Final Copy Complaints
85 messages in this thread
Okay…I took the plunge and bought Final Copy because I couldn't stand
excellence! anymore and now I feel ripped off. Can't anyone write a decent
WP for this damn Amiga?
Yes, the output from FC is terriffic, I'll grant you that. But getting to
that point is something else. Who in the world would write a WP that opens
only one document at a time? Kinda tough to cut and paste from one file to
another when you can only open one at a time. Would be nice to have a
delete file function, too. Never seen that missing from a WP before.
One of the worst things is the screen display, which is nothing short of
horrendous. I mean how the hell am I supposed to read what I've written?
Terrible….
There are some nice things about FC, but it seems terribly crippled,
especially the one file open at a time business. Never would have dreamed
it was so limited in function or I'd a saved my money for something else.
BTW, I'm running this thing on an A-3000 with an HP DeskJet 500. Both are
brand new, but I am an experienced Amiga user–this is my second one.
Is there anything I can do to make this program functional?
Mike Cullison
? One of the most difficult things a developer goes through after spending
considerable time, energy, money, personal relationships, and etc. on bring
a product to market is to respond to the type of message you just left.
The first thought that came into my mind was to rip into your dialog with
an equally offensive one of my own. However, after a few moments of
thought, and a count to 1000 or so, I decided against it.
FC will easily open more than one document at a time – if you have enough
memory to accomodate the new window. We have A3000's here at SoftWood and
regularly open multiple windows.
If you have version 1.1 or 1.2, your screen rendering will not be as good
as version 1.3. If you do have either of these earlier versions, and send
in your registration card, you will get the latest version (free of charge)
– let's see you get that kind of support from our competition.
Your comments about no one being able to write a decent WP for, as you put
it, "This damn Amiga", show the kind of thought you must put into your
dialog. Are you happy with anything you buy? In cases like yours I wish I
could point out the benifits of Final Copy, but I doubt if you could
appreciate it. I do, however, hope you at least get your money's worth out
of the program. If good output is the only thing you like about Final
Copy, you can be assured that it is as good, if not better, than anything
you will find on the Amiga or any other computer.
I recently purchased Final Copy. I have Excellance! 2.0, and had been
using it for some time. I now use FC for all my new work. The reason is
the ineterface, but I must add my voice to Michael Cullison about the
display. Even under 1.3, it is pretty bad. The lower case f and t can
easily be mistaken for each other. If it weren't for the excelent output,
I would not have cut over to FC. I am afraid I must rate the screen
display of output as just barely adiquate.
There was another letter in the batch I just downloaded about only loading
one document at a time. It is not clear from your documentation that you
can have more than one document at a time. I also wish you had an insert
capability, so that I could insert one document inside another. The open,
cut or copy and paste works, but can be awkward or impossible if you don't
have enough memory.
Bill Roberts in Ellettsville In. via Whap!
Well, I got FC after that glowing Amiga World review and haven't regretted
a penny. Having tried PenPal, Wordworth and numerous older WPs for the
Amiga FC suits me down to the ground. The immediate Nimbus fonts put
Wordworth's compugraphics to shame – but can we get more Nimbus fonts?
I regularly open more than one document and cutting and pasting between
them is a piece of cake. Sometimes I have even opened multiple copies of
FC each with multiple docs (can't remember why though!)
Although FC still isn't as good as most Windows WPs (sorry guys) it is the
best I've seen on the Amiga.
Just thought I'd put my ten cents worth into the discussion! Ciao!
Rendering outline fonts on a low resolution device like a computer monitor
will never be as clean as rendering hand-tuned bitmapped fonts that were
designed for a specific resolution and point size. Quality output was the
primary goal behind the release of Final COpy. A secondary goal was to
provide quality features for an extremely reasonable price. Although FC
currently has a suggested retail price of $99.95 I doubt if many people pay
that for it. I've seen it in mail order for as low as $59.95. I don't
know if you know this or not, but that is less money than most companies
sell a family of 4 outline typefaces for. Still, with Final Copy, one can
never say "you get what you pay for" when it comes to output quality. It
simply is the best you can get on the Amiga or any other computer! Not bad
for less than $100!
Another reply to the original message that started this asked about fonts.
We have just released volumes 3 and 4 of SoftFaces. Each volume comes with
25 typefaces. This brings the total typefaces available for FC to 135 (35
comes with the program, 100 in four volumes of SoftFaces).
Everyday we get 20 to 30 letters from Final Copy owners. Whether the
letter is to thank us or to request new features it is nice to finally see
quality output on written communication created on an Amiga. All programs
have room for improvement. There are many features that would work well in
Final Copy. Unlike other companies that made big money quicly in the Amiga
market, and then left the Amiga market for greener pastures, we have 4
full-time programmers working 5 to 6 days a week on the upgrade to Final
Copy. Although FC is currently the best-selling word processor for the
Amiga in North America, it will get better as time goes on. If you have
features you want to see, list them here or send me a letter.
Woody
Well said Woody!
Of course, you've already heard my list of requested improvements. 🙂
BTW, I do agree with the one comment; the display is still hard to read, at
least with small font sizes (11). But anything new I do gets done in FC.
Ron
I know that the output to a low resolution monitor is difficult, and if you
are trying to produce WYSIWYG output there are problems. It would be
unrealistic to expect the kind of monitor displays on an Amiga monitor
running 640×200 that I get on the HP 19 inch moniters at work. But my
vision is not as good as when I was young, and reading the display in FC is
a chore. I am not visually impaired, either. Someone with a real vision
difficulty would be locked out. FC is an excellent word processor for the
price. But it seems a shame that the main means of communicating with me
(the screen) doesn't look better. Perhaps a View of about 125% would be
the answer. I would be more than willing to give up one of the smaller
views.
