Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!mtus5!ldshaner
From: LDSHANER@MTUS5.BITNET (Leon D. Shaner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
Subject: Re: When will new WordPerfect be available?
Message-ID: <91015.173952LDSHANER@MTUS5.BITNET>
Date: 15 Jan 91 22:39:52 GMT
References: <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu>
 <1991Jan14.073918.27523@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
 <1991Jan14.092400.10827@marlin.jcu.edu.au>
 <1991Jan14.104559.23914@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
 <91014.113702AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu> <91014.235548LDSHANER@MTUS5.BITNET>
 <91015.121348AXN100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ.
Lines: 20

>That is not the only reason try to convert 123 macros to Excel.  I've
>tried and finally gave up.

I realize that many people may be in the disadvantaged position of having
started with 123...  My point is that if you are in a position to make a
choice, starting from scratch, go with the best product - Excel...

Although it is nice when a product manufacturer makes porting your old work
to their platform easy, it is not always so...  They really have no obligation
to make their product compatible with product X, it is just nice when it is...

Sometimes they have to think of satisfying the user who wants power and is
willing to spend a little time to get it...  In the case of Excel, it is
well worth the effort to convert and if you were to start from scratch using
Excel from the start I think you'd see that the macro definitions would be
more straightforward and powerful than with 123...

Just my $.02

--Leon