Fax : 61 2 805-7433 > Macquarie University NSW 2109 Also : 61 2 805-7420 > Australia EMail : ifarqhar@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au
brindley@ECE.ORST.EDU (Mike Brindley) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan16.022707.8945@cs.umu.se> dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes: >In article <1991Jan14.174429.9314@isc.rit.edu> eas3714@isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story ) writes: >> >>Just curious about Prowrite 3.1... DOes it have decent text output on a >>dot matrix printer (9-pin).. I saw it on a friends computer and it >>seemed that it could only get good text output by using the graphics >>output of the printer.. really stupid and unacceptable.. not everyone >>can afford to wait for 20 mins while it prints out a page of text.. and >>its "Draft" mode using the printer's fonts didn't format well at all... >>came out all screwed up... To fix this problem, I had to install the PICA/Elite/Condensed/Ultra- Condensed fonts from the ProWrite disks in my fonts: directory. Then you use those fonts whenever you want to use the corresponding buit-in printer fonts (Pica means 10 char. per inch and Elite means 12 char. per inch). You must select the 'NLQ' option from the print window instead of normal or draft. I believe this is mentioned in the manual in the appendix about producing high quality text. I agree that the graphic dump takes too long for any serious work (papers, reports, books, or anything else which is longer than a couple of pages). I have two fast, high-res printers (24-pin NEC and a HP Deskjet) and for anything I do for school, I MUST use the printer's built-in fonts. The graphic dumps look terrible since the fonts are all bitmapped (lots of jaggies). As mentioned previously the graphic dumps also take way too long for me to want to print out 8 or more pages. --> Mike Brindley brindley@ece.orst.edu
hammond@cs.albany.edu (William F Hammond) (01/18/91)
In article <91016.180239AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> Actually, there was a study reported in Science News (I think, or the >>WSJ) where students using Mac's tended to produce more-polished papers that >>were somewhat inferior on content to ones produced on other machines. The > . . . > I can tell you from experience, that a good report produced with a type- > writer, or a simple wordprocessor does not get graded as well as a paper with > fonts, boldface, and such. My first year of college, I turned in reports > that were good but at most got B-'s. But one day I turned in a report, > no better than any others I turned in before, I received an A. Profs, and > teachers grade this way. ... This one would be more likely to look askance at a student paper that is awash with DTP features and wonder whether the student is trying to use the DTP features to cover up inadequacies of content. In the final analysis in order to be fair I should try very hard to focus on content alone. This is not to say that issues of *neatness* and *format* are not important. But to the extent that they are important an ordinary typewriter or, for that matter, a simple editor, provided it is sufficiently flexible to permit the user to insert ANSI sequences for such things as underlining and boldface (see Appendix D to the manual "Introduction to the A2000" or the corresponding appendix entitled "Printer Escape Codes" in the A500 manual), is perfectly adequate. > ... I've turned in reports with very little content > but that look good and have gotten better grades. When I started looking > through corporate reports, I found the same to be true. The moral of this > FLASH BEATS SUBSTANCE. > . . . There are individuals and environments where this is true to a certain extent, but in the long run substance usually triumphs over form. (One cannot, however, ignore form altogether, because so doing can risk short term disaster.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 SUNYA, Albany, NY 12222 hammond@leah.albany.edu wfh58@albnyvms.bitnet ----------------------------------------------------------------------
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (01/19/91)
In article <1991Jan15.192859.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > MS Word is not really a word processor at all; it is a typesetting >package. MS Word works like a word processor, but includes many features >-- including style sheets, key glossaries, templates, ability to >incorporate PostScript in documents, a simple programming langauge >within mail-marge, and a TeX-like mathematical typesetting language -- >that are usually only found in dedicated typesetting packages such >as TeX. In addition, it has features like a thesaruus and spelling >checker that are found in word processors. To polish everything off, >it has text and graphic layout features usually only found in DTP >programs. I had to use Word on the Mac. It is a nice word processor and as comfortable as I could wish. Nevertheless, it's additional features are more or less half-hearted addons, especially the 'mathematical typesetting language'. The best way to use graphics in Word is to transfer the text into a DTP program since you cannot do anything with the graphics (size or crop). > In short, I disgree with you. Real men use Microsoft Word. Real Men aren't afraid in the dark. Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (05/10/91)
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > Actually, there was a study >where students using Mac's tended to produce more-polished papers that >were somewhat inferior on content to ones produced on other machines. The >assumption (far from proven) was that students on the macs spent more of their >time "prettying" their papers, laying them out, selecting fonts, and less time >reworking the wording or thinking about the contents. There could be plenty >of other explanations, and this was one smallish survey. Oh, I thought it was because the people who use Macs were just boneheads. >Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu