WordPerfect 5.nada
104 messages in this thread
To all those whom I said a new version of Word Perfect for the Amiga was
being developed I now can say THERE AINT NO SUCH ANIMAL. WP Corp has
offically disbanded it amiga beta testers and said there will be NO NEW
AMIGA PRODUCT PERIOD! The reasons behind it are weak to say the least. With
a installed base of 3 million computers they ignore us and madly continue
do a NeXt version. Go Figger I sure cant make any sense of it.
Mike, et al,
WordPerfect Corporation has enjoyed a good working relationship with
Commodore Business Machines over the years in developing WordPerfect for
the Amiga.
However, at WordPerfect Corporation, each product we produce is set up as
its own profit center. The revenues from the product must be able to
support the resources dedicated to it. When we first started working on
the Amiga version we hoped that it would do well and be able to support
ongoing improvements. This has not been the case. Though it would be nice
to have an upgrade to the Amiga product, the revenues received are not
nearly enough to finance a full-fledged development effort.
Although WordPerfect Corporation has discontinued development of
WordPerfect for the Amiga, we will continue to offer toll-free customer
support and hope that the product continues to be beneficial to Amiga
users.
—WordPerfect Corporation
I wish you luck in developing an up-to-date, WYSIWYG,
word processor that is up to snuff. Perhaps someday,
you will. Word Perfect wasn't.
Although the credibility that a large software corporation
lends to the Amiga platform will be missed by us, as
developers, sometimes it's better when something mediocre
dies. WP, in my honest opinion, is a veritable bastion
of mediocrity.
Ben Williams
V.P. Engineering
OOOooo! BITter. Face it guys. AMIGAs aren't serious enough to buy lots
of copies of WordPerfect. I don't really need all that power. But I do
need to easily transfer data and ASCII isn't close enough. So when is an
AMIGA developer going to add to his/her decent wordprocessor an
import/export facility covering the more common MSDOS wordprocessors?
Heck, when will they recognize WordStar 3.3? Almost everyone can import
that reasonably accurately.
—–Paul——
Uh… <grin> All *what* power? In WOrd Perfect? You _can't_ mean Word
Perfect.
Also, you truly mistake me. I'm not at all bitter. I think WP is awful, I
really do. I've said so for years, as I've bought most every update they
put out.
I'm very glad to see them go. Bye. :^)
ben
But Word Perfect is _very_ powerful! Maybe you just didn't sit down and
learn it like you sat down and learnt TeX?
For the letters I write, and the notes I type up, I don't want complex text
formatting … I just want to be able to type and print, with control over
the character based output. I want to be able to print the resulting file
in a generic ASCII form, I want to do occasional on-screen maths and I want
to see approximately what the output will look like as I type.
For my more advanced requirements, WP can do all the footnotes and endnotes
that I need, versatile printer control (through customised printer
drivers), mail merges, dates/page numbers, indexing, outlining, quickly
defined macros, columns and much more in a very easy to use environment
(except perhaps for columns and the lack of WYSIWYG). It is high
productivity software as far as I am concerned.
Oh, and I can also do very neat mathematical formula using a custom driver
I wrote. It's a little quirky in its on-screen representation, but it's
very easy to use.
Mike (Whapping from the UK)
Powerful or not WP for the Amiga simply does not do justice to and take
advantage of the machine's capabilities. I think this is undeniable. And
btw I own WP and WP Library for the Amiga and the same pruducts (plus
PlanPerfect) for MeSsy DOS.
Well, I thought WP _did_ make as much use of the machine's abilities as
makes sense for a word processor … it is fully mouse drivable, or
keyboardable too; it uses windows and multi-tasking very effectively; it
uses requesters and menus in a fairly sensible way … it certainly isn't
"flash" and so it doesn't use unecessary gadgets.
It doesn't use fancy graphical (i.e. true WYSIWYG) output … but then
again, it's a word processor and not a DTP package. Adding proportional
fonts and having true WYSIWYG would not only be a very complicated business
(since you'd have to have screen font representations and metric files for
all your printer's fonts … and that would be a nightmare) but would also
slow it down considerably.
Mike:
>Well, I thought WP _did_ make as much use of the machine's abilities as
>makes sense for a word processor … it is fully mouse drivable, or
I guess it depends on what you think a word processor should be capable of
doing. I think a word processor should:
– have some sorting capability; – have the ability to (at least) integrate
graphics in the format(s)
generally in use on the platform in question; – allow users to enter and
print a wide range of specialized characters;
and – the ability to enter and print equations and other technical
"text".