Also, where can I get some more Fonts. I would like to use FC to do some
advertising brochures (in fact, that was one of my hopes when I bought it)?
Are there some other fonts besides your Soft Clips available (even from
other publishers)?
Bill Roberts in Ellettsville In. via Whap!
Bill, we just released volumes 3 and 4 of SoftFaces. That brings the total
typefaces available for FC to 135. We just mailed information about these
two volumes to all of our registered users – you should get this info next
week. Each volume of typefaces contains a mix of display and normal
typefaces. All typefaces are licensed from either International Typeface
Corporation or Letraset via ITC.
I purchased my copy about mid-May, will I be getting any info on the new
volumes?
Mike,
MS Word is a $495 program that discounts for $275. Final Copy is a $99
program that discounts for $60. You don't get Ferraris for Yugo prices.
What? You mean, I paid $500 for my Amiga 500 and now I have to pay $60 to
get a decent word processor?
>> I paid $500 for my Amiga 500 and now I have to pay $60 to get a decent
word processor?
Life's a bitch, and then you have to use MS-DOS. Bill Roberts in
Ellettsville In. via Whap!
Woody,
I'll put my two cents into this. I use FC and think that it's an
excellent wordprocessor, however, when compared to MicroSoft Word for the
Mac, FinalCopy and all the other Amiga wordprocessors lag woefully behind.
I would like to see a display of black print on a white background, a
formula formatter like that in Word with full graphic support and
autosizing of math symbols and functions. A true glossary with the ability
to configure glossary entries into a special menu item, a complete
speller/thesaurus, formatting capabilities rivaling that of DTP programs,
table generation, complete built-in help facility. I would suggest that
you take a look at Word on the Mac as an example of what a great
wordprocessor is and the goal for a truly great Amiga wordprocessor. Not
to deprecate the wordprocessors available for the Amiga, there are a couple
very good ones which include FinalCopy and ProWrite, but they lag behind
the great ones available on other platforms. Since you say the FC has
become the best selling wordprocessor for the Amiga, I hope you will be
able to funnel the profits to the further development of FC into a truly
great wordprocessor.
I'm just tired of getting ripped off on Amiga productivity software that
can in no way hold a candle to similar progs in the DOS and Mac world.
I'm used to using MS Word on the Mac and that is my standard of
comparison.
You can say what you want about it, but in the Mac world it's a pretty
damn popular WP. I expect anything in the Amiga world to be AT LEAST that
good, since that standard is out there to shoot for. I don't think that's
asking too much. I'd be willing to pay MS-type prices, too, if I thought I
was getting my money's worth.
I'm sure FC will open multiple docs, but isn't it a bit of a memory hog
if it cannot open 2 small docs on a 3000 w/ 2 megs of RAM? Even excellence!
can open a bunch of docs before running out of memory. You didn't address
the question of why there is no delete function–not asking too much for a
simple delete file command is it?
The version I have is 1.3.2 and I don't care what you say, the display is
poor at best.
Hey, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm the customer
and if it weren't for people like me you wouldn't have a job. Don't forget
that.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I'm really pissed that I've bought
another piece of alleged state-of-the-art Amiga productivity software that
just can't measure up to the standards of the DOS and Mac world. Every time
I buy a new piece of productivity software I get my hopes up and every time
they are dashed. I'm not picking on you. I sent a nasty letter to MSS after
I bought excellence! because I thought it was a kluge. It's just time for
the people writing productivity software for this machine to turn out
quality that can compete with the rest of the business computer community.
And I'm tired of hearing that this is a grafix machine and has plenty of
great grafix and video software. Perhaps…but I didn't buy it for that. I
don't think it's too much to ask to get a WP as good as MS-Word and a
spreadsheet and good as Excel.
that's all I'm asking for.
Mike Cullison
You're comparing a product from a billion-dollar company against products
from mom-and-pop companies. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac. Or, buy a Mac
and an Amiga, and quit whining!
If the sales volume of a company bore and direct relationship to the
quality of its software IBM would own the computer world and OS/2 would be
the only game in town.
There's no excuse for putting out junk and luring people into paying
good money for it. Besides, how do you think MS got to be a billion dollar
company? They built a better mousetrap, didn't they?
MS-DOS a better mousetrap? Hardly! Marketing and the luck of being in the
right place at the right time explains Microsoft's success, not technical
innovation (or even solid trailing-edge technology).
However, I also understand your frustrations about the disparity in the
available software for the different platforms. Unfortunately, it is
rather unrealistic to expect the multi-million dollar development efforts
to be directed to a market the size of the Amiga's, especially for
"business" software. If that is your main use for your computer, then I'm
sorry to inform you that you made a wrong decision when you bought your
Amiga. Sad, but them's the facts.
– BobR
Unfortunately, you may be correct. But I would think an installed user
base of more than a million machines–not even counting how many more
million in Europe–is a big enough market to attract the bigger software
houses into writing for the machine.
BTW, I wasn't referring to MS-DOS as a better mousetrap. I meant MS-Word
and Excel, which have been industry standards for some time.
It just really gets my goat that somebody can't write a great WP and
spreadsheet for this machine. How hard can it be?
There are a lot of things about MicroSoft I don't like, but I think we
should bribe them into porting some of their Mac software to the Amiga.
