Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!q8n
From: Q8N@PSUVM.BITNET (Scott D. Camp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: WingZ problems and whinge.
Message-ID: <89323.235906Q8N@PSUVM.BITNET>
Date: 20 Nov 89 04:59:06 GMT
References: <1025.2567c58a@csc.anu.oz>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 37

In article <1025.2567c58a@csc.anu.oz>, pfr654@csc.anu.oz says:
>
>Hi there.
>Can someone explain why Excel 1.00 is better at memory management than Wingz?
>
> (lot of stuff deleted here)
>
>Anyway, unless version 1.1 corrects at least some of these problems there will
>be another copy of Wingz for sale.

It is unrealistic to expect one program to do everything better.  However,
many of the complaints can be solved with very little work with HyperScript
(as the author himself implies).

For a very different review of WingZ (version 1.0, not even the upgrade),
I refer the author to the  November issue of MacWorld ("Can Excel Be
Beaten?" by Charles Seiter).  In it, Seiter concludes:

"Wingz is the clear leader for graphics features, programmability, and
high-end computational performance.  ...  In release 2.2, Excel has brought
its features list and capacity up to current standards; it has done this so
thoroughly that it would be hard for many longtime Excel users to justify
a switch.  Excel occupies, still, a broad middle region of the market, despite
the undeniable appeal of Wingz for advanced graphics applications..."

As an obviously satisfied Excel user, there probably is no reason to switch
to Wingz.  With the reviews Wingz receives, the author would probably have
little trouble in selling his copy.

I only wish my upgrade would come.


---------------
Scott Camp  Q8N@PSUVM.BITNET
Penn State University
disclaimer: my opinions are (obviously) my own, and I don't work for any
            computer related company