Presumably WPCorp thinks so too since these features are in the PeeCee
version(s) of WP! 6
And given the Amigas mutli-tasking OS WP should be able to multi-task
effectively and do the above things asynchronously. IMHO no version of WP
for the Amiga (I have 4.1.12) has been able to mutli-task very well even
with other WP programs such as those which come with WP Library. On my 2500
using WP with Notebook and or Calendar is very painful.
WP for the Amiga should also have made use of the GUI environment in the
same way the WP for Windows makes use of that environment. That is, it
should have provided for optional "clutter" in the form of buttons to which
macros and other functions could be attached and an intelligent ruler line.
I know that a lot of people prefer "clean screen" word processors. I like
to have a "clean screen" too. But I prefer having the option of cluttering
up the screen as I see fit in the way that WP for Windows allows.
I guess my major problem with WP is that it is a port of WP v4.1 which is
itself an inferior program which I did not like very much. WP v4.1 for the
Amiga was released before it was ready and continues to be buggy.
Regards Charles
Charles, what else would you have WP do with the Amiga capabilities?
It windows nicely; will open on WB or custom screens, now has a decent file
req; uses menus (as well as function keys), works under 2.0, has better
printer support than preferences (ie printer fonts, etc); has good
speller/thesaurus; will background print (even w/o opening WP! — what
other Amiga word processors have an independent print program?); in short,
it processes TEXT pretty good.
True that WP does not have graphics capability, or WYSIWYG text support. I
suppose that WYSIWYG would be nice, but I can't recall a time when that was
a *problem* to me. While importing grabhics would be nice for many folk, I
cannot imagine when I'd use it. I had a graphic word processor (Pen Pal)
and after using it for a while, found that it got in the way more than it
helped. Back to WP.
Word processors with lots of gadgets around the screen really bother me. If
you're writing you should be using a tool that helps you write. Amiga WP
does that. Frankly I don't think too much of the new 'Windows' version of
WP, cause it's interface just clutters up the screen.
I can see a use for progs like PenPal, Excellence, etc for short letters,
flyers, etc… but would shudder at having to write a long paper with them.
WP does it with ease.
Not that WP for amiga is perfect; I sure wish it had a real line draw
capability, that used the printer line draw characters, like it's pc
version does.
I wish WP would continue development. But it just doesn't sound feasible.
I would really like to know what features of the Amiga OS you feel that WP
doesn't use well, or that you'd like added? And what other word processors
on the amiga DO use them? Maybe I've overlooked something? TTFN
John:
>Charles, what else would you have WP do with the Amiga capabilities?
See my reply to Mike Todd
Regards Charles
Well, you've not named anything I can't do just as easily – and you left
out a LOT I can do easily that you can't do at all.
Regarding writing a letter, easily, sure – I open the text editor, put:
\documentstyle{letter}
Write my letter text, in plain ASCII, with perhaps a {\bf BoldFace} or {\em
emphasis} here and there, and then type
\end{document}
..and I have my letter. While writing, I have a much faster, much more
powerful editing environment than WP offers, and my letter will be
perfectly formatted. I don't have to worry about the date, etc, it'll all
be there.
I worked with WP, nothing else, for almost a year. My opinion isn't from
just "playing" with it. TeX is better for everything I do. Manuals,
letters, articles, and most ESPECIALLY math, because TeX can make the best
looking math in text you ever saw. As for *doing* math in the file – no – I
don't do that with TeX, although I wouldn't doubt that it could.
Ben
Ben, I don't think that anyone is belaboring your point that TeX is
powerful, and that you can use it very well. No one's said that WP is the
ideal tool for all writing/publishing jobs, is TeX?
You've made a real good case for the flexibility of TeX… as a matter of
fact I am considering it for a newsletter I'm about to start, because it
sounds like it might be the best tool. (is there any functioning demo of
it avail?)
Out of curiosity, what would YOU have the *average* Amiga user USE as a
word processor? The average joe/jane that wants to: 1) write letters, 2)
memos, 3) short school reports, 4) term papers (footnotes, etc), 5) longer
papers (ie. 50+ pages), 6) fiction, etc…..
TeX? Excellence? PenPal? CEDPro? TTX? WordPerfect? I'm curious…
–jp–seattle–
Actually, there is a bit of that going on here, John; there are a lot of
people who completely mistake what TeX is, and what it can do, and where it
"fits in" to the other software on the Amiga.