Bob,
The problem with that reasoning is that the Mac market isn't that
much larger than the Amiga's, yet the quality of software is far superior.
To carry this a bit further, consider the Next platform and the scope of
the software available and being developed. The Amiga could have great
software if the software companies developed outstanding products from the
start, rather than entry level products which then get continually upgraded
but never expanded. If CBM would underwrite software development there
would also be a chance for better software. Reality is that great software
could be here despite the size of the market. This is evident by looking
at what's available for other small market machines.
Steven,
You raise a valid point. However, I'm not convinced that there exists a
large number of potential customers in the Amiga market for a $500 software
package. The majority of the existing Amiga computers were priced in that
ball-park (A500) and most likely couldn't even run the software (since it
would undoubtedly require a hard disk and 2 megs or more of memory). Also,
most "power" software today really requires an accellerated machine, which
also precludes the 500's (except for the terminally patient).
– BobR
Bob,
Well, you're right in some respects, but I disagree that you need
an accelerated machine. I use Word on my 68000 Mac SE and it is quite
agreeable. Text entry, formatting, re-formatting, etc. are respectably
fast. I also use Aldus Pagemaker on the Mac (a 1.5 meg program file!) and
although it runs sometimes painfully slow on some operations, is otherwise
quite tractable. Given that graphic operations on the Amiga are much
faster than on the Mac, I suspect that such programs would provide very
satisfactory performance on an Amiga. Now, given that such companies
already produce code that is 68000 compatible, the development costs for
the Amiga are those marginal costs for dealing with the GUI and any machine
dependencies (if any.) If CBM would underwrite those marginal costs those
companies might be able to produce an Amiga version. I think that when you
look at the capabilities of such programs as Excel, Word, Pagemaker, etc.
that Amiga owners might be willing to pay the prices for what they would
get. I would say that Word is easily 4 times better than the best
wordprocessor available on the Amiga. In fact I would argue that if you
took all of the best and unique features of EVERY Amiga wordprocessor and
wrapped them into a single product, Word would still be 4 times better.
That's my personal opinion. As for spreadsheets nothing on the Amiga is
any better than Lotus 1.0. Excel and Lotus today far surpass anything
available on the Amiga. Pagemaker is a magnitude better than any Amiga DTP
program. As for database, we at least have SuperPro 4 which is about as
good as you can get or need, although it is not the best, it is closer than
are Amiga wordprocessors, spreadsheets, and DTP. As for graphics, we have
some excellent stuff on the Amiga, but the competition in the Mac world is
still ahead of the game in some respects. In development software we have
CanDo, but similar products on the Mac and DOS worlds are better. CBM
needs to get off the dime. The only way we will see such power on the
Amiga is to provide developers
Steven,
I have to take issue with a statement of yours…
New Media Age did a comparison on what they call "Entry-level Authoring
Systems" between Mac, PC and Amiga…there were four packages that garnered
the "Thumbs Up" rating, although none got "AMAZING!!!", which is the top of
their scale. One was HyperCard, while CanDo, The Director2 and AmigaVision
got the other four. Nothing in the DOS world came close.
My only problem with this review is that the Amiga products may be
"entry-level" priced, they kick booty against the so-called professional
products on other platforms…and they won't get that chance to compete, at
least not in the pages of New Media Age…
Jonathan
– via Whap!
I guess they never used Syrius on the Mac or Visual Basic on DOS? And why
do we still only have "entry-level"?
with the support needed to bring such power to the Amiga. Next has done it
for a machine with an installed base which is probably no larger than the
total number of Amigas in Florida! Is CBM listening?
Mac word processors cost $250 discounted (from $495). Amiga owners tend to
whine when a $59 word processor doesn't do everything the way they want it
to. That's one reason Amiga companies haven't had the guts to invest the
man-hours to create a Word-like program.
(CBM does underwrite some software development, BTW. They have
for years. And no, I won't name names. 😉
Denny,
I'm glad to hear they have, but why don't they underwrite
development for some of the biggies? I think Amiga users may whine about
$59 wordprocessors because of what they've gotten used to getting. I
didn't hear much whining about WordPerfect until we saw what they gave us.
I do believe that if a software product with the capabilities seen on Mac
and DOS platforms came to the Amiga and were not simply ports of old
versions long since abandoned (ala WordPerfect) they would find support.
As the Amiga makes inroads into commercial graphic applications, it can
begin to make inroads into related business applications because the same
users need both capabilities. As it is the Amiga is often credited for
being a great graphic machine, but that's it. The Mac is now also
recognized as having equally capable graphics and a lot more. Why
shouldn't the Amiga have the software to be recognized as more than the
hardware add-on for the Toaster?
I don't know… I use the Amiga for all my productive work (and it sits
next to a 486/33 "game machine ;), and I'm a writer. I find that with
ProWrite (or Final Copy), WordPerfect, and PageStream, I've got all the
writing tools I need. And ProWrite is so much more pleasant to use than
WinWord is on the 386SX at work…
A couple of the "BIG" applications did get funding from Commodore. Rumor
has it that deals for Lotus and WP 5 were struck and then fell through. The
problem is, to underwrite development for a company like Lotus, you're
talking enough money for an ad campaign…
Denny,
Yep, I agree, an ad campaign is essential and expensive if done
right. But nothing in this country gets sold without good advertising.
Just look at the success IBM had with all that advertising they did for the
PCs. Apple's ads do a great job of keeping the product in the public eye.
