Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!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: <1991Jan14.073918.27523@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 14 Jan 91 07:39:18 GMT References: <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> Sender: daemon@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (Lucifer Maleficius) Organization: None Lines: 133 In article <1991Jan14.002805.1@ccvax.iastate.edu> taab5@ccvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > >In <510@pallas.athenanet.com> wally@pallas.athenanet.com (Wally Hartshorn) writes: > >>>I use version 5.1 at work on a DOS machine and am VERY envious! I'd >>>be happy if WordPerfect would just port over the non-graphics features >>>and release a 4.5 or something. Perhaps now that the A3000 is out and >>>seems to be gaining popularity with the professional crowd we might be >>>able to talk WordPerfect into upgrading the Amiga version. > >And in <1991Jan12.223304.28382@contact.uucp> writes: > >>If you really wanted to do "professional" typesetting, especially >>without graphics, then you should be using TeX. AmigaTeX in >>particular by Tomas Rokicki is by far the most wonderful piece of >>software that is available on the Amiga for any type of textual >>output. It is especially suited to "professionals" who need to >>typeset mathematics and tables. > > Talk about a steep learning curve! TeX is fine, as long as you have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >a degree in typesetting or have a lot of time to learn to use it. TeX >is powerful, but is in the same category with programs like AutoCAD in >terms of how easy it is to learn to use it. > >And in <1991Jan13.092642.1759@news.iastate.edu> writes: > >> I'd like to put in a plug for MSS Excellence. For those of you >>who don't need the powerfull mathematical formatting capabilities of TeX >>there is MSS Excellence. Excellence 2.0 is a WYSIWYG word processor that >>supports postscript (even color postscript!), and virtual memory. The >>program is stable under 2.0 and seems to multitask very well. Excellence >>has a large dictionary (to check your spelling :) and a large thesarus (for >>those hard to describe things). I've heard that it is similar to Microsoft >>Word, though I've never used Word. That may or may not be a good point for >>people here. At least using the PostScript fonts, Excellence seems to be >>reasonably true to its WYSIWYG claim. > > Excellence! has the most misleading name of any Amiga program yet. >It is better named 'mediocrity!' because that is exactly what it is. None >of the Amiga word processors (yes, I have tried them all) can even begin >to hold a candle to Microsoft Word for the Macintosh. Anyone who doubts >this has never even tried Microsoft Word. > > All of the Amiga word processors (yes, *ALL* of them) are but fancy >text editors compared to MS Word. Sure, the basic features are there -- >such as color graphics, a thesaurus, a spell checker, and maybe a >grammatics tool -- but none of them have any depth whatsoever. And it >is in depth that MS Word truly excels over any other word processor. ^^^^ > > If anyone doubts that MS Word is not vastly better than any of the >Amiga word processors, I suggest you take a look at the book entitled >'Working with Word, Second Edition'. This book is over 700 pages long, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and yet none of it is fluff. Every one of the 700+ pages is filled >with information on using MS Word. I had been using MS Word for over >a year, and did not realize just how powerful this word processor is >until I got this book. MS Word has features that go well beyond just >word processing, and well into desktop publishing and typesetting. >It rivals TeX capabilities, and yet is as easy-to-use as any of the >Amiga word processors. > > I find, as I read the Amiga newsgroups and talk to Amiga users, that >Amiga users think that the Amiga word processors are good simply because >they have never seen anything powerful like MS Word. If they did, they >would realize just how incredibly weak these word processors are. > > As for the original poster's question about when WordPerfect for the >Amiga will be significantly upgraded, the answer is probably never. The >WordPerfect company lost a lot of money on the Amiga, mostly out of >stupidity on their part. They produced a non-graphics word processor >for a graphics-oriented computer, and wondered why it wasn't selling. >They know that if they had produced a non-graphics word processor for >the MAC, it would have been regarded as an insult to the MAC, and they >would be lucky to sell 10 copies. Yet they did precisely this to the >Amiga. Unfortunately, Amiga users are more forgiving than MAC users, >and it sold well for a while, but then sales slumped and they didn't >know why. Finally, they threatened to cut Amiga support entirely, >blaming the Amiga for lackluster sales when their own total stupidity >was to blame. > > Don't try to pursuade Word Perfect into better supporting the Amiga, >because it won't work. When WordPerfect Corp. threatened to cut >development of Amiga WordPerfect entirely, I organized massive >letter writing campaign (by leaving messages on CI$, and writing >letters to a couple of Amiga magazines -- letters that were printed, >BTW), and this only succeeded in getting them to keep a pathetic >two programmers to update the Amiga version of WordPerfect. By >comparison, WordPerfect keeps a staff of over 30 programmers to >update the MAC version. > > The really sad part of this is that other big-name companies like >Microsoft, Lotus, Aldus, and Adobe will probably never write software >for the Amiga, because one big-name company tried to support the Amiga >and lost a lot of money. > > > -MB- WHo cares about Fancy Dancy big name companies. Most Microsoft stuff is crap, 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) If Word is so great, why does it take 700 pages to describe how it works? Word Processors are supposed to be intuitive! You keep citing the 'depth' that Word has over other word processors, how about listing SPECIFIC examples and features? And how do you know what big name companies think? Lotus, Microsoft, etc don't lose money porting software, they MAKE money. I recall a discussion on a local net a while back that said Lotus requires you to pay them between $7-15 million to do a port (more than Commodore's profit for 1 year.) Even if they sold only 1 copy, they still made plenty. 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. Marc, are you certain you own every Amiga word processor on the market? Are you a pirate? Why don't you post a complete list of every word processor on the Amiga (since you've tried them all) and what they are lacking to Word? It all boils down to 'bandwagon' and 'big-name.' 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. Generally, I am skeptical about statements like 'I have tried EVERYTHING else on the market, and noneof them compare to XYZ.'.