I don't suggest TeX or LaTeX for the average user. It too difficult. Not
buggy, etc, it just needs to be run by someone who *really* understands the
Amiga OS and filesystem. The fellow who wrote it, while brilliant, is your
typical whack-a-few-more-command-line-options-in kinda guy… smells of
"big system disease". :^)
I do think that TeX, or LaTeX, is the ideal tool for anything that I've
tried, which includes most documents with exception of our newsletter,
which I still have under PageStream (just did a new one, should be mailed
within a week or two, it's off to the printers). For highly graphic things,
like forms, I'd go straight for PageStream. But for documents like
articles, books, letters, manuscripts, manuals (Especially manuals!) I'd go
for TeX, period.
I have tried *real* hard with each tool I've used to get "what I wanted"
from them. TeX is the first package that will do what *I* want, not some
facsimile of what the program author thought would be a good compromise for
everyone, which is a good capsule description of WP.
I don't have a solid suggestion for a good Amiga WP. I don't think there is
one. There is certainly a market opportunity for one, and we've actually
looked at that here; well before this WP annoucement. We never considered
WP competition for a GOOD word processor. The thing that stops us – cold –
is the printer support requirements. The prefs drivers are not adequate;
and we're not in a position where we could support zillions of printers.
We *did* also consider a "universal printer interface" for the
(hypothetical) word processor, so that anyone could do printer drivers for
it; but that also has it's problems, it's a huge job, really, if it's done
right (which was the idea behind the discussions here).
Currently, we do not have an active project here. We do have a
specification, though. You never know.
Ben
Functioning demo – yep – there sure is. COntact Radical Eye S/w and ask for
one.
Ben
Thanks. I'll give them a call.
–jp–seattle–
Paul,
You can write a little Basic program to convert wordstar files in about 3
minutes. Just take a look at a Wordstar file with a Hex editor – you'll
see what I mean.
wmc
Yeah, I know. I could probably do it in the script language. But why
should I have to do it? Real wordprocessors (in the MSDOS world) realize
that real people get files from lots of sources and provide conversion
utilities for the most common. There are books describing the file
formats. And standalone programs that convert to and fro most anything.
Any community that can produce CrossDos can produce file format converters,
so why don't they? (`Cause they don't think there's a market. `And in
this case they are really wrong. But that's what they think.)
—–Paul—-
I too believe that we will miss Word Perfect as part of the Amiga platform.
Apart from the credibility you refer to, I actually happen to believe that
Word Perfect is a very useful word processor which I use dozens of times a
week.
Mediocre it isn't.
Mike (Whapping from the UK)
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I've quit struggling
with WP, anyway. I've found something that makes it look like _trash_ in
terms of capability and final output. AmigaTeX.
Unfortunately, AmigaTeX is quite a complex system, and well beyond the
capabilities of many (at least, I think so), so there does need to be a
word processor of some kind.
I figure, for power requirements, there's AmigaTex or a real DTP system.
For daily requirements, there are severla *excellent* systems like
ProWrite. For the "(wo)man in the middle", there's always WP 4.xyz.
Ben
TeX is great … but it's definitely not a word processor, nor a DTP
program … it is a professional type-setting program. (using DTP to imply
an interactive system like PStream/PPage).
Word Perfect is a powerful word processor, with no attempts at being DTP
… and to compare WP and TeX seems an odd thing to do.
If you want DTP/typesetting, then your choice is one way … if you want
text editing your choice is another … if you want a word-processor there
is a third route to go. I operate all three ways … and have favoured
programs in each category (in fact, my choice of text editor is actually
Argonaut's assembler program!!)
I guess I don't make the distinction unless it's useful.
I use UEdit to write text. For both AmigaTeX and PageStream. Because it's a
greate editor, and you NEED to use an editor for AmigaTeX; because it's
faster than anythihg else I've used (both because it's just plain quick and
because I'm used to it); I use it ahead of PageStream because although the
editing in PageStream is usable, it's too slow unless I'm thinking REAL
hard. :^)
When my goal is nicely formatted output, I use Tex or PageStream. I don't
use WP; why should I? It offers *nothing* that TeX can't supply me with, or
UEdit in the text entry phase; and there are a whole lot of things I can do
in TeX that I can't do in WP (like mongo excellent xrefs, well-formatted
indexes, numbered figures, forumlas, or anything else I want to create)
Isn't the goal of a WP user to create a good looking document? Well, that's
what I do with TeX. No more, no less.
I will say that comparing TeX to WP is somewhat like comparing a Ferrari to
one of those Caddilacs with it's butt chopped off by some designer on
drugs… :^) But they are both designed to go that "next step" from what an
editor can do – formatted, good looking and (hopefully) more
readable/usable output in your documents. TeX just does it better.