CBM on th other hand doesn't do enough advertising, nor is it continuous so
that the Amiga is kept in the public eye. Repitition is the key to
success.
I do a lot of writing myself, but ProWrite or FinalCopy isn't
enough. I need the capabilities of Word and Pagemaker for the stuff I do.
Although Pagestream is certainly good, it has (as does PPage) glaring
deficiencies. For instance tabbing (the ruler in general) is archaic.
Worse than a typewriter. At least a typewriter can tell me in what column
the tab is, with Pagestream and PPage it's less useful. I must create a
new box and tabs for any line or paragraph which uses different tabbing.
Why they couldn't implement a ruler like what's in ProWrite and FinalCopy
is beyond me. As for that matter the need for creating new boxes.
Pagemaker handles this for me automatically. Page numbering is also a
problem. Neither Pagestream nor PPage know how to correctly place a
pagenumber on the recto page. You can't actually edit facing pages because
it won't render them large enough to see. They also don't know that when
you use facing pages, that the first page is a single. These are simple
problems which make using them awkward. Now I like Pagestream and it is
great, but to a point. Just like the wordprocessors. They are good, but
to a point. I do academic papers with lots of formulae, but nothing is
available for doing equation editing. I think we do have software which is
quite good, but they are a generation behind what's available on other
platforms, which is sad considering that our hardware is a generation
ahead!
Microsoft has a lot of resources to put behind each release of their
products. Most Amiga companies have few.
But little companies get to be big companies by being skilled at
producing excellence–no pun intended.
That's rarely true. Yes, it sometimes happens that garage companies become
Apples, except when the myth is being recounted, they always downplay that
infusion of a quarter-million dollars venture capital that helped them get
out of the garage. Microsoft grew on the turn of a single deal that took
them out of the garage and into a "campus" in Washington. They bought an
operating system from another company for $40,000 and turned it into
millions from IBM.
The reality of the Amiga market is that most of these companies are very,
very small. Like most small start-ups, they die quickly. I think you
could count on one hand the number of Amiga software companies that have
more than fifteen employees. Sure, they turn out great products, but don't
expect them to come up with an upgrade like Word 5.0 every six months.
Mike, FC is a major improvement over most wp programs I've seen, ESPECIALLY
given that it is really dirt cheap. But I'm a bit surprised that you'd get
a 3000 and not add some ram; 2 meg is patheticaly low these days for any
computer, Amiga included. My old 2000 has several meg; 2 chip, and 6 fast.
Ron
I don't think I should have to add RAM just to open a couple of
documents. Fact is, on the FC box it says the sys requirements are 1 meg, 2
floppies or a Hd and WB 1.3 or higher. If what they meant was you only get
minimal performance from that they should have said so.
Frankly, in many respects excellence! is a better product, even though
I've hated it since I bought it in 1989.
How much did you pay for FC? How did you pay for MS Word? I've seen MS
Word running on a 486, and it's no speed demon. (I know you run MSW on a
MAC, but I thought I'd throw that in….it's darn slow for a processor
that's supposed to be fast!)
Steve
I used MS-Word on a Mac at work (Mac II). I thought it was plenty fast,
but my complaint with FC isn't speed. It's lack of features, memory
hogishness and really crappy display. It is fast enough, it's just not full
featured. And Softwood is crazy if they think every 3000 owner is going to
run out and install more RAM (right after dropping $2,000+) just so they
can open more than one document. That's crazy. I don't know much about
MS-Word in the DOS world–I try to stay away from that club as much as
possible.
The 3000 comes with very little ram. $1-200 to noticably upgrade that is
nothing.
Ron
Why shouldn't a WP work w/ 2 megs? Is that asking too much. How are you
supposed to run the thing on a 1000 or a 500?
The point isn't that I need to spend a hundred bucks for more RAM, it's
that I shouldn't have to.
We have a pc at work with 4 megs of ram, with windows 3.0. Windows
software won't run because it 'doesn't have enough ram'.
Software vendors today are starting to realize that writing software for an
unexpanded 500 is absurd, that it cripples the software, so they write it
for larger machines, so that the more memory it has the better it can run.
Memory is very, very cheap, and to buy an expensive box and not spend a few
bucks on ram is equally absurd. I have a 2 meg CHIP ram plus 6 meg fast
ram system; while slow, I never, but never, but never, run out of ram. The
last 4 meg cost 40-50 per meg.
Ron
Your point about speed is taken, but again, how much did you pay for FC,
and how much for MS Word?
Steve
I'm willing to pay MS prices for MS performance. The point is I'm out $60
bucks and I haven't really improved my WP capability from the version of
excellence! I've been using for 3 years.
"Softwood is crazy if they think every 3000 owner is going to run out and
install more RAM (right after dropping $2,000+) just so they can open more
than one document. That's crazy."
People buy Amiga 3000's because they need the power. And most 3000's
owners are smart enough to realize that 2 meg (1.5 if you have Kickstart on
disk) is not enough. I had 4 meg of extra memory bought before I even had
the 3000 in my hands (waiting for CBM to deliver). You can't use the 3000
for any serious applications with a measely 2 meg of memory guy. As a
matter of fact I need to order 4 more meg soon to deal with Imagemaster.
Nick
All I want to do is to run WP and spreadsheets with a little Digi-Paint3
for amusement. Hardly memory-hungry applications, methinks. Still can't
understand why I can't open more than one doc. No one has yet to explain
that.
Just out of curiosity….
Why should a multitasking machine NEED a 'delete file' function?
