Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!geech.ai.mit.edu!rjc From: rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications Subject: Re: When will new WordPerfect be available? Message-ID: <1991Jan15.202005.4403@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 15 Jan 91 20:20:05 GMT References: <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> <1991Jan14.073918.27523@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: daemon@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (Lucifer Maleficius) Organization: None Lines: 104 In article epeterson@encore.com (Eric Peterson) writes: >rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >| Most Microsoft stuff is crap, > >Is this a statement of personal experience or one of second-hand >information? Sounds to me more like the latter, especially since >Microsoft puts out some of the highest quality software in the MS-DOS >world. Personal Experience. AmigaBasic, Windows1.0/2.0, MS-DOS, etc. Microsoft may put out quality software, but only after plenty of revisions. I have never seen Microsoft get it right in the first revision. >| Lotus is a company whom I feel everyone should boycott(because of >| some of the stuff they are trying to do with copyright laws, databases of >| credit info, etc See comp.org.eff.talk, or the LPF at GNU) > >As has been discussed at length on various news groups, Lotus >Marketplace contains *no* information that is subject to the Fair >Credit Reporting Act. They are *not* distributing credit information. >They are, however, including estimates of personal income which >consumers have freely provided, generally through product registration >cards. But that's besides the point. Even before Lotus marketplace, Lotus was guilty of trying to copyright various aspects of their user interface. All in all, I don't agree with their business practices. >| If Word is so great, why does it take 700 pages to describe how it works? >| Word Processors are supposed to be intuitive! > >Word is intuitive, just as much as any other GUI product. I've sat >down at a Mac and churned out documents with Word without ever >touching the manual or calling up the help screen. Of course, what I >think you really meant is WordPerfect, not Word (two diferent >products), which is also intuitive, both in the MS-DOS version (5.1) >and in the AmigaDOS version (4.1). > >I think 700 pages is an appropriate size for such a manual, which >probably does not cover the complete functionality of Word or WP. But >it's long enough to include most everything you could want to do >without scaring people away from itself. Remember that this is the >*reference* manual we're talking about, not the *user* manual. Thats larger than most programming manuals i've seen. If it has that many functions, why not learn TeX? TeX can do more, and you get to use your favorite text editor! >| You keep citing the 'depth' that Word has over other word processors, how >| about listing SPECIFIC examples and features? > >Oh, please, let's not get into a features war here (and if we do, >let's take it to .advocacy so that those of us concerned with real >issues don't have to watch). Well if your going to claim something is better than ALL availible software on the Amiga, your going to have to give reasons. >| I just got a demo of TurboText (an Amiga editor from abcfd20). This is >| THEE best text editor I have ever seen. It blows Emacs, CED, TxEd, BRIEF out of >| the water. > >TurboText is a *text*editor*, not a *word*processor*. There is a VERY >big difference between the two, in addition to the fact that your >statement is yet again irrelevant. I put that statement in there, because this is an Amiga product that beats anything i've seen on Mac/IBM, just as Word supposedly beats all Amiga WP's. I know the difference between WP's and Text editor's but the differences can be debated. Today, Word Processor means WYSIWYG. Years ago, Text editors were Word Processors. There were no fonts, hi-res bitmap images, etc. Just Text. >| It all boils down to 'bandwagon' and 'big-name.' > >It all boils down to "quality" and "functionality", not "image". Sorry, I don't buy that. A few messages ago, someone said 'Every business I have ever seen uses 1-2-3.' as if quantity justifies quality. We all know thats not true, IBM is proof of that. >| Alot of people aren't using >| things because of their quality, but because of their name/reputation. >| People don't wear rolexes because they are the most technically superior >| watch on the market. They wear them because they are 'in' and expensive. >| The same thing applies to things like WordPerfect, 1-2-3, IBM. > >WordPerfect is a *very* powerful word processor. If you'd ever >actually tried to use it beyond demonstrating to yourself that you >hate it, you would know that. It's not elegant, but it works. And >it would be particularly wonderful if there was an Amiga version of >5.1, which is what this thread was all about in the first place. There are equally powerful Amiga wordprocessors that support full Commodore graphics and interface standards, along with postscript, iff files, etc. >Eric >-- > Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson > Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208 >Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.