One thing… I keep saying it's difficult – and it is – but the diffculty
is on a level I can accept. For each thing I learn about it, I get more
flexibility and power. For that, I'll study. The time I've spent with TeX
has been more rewarding than all the time with all the other Amiga text
formatting systems I've used put together. That includes WP, ProPage,
PageStream, ProWrite, Excellence and even Amiga verisons of ROFF. I even
wrote my own text formatter because I couldn't find the power I needed.
Mainly because (for reasons completely dark to me at this time in my life)
I'd been ignoring the TeX ads for literally years.
Ben
Does TeX provide any of the features with only a few keystrokes?
Spell Checker
Thesaurus
Ability to transfer files from IBM WP or Word for Windows
Automatic Hyphenation
Tab alignment on any character
Full, customizeable support of custom printer features
Controllable margin indent, unindent, L/R indent
Data file/Mail Merge
Automatic correct placement of footnotes and endnotes
Multi-columns support, adjustable throughout the page
Full control of printer fonts and line spacing
I don't know if it does or not–maybe it does. If so, I need to look at it.
I've used all these features when writing college papers. As far as I've
seen, WP is the only program on the Amiga with all of them. And they're all
available with two to three keypresses, or a single menu item choice. That
makes a big difference when I'm writing… Being able to grab a format item
from a menu or a quick keypress is very important when you're trying to get
ideas on paper. And I can't stand "writing now and formatting later." But
that's just me.
I do the spell checking in UEDIT, before TeX sees the file. Ditto
Thesaurus. File xlation – I have no idea, I never do such things (but I'm
*sure* there are ways to do it). Hyphenation beats WP's all hollow, it's
the best there is, period. Tab alignment ditto. Printer support that makes
WP's look awful. Controllable margins beyond anything WP ever thought of.
Merge… of course, it just takes files anyway. :^) Merging into variables
is painless. Auto placement of footnotes, endnotes, margin notes,
illustrations, tables, lists, bibliographies… heh heh heh… beginning to
get the idea? :^))) Multi column support, sure, no sweat. Full control of
fonts, again, better than WP ever thought of.
Now – how about auto numbering and xrefs of tables, formulas and
illustrations? How about xrefs to all of the above, including sections and
etc? How about beautiful, user-configurable indexes and glossaries, not
that cr*p WP forces on you? How about on screen, totally WYSIWYG previwing
at VERY high speeds? How about wonderful built in post script support? How
about forgetting WP exists? <grin>
Ben,
What spelling checker and Thesaurus are you using with UEDIT? I use the
spelling checker from GoldDisk (comes with ArticleEditor or TransWrite)
when I remember to use it, but not familiar with any stand alone Thesaurus.
I use the spelling checker that comes with UEdit; there is a "spell
checker" version. The Thesarus – I'm not even sure who made it. It was
$29.95 in the back pages of one of the mags, came on a floppy with no
lable, and is called "Thes". :^) But it seems to work well; to be honest,
I'd be hard put to critique the thing because a Thesarus isn't something I
normally call on much. If I need that kind of substitution, I can (usually)
do it in my head just fine. The mistakes I make in that region of writing
are the ones I don't notice – not ones I notice and "can't deal with".
I just have to jump into the fray… I regularly submit manuscripts to
a variety of publications, and, on the Amiga, WordPerfect is the
*only* word processor available for the Amiga that allows me to
provide manuscripts which are compatible with "industry standard"
machines. Furthermore, I have an IBM portable (there being no Amiga
portable) which I use when I'm away from home (which is a lot of the
time). I have LetterPerfect on that machine, and, when I come home,
I find it a simple matter to convert the work I've done (using AWrite
on my Bridgeboard) and proceed with my work at home. I came up
through the ranks, so to speak, with my computers, so, for me,
gaining failiarity with WP was a simple matter after struggling with
some of the products we had for the C64. I'm teaching my kids to use
it. They go to French school, and the French dictionary on WP is
absolutely the best available. They are 12 and 15, and certainly not
computer whiz's, so if they can figure it out, I have trouble
understanding how it could be difficult for anyone. A couple of
asides here: 1) When I was writing mainly for Amiga publications,
it didn't matter so much if my files would transfer to other
computers or not. Now that I'm moving into the environmental and
health areas, this factor is crucial. 2) If I were recommending a
"general" word processor to a "typical" Amiga user, I would recommend
ProWrite – not WP – because it's everything a word processor should
be: period. 3) TEX is undoubtedly the best typesetting program on
the market, but I find it intimidating. I find, for my purposes, that
both Professional Page and PageStream do an outstanding job. As a
matter of fact, I've been told by PageMaker users that they prefer
these programs for both ease of use and power. I WISH the Amiga were
more widely used in the publishing industry. Sure, I'd like to be
able to take a purely Amiga approach to writing. That's not going to
happen though. ….Nancy (Baud Banditing from Canada)
I submit all my manuscripts double spaced on paper, because that's
what editors generally prefer. :^) For my columns, such as the one in
digital digest, I submit ASCII text, because that's the ONLY egneral
interchange format there is. WP notwithstanding.
