Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!axn100
From: AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
Subject: Re: When will new WordPerfect be available?
Message-ID: <91015.115119AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 15 Jan 91 16:51:19 GMT
References: <1991Jan14.092400.10827@marlin.jcu.edu.au>
 <1991Jan14.104559.23914@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
 <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> <1991Jan14.224413.22111@infonode.ingr.com>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 55

>>
>>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 #                               |