Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!gg2
From: gg2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Guy Gallo)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Word Processor Selection
Message-ID: <1990Nov6.191958.21472@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 6 Nov 90 19:19:58 GMT
References: <7445@uwm.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 26

For my money you can't do better than Word for Windows.  I've been using
it since it was released and feel it gets better and better the more you
know about it.

The primary advantage of WfW, in my mind, is buried in it's fundamental
design:  everything is a macro.  All editing functions are contained in
visible and modifiable macros.  And then macros have a hierarchy:  you could
change a macro on a document type (template) level and not effect documents
based on other templates.  You can change macros globally, effecting all 
documents.  This same hierarchy (and flexibility) also applies to "user-
macros", which can completely change and customize the way the program works.

One way of looking at is this:  the program is transparent.  You can get into
and change the inner workings.  Very little is un-modifiable.

In addition to this great flexibility (due to the macro language), there is a
great power available in "fields".  They range from simple things like {date} 
to display the current date and {include C:\\filename} to insert another 
document (with two way hot link, by the way), to interesting cross reference
capabilities like {seq} to number the occurences of a bookmark and {ref }
which allows you to insert the text of the most recent instance of a paragraph style (nice in headers).

I would also note the implementation of outlining, annotations, and bookmarks
as good points for the program.

My nickel's worth.