CompuServe Messages

Mark, No offense, but your comparison vs. WordPerfect was pretty shabby, and then you conclude by saying that FC II stacks up pretty well. Huh? You say FC II does NOT support Macros, TOC and Index generation, Footnotes and Endnotes, nor Timed Backup. WP has had these features since 1988. That's almost five years ago! We all know Amiga WP doesn't support graphics. My list was for a straight word processing comparison. Also, people had complained about bugs in the early releases of WP. I use WP constantly and haven't found any current bugs. So although WP won't be upgraded anymore, it's now bug-free and has many features that FC II doesn't have. Why does that make it a worse word processor than FC II? It seems as if FC II has to evolve quite a bit using suggestions for improvement, merely to even approach all the features that WP has had for about five years. That's progress? I prefer built-in features rather than ARexx. Let the programmer do the programming; not the users. Don't get me wrong; if you like FC II, then use it. I'm not criticizing FC II, I'm just defending WP. You have stated that WP is not a good word processor, yet it seems to have many more major features than FC II. 😎 Dom Fontana <– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>