#WordPerfect Upgrade
20 messages in this thread
Thanks for the perspective and coparison. Ami sounds like its definately a
better implementation. But I've got a lot of "baggage" already–namely, a
180-page manual to revise, hundreds of pages of academic papers under
revision, and a WP-committed workplace.
So I don't have the luxury of asking "whats the best word processor for
Windows". My question is, "Am I better off with WP 5.0 under CB on a
Rainbow or WP 5.x under Windows on a Rainbow?" (And will either be enough
better than 4.2 on a Rainbow to give up normal text editing in 4.2?)
I'm not looking for an answer to those questions, just raising the sorts
of issues that we're all probably thinking about as we consider upgrades to
our venerable beasts.
– Willett (p.s. To answer your implicit question, I don't yet have
Windows since I don't yet have software I want/need to run under it. My
long-term planning is that Len will port 3.0 and I'll be able to buy it
sometime within the next 12 months.)
Willett,
The Rainbow Adaptation Kit for Windows 3.0 should be ready late this
summer.
And an observation about the baggage you say you're carrying: the file
formats for Wordperfect 4.2 and 5.0 are fully supported in Ami Pro and Word
for Windows through import/export filters. This means that you can
routinely retrieve files in either WP format, edit them in Ami Pro or WFW,
and save them again in the original WP format. I can't vouch for the
completeness with which WP features are supported, since I haven't tested
systematically, but my casual experience suggests that the filters preserve
all formatting except that for font manipulation. I'd think academic
papers could be handled easily this way, unless you had already generated
an index or were fooling with concordances.
–Len
Interesting. That does sound good for 4.2. For 5.0 it probably wouldn't
work because I only use 5.0 when I need lots of features like font
manipulation, generating indexes, etc. It's tempting to say "I'll look at
Ami Pro", but realistically, the cost of keeping current with more than one
word processor file format and use of more than one word processor probably
isn't worth it. I'm not trying to be stubborn, I'm just trying to be
totally realistic in these types of discussions because it's more
interesting. I already have to keep 5 text editors in my head, for the
multiple environments I program in. There's only so many brain cells
available for such stuff. – Willett p.s. Delighted to hear you're charging
ahead with 3.0.
Willette,
Ami Pro will do all the stuff that 5.0 will and then some, it just makes
you redo your font specs, TOC, indexes. That's not onerous, because in Ami
font formatting is done within paragraph styles. (A style is a set of
instructions for formatting a particular category of paragraph, level of
heading, etc. This is the very procedure you use when marking text for
your typesetter or printer. And you can define the categories as you
wish.) You select the typography for one body paragraph and the entire
body of the text is done.
TOC and indexes are generated automatically as in WP. So even here the
cost in time and effort isn't very great, unless the document is a complex
monograph. And what you get in return is far better support of WYSIWYG
than WP offers at its best on an IBMish machine.
–Len
I take it that you like Ami Pro better than Word for Windows, having made a
fair comparison of Windows word processors?
I use them both. Ami Pro is the one I prefer for rapidly entering and
formatting technical text. Once you learn to use paragraph styles, Ami Pro
is as straightforward in operation as Wordperfect.
Word for Windows is attractive for straight text entry and uncomplicated
formatting. With text it'll do everything that Ami Pro will. But it seems
slower than Ami Pro on the Rainbow because its selection paraphrenalia
–the ribbon, ruler, list boxes, and hypertext buttons–eat up much more
processor time than Ami Pro's. And it neither does graphics nor handles
graphic imporation as readily as Ami Pro.
Thanks for the comparison. Sounds like Ami Pro's the one for me.
You might like to know that the current issue (July 1990) of PC Magazine
has a comparison of Word for Windows and Ami Pro, with comments on the
differences between both and Wordperfect 5.1. Both WFW and Ami Pro receive
Editor's Choice ratings.
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Ah, but you are assuming Ami can't use that baggage of yours!
On the contrary, there are 4.2, 5.0, and by now probably 5.1 (and
possible 4.0 for that matter) filters. These convert your old files, with
formatting to Ami and back if you like.
I, too had a few manuals in WP (and a few in FreeStyle). But I was able
to bring them right into Ami.