Jim
So you don't have to go to the CLI to delete it. Why should I have to?
Every other WP I've ever used had a delete file function–until FC, that
is.
Michael,
Most likely every other WP you've used _needed_ a 'Delete File' (Funny. I
just looked at all of the ones I use at work, and none of them have a
'delete file' anywhere in them. The only one I have ever seen with a
function to do so is sitting on a MS-DOS machine, and struck me as
particularly useless- but then, so does the entire program. Yuck.)
Unlike most other machines, you can drop what you're doing in one place
and go do something else (or several somethings if you have the mind to.)
Why freight an application down with something the user can do very easily
elsewhere? I mean, you can even use Workbench to scrap files, even if they
don't have an .info file attached if you're under 2.0X. And you never have
to Quit to do housekeeping. Or most anything else, either.
Don't get me wrong. I just want to know what your beef is, and why that
particular lack, INYO, makes FC crippled.
Curious Minds Want to Know,
Doug
The lack of a delete file function was just a small complaint I
mentioned. The biggest bitch I have about FC is its memory-intensive
nature. I have 2 megs and I can only open one file at a time. Seems a bit
hoggish to me. As bad as excellence! is with memory management, I can open
as many as 10 small files and several in the 40-50K range with no problems.
Also, the display on FC is simply unacceptable. There's no other way to
put it. It's so bad it's nearly impossible to tell how many spaces you have
between words or letters and some letters are real hard to distinguish.
All I'm asking for–and I don't think this is a big deal– is a WP as
good as MS Word for the Mac. I'd also like a spreadsheet as good as Excel.
That's all I'm asking for. And I'm willing to pay MS-type prices for
quality. I mean what's the point of spending $60-100 for a WP that isn't
real great when for two or three times that much you can have something
good. Now with excellence! and FC I've got as much tied up in WPs as if I
had bought MS Word for the Mac.
I thought hard about Word Perfect, but someone here told me it is no
longer produced by the Word Perfect Corp. and is now essentially an orphan.
If that is so that's too bad. If it's not true I got some bad advice and
wasted another $60.
Michael,
Welp, I do agree about Word on the Mac. It's about as good as you can
get (for a WP program, at least. It does have some glaring weaknesses
itself, IMO, but others think those are nice, useful features 8)
Word Perfect _is_ orphaned, or so it's been announced, but still probably
what you're looking for. You might buy a used version cheaply and be
perfectly happy with it. It's something to look into.
Now, if you're trying to use the WP you have as _page layout_ programs
and not just as something to chop, slice, dice, format/style and julienne
text, you will probably never be happy. WPs are not all that hot at
design, with even Mac MS Word making only feeble attempts at imitation. (I
speak as One Who Makes A Living (Kinda) with this stuff and while I've been
able to do/seen some neat stuff done with WP's, it ain't as easy as the PR
guy sez) It's a matter of arm wrestling the copy into inteligibility with
a WP and then hammering it into nice looking readability with a page L/O
program.
I don't have FC or Excellence, so I can't really comment on their
usefulness or lack thereof. But I can say that if you've got both, you'll
have to buy about three more copies of each before you reach the discount
price of Word. 8)
Doug
Michael,
You say that you are willing to pay "MS-type prices" for a program like
Word or Excel. Let me ask you the following: Are you willing to pay the
development costs for such a product, assuming that you'll be receiving the
return from sales of said products? You can even charge "MS-type prices"
for the finished product, if you so desire. If so, I can probably find you
the developers who are quite capable of producing such products (most
likely much better). The problem is in funding such a development effort,
and finding a way to recoup that investment.
I do understand your frustration, but unfortunately it is not based in
reality. There is no free lunch. What your demanding is that some wealthy
individual or group invest a significant chunk of change to meet your
desires, with no hope of recouping their investment, let alone making any
money on it. Sounds like you need to get a government grant.
– BobR
If you have Kickstart on your Hard Disk that loads into RAM you got only
1.5 meg of memory.
Nick
Which word processors have you used that had a 'Delete File' feature?
Me? <Possibly misdirected, but I'll answer anyway>
Not a one that I've _used_ with any regularity. The only one I've ever
seen with that particular function as part of it is some cranky Word Star
type of thingie on MS-DOS machines.
I think it was meant to be used to turn the machine into a semi-dedicated
WP, replacing DOS use so the user would never have to sully his fingers
typing 'del c:\wpfile\myfile.wpr'
I do remember trying it out, and listening carefully for the 'clunk…
clunk… clunk…' as the CPU cycled. (It was definately NOT a speed demon)
I don't recall the name, and have no desire to ever have anything to do
with it- excepting perhaps recommending it, with great praise, to someone I
don't like.
Doug
Final Copy is NOT a rip-off! If you think so then I suggest you sell your
Amiga and go buy a MESS-DOG machine or a MAC!
Like you I have a 3000 and a DeskJet 500. I also have Excellence! which
isn't. In my opinion excellence really sucks in comparison to Final Copy.
I have only run excellence once or twice since I received FC.
I bought FC for the quality of output it produces which is excellent.
Softwood impresses me as a company that cares about their products and
customers – I have always received good support from them and will continue
to purchase their products if they fill my needs.
As far as the screen display goes, are you trying to use an RGB monitor?
Are you using interlace or non interlaced? On my 3000 I use the interlaced
screen display with the display enhancer on with an NEC 3D monitor and I
don't find the display hard to read.
One suggestion I have is to select the entire contents of your document and
then go set the point size higher for editing. When finished editing but
before printing, again select all of the text and then reduce the point
size back to what you want for printing. This is a simple solution to your
display problems.
