Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!trwind!venice!ries
From: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: Ami Pro Wordprocessing: Opinion?
Message-ID: <1023@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>
Date: 1 Mar 91 20:39:37 GMT
References: <130786@puff.encore.com> <10790002@hpavla.avo.hp.com>
Reply-To: ries@venice.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries)
Organization: TRW Systems Engineering & Development Division, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 27

In article <10790002@hpavla.avo.hp.com> rowland@hpavla.avo.hp.com (Fred Rowland) writes:
>
>I've tried both Word for Windows and Ami Pro, and definitely prefer Ami Pro.

 My opinions, your mileage may vary:

 I have used AMI Pro for over a year.  My main work has been involved with
 desktop-type publishing of a newsletter.   
In general, I like AMI Pro. I have W4W on order (Via a $99 offer) and will
 be interested in the new Wordperfect for Windows due out in the next few
 months ($129 upgrade from WP/DOS).

 In general, I have found AMI Pro to be best for short publications.  The
 one long document I worked on (about 40 pages with graphics/tables, etc)
 was a real (performance) dog to work on.

 Legacy sounds interesting, because some of the features in Legacy are 
 features I would like to see in AMI Pro.  I would especially like to 
 have:

    * Support for non-rectangular frames
    * The ability to link frames so that text flows from one to the other
    * Support for user-defined "pages".  If your document is not based on
      an fixed page size (8.5x11, etc.), the index and table of contents
      support is pretty useless.  For example, my work is done on a legal
      size sheet, folded in half, printed both sides, 2 "pages" per side. 
      There is no support for this type of non-standard page layout.