Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re^2: FullWrite Professional
Message-ID: <32989@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 9 Jul 89 20:05:28 GMT
References: <STIBER.89Jul5155311@maui.cs.ucla.edu> <147@dbase.UUCP>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 31

>FullWrite is an Ashton-Tate product, but of a different division, so I'm
>responding as a user.

Let me second this as a non Ashton-Tate person, just so there's no
implication of conflict of interest.

FullWrite is a really nice word processor -- if you have a Mac II and a
couple of megabytes of memory. Not perfect. There are some limitations to
the formatting capabilities and you can't turn off WYSIWYG, even if you want
to. FWP 1.1 cleans up most of the stability problems and removed some of the
functional limitations of FWP 1.0. It doesn't deal with the performance and
memory problems, which the rumored 2.0 will later this year.

I used FWP for about six months fairly heavily. I really like it. I,
however, finally went back to Word 3 (now Word 4) primarily because much of
my work is still done on smaller machines (my home systems are 2Meg upgrades
of 512ke machines). FWP just slows down too much on smaller systems for me.

Most of my co-workers also use Word, so there's a compatibility issue, also.
It's just easier to use a single WP -- and while I prefer FWP to Word, I
don't find Word to be a bad Word Processor, and there's a lot I like about
it as well. So now I use Word, but I could use either one happily.



Chuq Von Rospach      =|=     Editor,OtherRealms     =|=     Member SFWA/ASFA
         chuq@apple.com   =|=  CI$: 73317,635  =|=  AppleLink: CHUQ
      [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]

You are false data. Therefore I shall ignore you.