A satisified Softwood Customer,
-J
Michael, I agree with one of the replies to your message, "Quit your
whining!" To that I suggest you get your facts straight about a company and
product you are attempting to slander. Most of FInal Copy users have an
Amiga 500 with 1 meg of RAM. FC comes with 35 outline typefaces, has
multiple columns, has excellent IFF graphic support, contains a speller and
thesaurus with definitions, automatic hyphenation, and does have the best
printing you can get on an Amiga or any other computer.
From the tone of your messages and replies you appear to need the attention
you get from your abrasive remarks. Having said that I realize that even
this message is contributing to your perverse pleasure – thrills come cheap
to some people.
I suggest you reread the messages and replies to your remarks and put every
thing into perspective. We all know you don't like the screen display in
FC. SoftWood has never claimed to have the best screen display of any word
processor. We have done everything we can do, however, to make the screen
display the best we can. Obviously it is still not good enough for you. As
far as your comments about FC being a memory hog. These comments are not
true. Instead of whining about not being able to open more than one window
in FC, why don't you offer some information about which would allow our
support staff to duplicate your operating environment. If we are able to
open more than one window on a 2 meg 3000 and you can't, there must be a
reason.
Finally, the only satisfaction I have gotten from my brief exposure to you
is that you are using and will continue to use Excellence!
Woody
I'll tell you one thing, if you worked in the customer service department
at my company you'd be looking for another job. Hey buddy, I gave you my
money in good faith and I don't feel you've kept your end of the bargain.
I'm running FC on a 3000 w/ 2 megs. I cannot–CANNOT–open more than one
document at a time regardless of size–I can't even open more than one new
document.
If most of your customers are running FC on a 500 with a meg they must
have real trouble opening big docs. The point is my system far exceeds the
minimum requirements you list on the outside of your package. I don't think
I'm being unreasonable when I scream about being able to open only one doc
at a time. How can anyone do any serious WP when they can't cut and paste
between docs?
I don't care about attention, I care about quality products and value.
Sure, your product doesn't cost much, but as the man once said, you only
get what you pay for.
I intend to send the product back and I expect to get a full refund for
it. I am completely unhappy with it and find it unacceptable. And there's
the bottom line, my friend. You've lost a customer forever.
Michael, you take liberty referring to me as 'buddy' or 'friend'. I
suppose you do this with the same lack of thought as you put in to your
comments about the Amiga ("Damned Amiga"), the Amiga market, software on
the Amiga, reflections about IBM, knowledge about Word, and all of the
other things you know nothing about.
SoftWood is one of the few companies that started when the Amiga was new
and has survived intact to this day. If our products, service, and support
were as bad as you say, we would not be in business. While our products
may not be up to your "high-standards", I can say without hesitation that I
personally have put everything I have into my company's products. I have
done everything I could think of doing to ensure that the purchasers of
SoftWood's products have gotten the best I can do. It is easy for someone
as ill-informed as you appear to be to slander the efforts of others. It
is much harder, it seems, for you to communicate in a public forum in a
manner that benefits not only your ego and bitterness, but benefit as well
the members of the forum.
As far as your refund goes, I suggest you take it up with the company you
purchased the program from. If you bought the program from SoftWood, and
return the product in the same condition you bought it in, we will
accomodate you. As far as your decision not to purchase any more SoftWOod
products – that will be your loss and SoftWood's gain.
Woody
Home Run Woody! I'm getting tired of all this whinning. Seems to me that
Michael is an MS DOS Wannabee to begin with. Long Live Softwood!
You seem to have no sense at all for irony, do you? Why are you taking
all of this so personally?
I like the Amiga. I think with the arrival of WB 2.0 and the 3000 it's
finally becoming a decent computer. My 500 was fine for a low-budget
machine, but with the old OS and a 68000 running at 7 megs it was a bit on
the slow side. It's not the platform that's the problem, but the software
for it. There is universal agreement that the productivity software for the
Amiga is woefully inadequate when compared to productivity stuff for the
DOS and Mac worlds. Every Amiga dealer will tell you that.
The question is: WHY? Why can't developers take a good look at the
state-ofthe art WPs and spreadsheets for DOS and Mac OS's and Amiga-ize
them? How hard would it be to clone MS Word from the Mac to the Amiga? Why
try to reinvent the wheel when it's already been invented? That doesn't
mean you couldn't improve on Word or Excel, just that they should be the
benchmarks.
And I don't buy this argument that little companies can t compete with
the big boys. All you have to do is look at Fox Software. They kicked the
pants off the big boys in the database world, both in the DOS realm-where
the others had a real big headstart–and in the Mac realm. They were so
good at doing what they do the MS just bought them out. Fox started out a
few years ago with just a handful of employees and a good idea. I happen to
know that's the case because the company is in my backyard.
It's a question of a total commitment to excellence and quality. And I
think your defensive attitude indicates that perhaps your company is
lacking in that commitment. Believe me I will let your company know what a
jerk you've been about this business and I hope they deal with you in an
appropriate manner.
I'm not some computer nerd who has nothing better to do than argue about
the fine point of operating systems and mimcroprocessors. I'm a 40-year-old
writer and television producer who has spent thousands of hours on word
processors in the last 10 years. I know what works and what doesn't and I
know what quality
Oh. Sorry. I didn't realize that you were a writer and television
producer who has spent thousands of hours on word processors. I see now
why you are such an authority on computing, software development, and how
easy it is to produce software.
