Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news
From: eric@clutx.clarkson.edu (Eric France)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: WordPerfect 5.0 & 5.1 VS Microsoft Word
Message-ID: <1990May7.191711.19640@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Date: 7 May 90 19:17:11 GMT
References: <725@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM>
Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Reply-To: eric@clutx.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Lines: 121

kleonard@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Ken Leonard):
> * ME!!
> * Friendly, opposing viewpoint:  I am currently using both WordPerfect 5.0
> * and WinWord on separate, identical computers.  There are some differences
> ---
> I'm in a similar situation, except I'm using Word 5.0
> ---
> * which should be noted:
> * 
> * WinWord has a problem with importing graphics (even from other Microsoft
> ---
> Word 5.0 also has some problems (which the MS folk _absolutely_ refuse to
> acknowledge.)  But sinec my application is limited (mostly) to using
> Postscript drawing files, I've worked up a Word macro to do the fixup I need.
> Since doing the fix (over a year ago,) It works just fine.
> ---
> * products) -- see recent appends for more information.  WP 5.0, on the 
> ---
> Interrogative "recent appends."  What do you mean?
> ---

You should get away from the terminal for a while -- you're starting to
sound like Robby the Robot.  "Interrogative Recent Appends?" ;)

By "appends" I meant articles -- too much time spent hanging around IBM. ;)

I was referring to the guy who couldn't import 
a) .MSP files from WinPaint
b) MacWord graphics (or WinWord graphics into MacWord).

> * other hand, comes not only with a screen cap util which manufactures
> * disk files it can import, it also has a format converter which will
> * import *many* other formats -- even MS formats ;) -- into .WPG
> * (WordPerfect Graphics format).
> ---
> But I find it _very_ cumbersome to use.
> ---

As always, your actual mileage may vary -- I have found it to be 
blissfully simple.

> * The nifty WYSIWYG interface that WinWord boasts means processing
> * overhead -- I'm a fast worker and I find myself being slowed down
> ---
> How much WYSIWYG do you have turned on?  Or is that a non-question with
> WFW?  With my Word 5.0, The WYSIWYGness is selectable--I don't need
> to turn it on until I'm ready to very final version of my document.
> And I find Word much more predictable in what it will do with certain
> things in the document, so I actually need WYSIWYG less often than with
> WordPerfect.
> ---

No argument -- if you can turn down the WYSIWYG, then you'll decrease
overhead and increase throughput (great ghu, now I'M starting to sound
like Robby....).  However, I was directly responding to a guy who was
plugging WinWord based on its WYSIWYG interface...WinWord specifically,
no mention of PlainWord ;), I have no experience with it.

> * when I use WinWord.  Windows is continuously paging memory from the
> * hard disk, which only exacerbates the condition.  WP, OTOH, fairly
> ---
> Is your system just a little bit short on memory?  If you want the
> full WYSIWYG, you've got to allow room for it to be done.
> ---

Is my wallet just a little bit short of money?  I did specify that
I was running both programs on identical systems -- so it is a fair
comparison.  However, I am willing to stipulate that if your system
has an extravagant amount of memory, WinWord performance may increase
dramatically, and WP performance probably won't, being "just" a DOS
app.

> * zips along with me.
> * 
> * I have a 1.2M disk with a functional WP environment (if you don't
> * need the speller or thesaurus, it's really not very big).  I carry
> * it around campus and use it on any machine I encounter.  This is
> ---
> Word 5 could live in the same environment--don't forget that WFW _does_
> effectively carry full WIN around with it.
> ---

Again, the comparison was between WinWord and WP.

> * *very* handy for me -- your actual mileage may vary.  
> * 
> * When printing from WinWord, you better not be in a hurry.  You can
> * still work at your console while the print queue is cranking, but
> ---
> Are you using WIN printdrivers?  They _are_ notoriously slow.  Try
> running WPerf under windows with output via the spooler and it will
> be just as slow.
> ---

Admittedly, the fault lies with Windows, not WinWord.  However, as
intricately intertwined as they are, what's the difference which
process is eating up all the cycles?

> * doing so creates a visible slowdown in printing (even worse than 
> * normal).  WP -- no sweat.  You initiate the print sequence, and 
> * drop back into the editor.  Almost transparent.
> * 
> * Disclaimer: I don't hate WinWord, in fact I'm rapidly getting used
> * to it.  If you have a fast system and a *really* fast hard disk,
> * the GUI is a nice way to go.  (There, I damned it with faint
> * praise....heheheheheh) ;)
> ---
> And I'm getting accustomed to Wperf, but still _hate_ the functionkey
> interface and the way the tabular menus work.
> -------------------------------
> regardz,
> Ken

Ah, but they're getting better!  

Salutationz, 
Eric France			| Don't look back, look straight ahead,
Clarkson University		| don't turn away to the voice, it said,
				| don't look back, yesterday's gone,
eric@clutx.clarkson.edu		| don't turn away, you can take it on.... -RB