Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbjade!csaron From: csaron@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Aron Roberts) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: WordPerfect vs MS-Word Message-ID: <328@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Mon, 17-Feb-86 15:43:10 EST Article-I.D.: ucbjade.328 Posted: Mon Feb 17 15:43:10 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 04:12:04 EST References: <506@imsvax.UUCP> <1270@osu-eddie.UUCP> <3670@utah-cs.UUCP> <129@fritz.UUCP> Sender: network@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: csaron@ucbopal.UUCP (Aron Roberts) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 72 Keywords: Microsoft Word SSI WordPerfect comparison features In-Reply-To: <3682@utah-cs.UUCP> In article <3682@utah-cs.UUCP> halff@utah-cs.UUCP (Henry M. Halff) writes: > >Does Word: >Have a thesaurus? No. (An add-on, third-party product is required, at extra cost. One example might be Turbo Lightning, which works with Word and other word processing programs. Additional third- party products are required to give Word some of the built- in capabilities of WordPerfect, as indicated in several comments below.) >Keep page boundary indicators current? No, and one of the most frustrating features of Word for users who are used to WordStar, WordPerfect, etc. Word uses a gallery format, which allows it to rapidly load and edit LARGE files (I've worked with a 2MB Word file on an IBM PC/XT without noticable slowing from Word's usual editing speed on average-sized files (1-50KB)). The tradeoff for this is that Word does not continually update page breaks; one must manually request repagination (recalculation and redisplay of page breaks), which is SLOW. Word minimizes the associated problems by allowing paragraphs to be designated as "keep lines together" or "keep with next paragraph," thus automatically keeping whole paragraphs, tables, etc. together on a page; keeping headings together with the text they describe, and so on. Word also has built-in "widow" and "orphan" control. >Handle columns? In a WYSIWYG fashion? Yes to the former, no to the latter. >Have math capabilities? No, but Sidekick and other RAM-resident calculators can partly make up for this lack (and are easier to use than WordPerfect's built-in math features). >Have interactive macros? No, closest is Word's glossary feature or the (extra cost) use of an add-on keyboard macro processor of the Superkey/ Prokey/Smartkey genre. >Have document conversion facilities for DCF, DIF, Wordstar? Yes (to be supported by Microsoft in the future; to my knowledge, not yet implemented in Word 2.0; no to DIF, yes to WordStar - one-way only, WordStar-to-Word (except via ASCII files). >Have a merge facility? Yes, an excellent one. >Have automatic table of contents & indexing facilities? No. >Have redline and strikeout capabilities? I don't know what "redline" means; yes to strikeout, including on-screen display of strikeout text with IBM CGA or EGA or Hercules Graphics Card. >Online reference? Yes. (And much better than Word Perfect's, in my opinion.) >Escape to DOS? Yes, through the Library menu choice. Caveat - It's been a while since I worked with Word on an IBM PC. I now use Word exclusively on a Macintosh. Hence, some of the above may be wholly or partially inaccurate. These are both excellent word processing programs, reflecting different design philosophies. WordPerfect is a better value, but Word offers some features, such as multiple windows, mouse editing, style sheets, and advanced formatting and text display (WYSIWYG) that WordPerfect lacks. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aron Roberts (csaron@ucbopal.UUCP) Tolman Microcomputer Facility, 1535 Tolman Hall University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (415) 642-2251 UCB disclaims responsibility for opinions like these! "No regrets, Coyote, we just come from such different ..."