SoftWood is such a large company, however, I doubt if they even know who
Woody is. But you might give them a call and ask for the owner. Tell him
what a jerk Woody is. Maybe I will get in big trouble, and your perverse
pleasures will be heightened all the more.
By the way, you must have a large backyard to have Fox Software inside it.
Finally, if you are 40 years old, you should be old enough to know how to
and how not to treat people. I am surprised that you belive the tone of
your dialog in this public forum does any good to make a point or influence
the quality of software on the Amiga.
Finally, finally, dialog at the level created by your abrasive tone never
amounts to any good. ANyone can get caught up into wallowing in the mud
such as that you have thrown about – I suppose I did. Have you ever been
at home enjoying some good music or pleasant conversation when a neighbor's
dog starts yapping? After a lot of yapping one may yell at the dog, but
the dog just yapps even louder. This has the effect of disturbing even
more of the neighborhood. I think I've yelled at this yapping dog long
enough. I am sure the neighborhood tires of my yelling and your yapping.
Woody (SoftWood, Inc. – Software from Woody, get it Michael?)
Woody; I wonder how well this guy gets along with his employees.
Ron
Woody-
I hope that this conversation is finally ended. One of the things that I
appreciate about CIS is that although you have to pay for the service, the
noise factor is pretty low as compared to other online methods of getting
information (usually).
I also think that Michael Cullison has some valid points, but that his
delivery obscured them.
Fact is that the Amiga is showing up as the only computer in a lot of
places, especially video shops. The folks that are buying "Toaster
WorkStations" and don't know that they are full fledged computers…this is
a market, and one with disposable income.
I think that a lot of folks would pay extra money to get a
"full-fledged" word pro or spreadsheet. One has to wonder where the
problem lies in this regard…
One for instance is Gold Disk. Many of us know that Pro Draw on the
Amiga is pretty good, but does not stack up to equivalent products on other
platforms. Now, they are shipping Pro Draw for Windows, which is priced
very reasonably, and is supposed to kick butt…why don't we have this on
the Amiga, where the product originated?
I don't use SoftWood products (yet?) since I found a while ago that
ProWrite did exactly what I wanted to do, and I've stuck with it…for now.
However, it does not do what I consider to be very basic things…it is
frustrating when you cannot get correct intercharacter spacing when using
scaleable fonts, or you cannot print a document that includes a title page,
since it will throw your page numbering off! This is basic stuff, folks!
When are we going to see hyphenation in an Amiga wordpro?
There are many small companies making quality software for the PC…an
example is Quicksoft, who make a pretty decent, very inexpensive word
processor (PC-Write) that, although not the best of executions, has a
feature list that pretty much exceeds anything on the Amiga market I am
aware of. And, this wordpro is released as shareware!
I wonder if the problem is that developers are underestimating their
[ MORE ]
Microsoft Word 1.0 was one of the most "buggy" programs the Mac has seen.
Since then Microsoft has invested a considerable amount of money in getting
to where it is now. I forget when Word first came out, but I think it was
over 5 years ago. I have used Word quite a bit while writing the PenPal
manual – I know I didn't use an Amiga WP. Word is packed with features,
but I still don't like the way these features are implemented. I much
prefer using PageMaker for documentation – if I am going to use a Mac
program. Still, PageMaker does not have heavy duty WP features.
Finally, a super-highend WP is in the works here. It is a separate product
priced and intended for a different market than FinalCOpy. All I will say
about it is that it contains the best of Word, FrameMaker, and PageMaker on
the Mac. I probably said more than I should have, but there it is anyway.
Woody
Wwody,
Now you've piqued my interest.
I, too, use Word and Pagemaker on Macs for text-intensive stuff. (about
80% of my work is Illustrator or Freehand, but they don't do formatted text
too well 8) I usually correct/format the raw copy in Word, then import
into Pagemaker for layout. They do complement each other _very_ well.
I've dreamed of something comparable to Pagemaker/Word for the Amiga for
Lo, these many years.
I you can, can you give us hungry types a strictly unofficial, not to be
taken as gospel, just off the cuff and not for the record approximate,
rough, it might not be and Softwood ain't saying so offically date of
release? I mean, a rough estimate to within a half-year? I'll understand
if you can't/won't, but I've got these _dreams_, y'see…
Doug
Woody,
If you need a beta tester, I would be more than glad to apply. I will be
first in line to purchase what I consider a "competent" word processor.
Jonathan
Jonathan,
You can have ProWrite do correct page numbering when using the "Title Page"
option by setting the starting page number to zero (0). You set this in
the "Item Formats" requester. This will cause the title page to have page
number zero (which is not printed, since headers and footers are not
printed on the title page), and subsequent pages to have correct page
numbering.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
J Bayless;
Your solution is not acceptable.
What if I (using your solution) would like to have the first page of the
document with no page numbering? That is how my professors like it…what
if I would like to have the first five pages in italic roman numerals (as
an intro or preface), but the rest of the document in roman? I could go
on…
This is *NOT* as big problem, really! I have heard that sooner or later
y'all are going to put in a "chapter" feature, so that you can change
different style things from page to page, or groups ofpages to groups of
pages. This would be a *GOOD* idea.
I just get kind of frustrated when I can't do what I did on the wordpro
I used in my c64 days!
Jonathan
– via Whap!
[ continuation ]
audience. I think that the Amiga may not need an equivalent to Excel or
AmiPro, but could use software that simply does the *WHOLE* job.
Jonathan
– via Whap!