I was "upgrading" their format from what the LQP02 could do to what the
LaserWriter II can do. Ami makes applying a new format painless. I have a
lot more work to do working with scanned text, than with Ami-filtered docs.
I got into Windows because I really wanted to use a mouse to edit text.
I abhor that Y/N confirmation on any block delete in WP. And, frankly, any
Windows word processor gives you that capability. I used to worry a lot
about how editing functions were implemented, and relied on Smartkey to
"correct" design errors. No more. It's simple to select text, search and
replace, delete, scroll. A real breakthrough — but particularly because
Ami does not oblige you to edit in WSIWYG displays where you're never sure
if there's an extra space after a period, or if the cursor is between the i
and the l or not.
You're going to be pleased with Windows, I think.
(I replyed to Len Berk's message before I read yours.) Sigh. Alright, you
guys are wearing me down. I was hoping there was one corner of my life I
could still be an old stick-in-the-mud conservative about, and flaunt it.
If this keeps up I may have to keep active on two word processors along
with all those text editors. (Maybe there's been some brain cells freed up
by all the stuff I've forgotten from those hundreds of Superman & Batman
comics I read thirty-some years ago.)
Anyway, thanks to both of you for the advice and recommendations.
Look on the bright side… you could still be using WordStar!!
Dennette
P.S. – I agree that the best reason to use WP 5.0 on the 'Bow is to get at
the soft-fonts with the HP DeskJet & LaserJet… almost worth the hassle of
re-learning the keyboard!
My keyboard argument is not just relearning. It's intrinsically harder to
learn, remember, find on the keybord template, and type–when you have a
four-way shift rather than a two-way shift. I switch between the two
constantly, so I've had ample chance to compare. (I know, Roy and Len are
going to tell me a mouse is easier still… and I already agree in most
cases.)
Yep, that's *exactly* what I was going to say.
Willett,
Some second thoughts regarding the choice between Word for Windows and Ami
Pro under Windows 3:
This afternoon I received a call from one of the Win 3 beta testers saying
that he'd become impatient with the speed of Ami Pro 1.2 (the latest
version) under Win 3. So he switched back to Windows 2.11 and found the
new Ami Pro much faster when paging through a large file in layout mode.
Turns out if you're editing files in WYSIWYG display, Winword is much
faster at paging through the file than Ami Pro . . . IF you're running
Windows 3.0.
Hence the following revised recommendation: If your principal application
is word processing and you create long documents (longer than 20 pages),
Ami Pro 1.2 is fine under Windows 2.11 but slow under Windows 3.0. (Shame
Samna!) If you're running under Windows 3.0 on the Rainbow and you work
with long documents, I think you'll be happier with Word for Windows.
–Len
Thanks. This is good to sort through the various issues. It's still
theoretical for me, since I don't even have a copy of Windows yet. But I'm
sure I'm not the only one who'll be trying to pick the best Windows word
processor to use on the Rainbow. ….. By the way, if Ami Pro is trying
to ride Windows to success, I would guess they would figure out what went
wrong and improve their performance.
– Willett
I'm afraid the situation is not so simple as figuring out what went wrong.
Ami Pro 1.2 behaves differently on the Rainbow depending upon the version
of Windows it's running under. When under 2.11, it's about as fast as
Winword. Under 3.0 it handles memory differently. Presumably to save
development time, Samna has chosen to sacrifice performance in real mode
(the mode Win 3 runs in on the Rainbow and other machines with less than
1Mb of memory) to gain performance in protected mode. In fact they warn of
this in their documentation.
But since the code to run faster already exists in the application, maybe
we can talk them into letting us enable it at will.
Hmm. It is complicated. Does still seem they would want to do something
about it, nevertheless. Most of their potential customers are running 286,
not 386 machines, I would assume. Or even (gasp) 8086 (or does Windows 3.0
no longer support 286 at all?)…
Windows 3.0 will run on anything, even an 8088. This time around the
Microsoft documentation even days it'll run on an 8088. But it's mighty
slow on that 8088. And, yes indeed, most copies of Windows 3 do run on
80286s, just as with Windows 2.11. We can hope Samna will do better by us
real-mode users, though.
–Len
Thanks for info. Good to be able to use an 8088 in a pinch (only one 286
RB in the office now).