How much did you pay for FC? $500? I don't think so. So stop comparing
it to a $400 or $500 program. Of course, not too many of them are doing a
lot yet with scalable fonts, though that is finally happening.
Ron
>Why are you taking this so personally?
Do you _read_ your messages before you send them? "If you worked in the
customer service department… you would have been fired…" Calling the
man a "jerk" doesn't exactly help matters, you know.
>How hard would it be to clone MS Word from the Mac to the Amiga?
Well, given that MS Word is an MS product — you don't WANT IT ON AN AMIGA.
MS just _loves_ to break the development "rules" for whatever platform they
program on. MS Word for MAC has died almost _every_ time Apple updated
their operating system. Its latest fiasco was when the Quadra MACs came
out. MS uses some self-modifying code, a BIG no-no with `040's.
"Reinventing the wheel" is almost a requirement unless you want unfriendly
visits from MS's and Lotus' lawyers.
Fox Software was able to get off the ground because they were able to get a
little piece of a _BIG_ pie. The Amiga "Pie" is quite a bit smaller, thank
you. And I believe Fox used the $$ from their DOS version to help pay for
the Mac version.
– via Whap!
I'm very curious as to what else you have running on your system at the
same time, what sort of buffers you have for your drives, in other words
how much ram is actually available when you start up FC. I've been using
Woody's products since early Pen Pal, and for the price they just can't be
beat.
And as I've said a few times already, anyone with only 2 megs in a 3000 is
only cheating himself. Spend $100 or so on a couple meg more.
Ron
Well, just saying that you can't do something doesn't help the people at
softwood help you any. If you have an A3000 with 2 megs, what else is
running? Do you have the 2.04 ROMs? If not, there goes 1/2 of your fast
RAM. Add in a few commodities (Screen blanker, Virus checker, Animated
Requester hack, AssignX, etc) and you are almost completely out of RAM once
FC loads. How about telling them how much "Graphics memory" and "other
memory" is left after loading FC?
There is nothing wrong with "Flaming" a company — I "flame" Supra an awful
lot myself… But in this case I don't think you are giving them enough
information to work with. FC works fime for me, though that's because I run
an A3000 w/ 6 megs….
Brian
– via Whap!
If it makes you feel better I think FC is great. I realize this program
is shooting for the best hard copy possible. If the screen display was
REALLY driving me crazy on a long doc I'd dash it off in TransWrite, save
it as ASCII, and import it into Final Copy for print out. I'm sure you are
going to keep working on the program and I know it'll get better but for
the 50 bucks I paid for it I'm pretty happy.
Mike,
Huh? What are you talking about? I've had up to nine documents open in
Final Copy. Just select Project/New…
What version of FC do you have? Version 1.3 took the screen display from
horrendous to "still needs some improvement."
I have 2 megs of RAM and I cannot open more than one small doc at a time.
Seems to me that's a big hoggish of my memory to take that much to display
a 3K file.
I have version 1.3.2 and I think the display is terrible. Cheap old
Textcraft way back in 1987 had a better display.
Textcraft looked nice in some ways, but as a general rule, FC runs rings
around it.
Ron
Mike, you should not hold the Amiga to DOS and Mac standards, and perhaps
you should have considered your needs before getting an Amiga. As for word
processors on the Amiga, Softwood has a better one out there called Pen
Pal. Version 1.4 came out in January and It beats Final Copy and ProWrite
hands down. It has a powerful user defined database and supports multiple
documents without gobbling memory. Remember, Softwood isn't Microsoft or
WordPerfect corp. and it's unfair for anyone to hold them to those
standards. They've done great work producing quality products for the
Amiga, and I hope their development continues. My advice to you is to use
your Amiga for the fun stuff and get a cheap clone from Sakamoko or MacPlus
for business needs.
-Whap! IT UP!
Why is it Amiga people always reply with "you shouldn't hold the Amiga to
DOS or Mac standards?" They are THE STANDARDS and if you can't come
anywhere close you're just kidding yourself.
Hey, I've had an Amiga for more than 4 years. I started with a 500 and
now have a 3000. This machine is finally getting to be a real
computer–although the 3000 is still badly overpriced (as most Amiga
dealers will admit.) What is so wrong with asking for some really good
productivity software? I don't think that's asking too much. The greatest
hardware in the world is only as good as the code that's running on it and
that's why the Amiga will NEVER make a serious dent in the business world.
All the Ethernet cards and Unix machines in the world won't help CBM break
into the offices of corporate America if there aren't real good WPs and
spreadsheets for the machine. They're not interested in Video Toaster and
neither am I.
But then again, the Amiga has made a serious dent in the Video world, and
the PC and MAC have not. The Amiga is the platform of choice there. And
those video people are not interested in business applications, they're
interested in doing video applications. Perhaps the Amiga won't ever make
a big dent in the business world, but instead is destined for the video
market instead.
Steve
I currently have Whap! View open, Final Copy with a three page document and
a second document open, and Directory Opus open in Icon form. I have a 500
with 3 meg of memory of which 512 k is chip. I have 190 K of chip still
available, and 770 K of ram. I can't open another document in FC because
of Chip Ram. BTW, I just shifted FC from non-interlace to interlace
display, and the font just became much more readable. Now, if I could get
the flicker to go away… But that is not Softwood's problem.
Yes, there are some problems with FC. But for $50 it is a good WP.
Bill Roberts in Ellettsville In. via Whap!
Micheal,
How much CHIP memory do you have?
!
[A I've got one meg of each.