On my portable, I use a PC version of UEDIT, my editor, and I write in
TeX, as usual. ASCII files, nothing else. Then, when I get to the
AMiga, I print em on the laser. No sweat, no problem with
portability. There are IBM versions of TeX (and DEC, and etc ad
nauseum… in fact, there are probably more versions of TeX than of
WP :^)
I have to laugh when Amiga users point a shaky finger at TeX and
curse "It's a TYPESETTER!" and run off screaming. Sure, it makes text
output, and it can manipulate type better than WP, but it can also do
everything ELSE that WP can do, better, and about a zillion things
that WP can't do at all.
I don't recommend TeX for the average Amiga user, but then again, I don't
recommend WP for an Amiga user unless someone has a gun to their head for
WP compatibility, either, because I think (and have always thought) that it
isn't worth the time it takes to learn to use it.
As far as not being able to take a "purely amiga approach to writing", I've
had no trouble in the past, even though some tools (like WP) are pretty
bad. There are others. Now, I expect to stay with TeX until somethin as
poweful comes along that allows the speed and flexibility and SMARTS that
TeX has. The problem with things like PageStream is that the DTP system
doesn't know enough about the document. I can't link illustrations to a
column location – if the text moves, I have to reposition everything
manually. Yech. I don't do that anymore. :^)
I certainly have nothing against TeX … and if you're familiar with TeX,
and have a programming mentality I can see how you would want to use it.
But, it _is_ a type-setting program designed for type-setting books,
especially those with a lot of mathematical symbols in it (or was Knuth
mistaken in his description of the program?) and is well suited for it.
To me, TeX is a very powerful tool … but not one which I will use for
routine work. After all, I wouldn't sit down and write a program to do some
quick calculations … I would use a calculator. However, if I happened to
be very fluent in C, Basic or whatever and comfortable in that environment,
and I'm doing something rather more than just adding a few numbers
together, then I just might.
Mike (Whapping from the UK)
Knuth was mistaken – for obvious reasons. He only had one goal.
What TeX is, is a language that can create _documents_, not just “books''.
If they contain math, so much the better, it won't break a sweat. But it
can also handle just about any font you can dream up, and the AmigaTex
version in particular handles EPS postscript, postscript fonts, and a bunch
more.
I don't “typeset'' when I use TeX. I simply create my document as a text
file, bold things, italicise things, mark TOC and index entries, mark cross
references and lables, etc. The same thing syou do – or wish you could do –
in WP or any other program designed to create a document as output.
Saying TeX is a “typesetting program'' is like saying WP is a text editor.
Sure it is. It's also about anything else you care to name.
I'm not at ALL arguing with your idea that it's comfortable for a
programmer's mentality, I'd agree 100%. It's logical, clean, well
organized, extremely powerful and extensible, and it can be complex as h*ll
if that's how you want to use it. Me, I don't use it that way… I don't
have the time.
All the things I mentioned there – logical, clean… extensible; these
things don't apply to WP, and that's why I think WP is swamprot. I could
NOT make WP create a document that I liked. I had to use what THEY thought
a TOC should look like, ditto index, and for xrefs… tough patooties.
Something else here… TeX isn't all there is to it. There's LaTeX, which
is mega powerful, but mucho profundo easier to use than TeX. And that is
generally what I use (LaTeX). If I need to “dip into'' TeX itself, I do
it, but generally I don't need to. Isn't it amazing that a prepackaged,
“watered down'' TeX environment (LaTeX) can still totally wipe out WP?
Sure is to me, when I hear people going on about WP and how useful it is.
From my position, if you know nothing about computers, and you WANT to know
nothing about computers, and you won't or can't learn, then WP is ideal for
you. It seems to have been written by people who meet the same description,
at least in the case of the Amiga version.
Ben,
Maybe WP wasn't a great example of Amiga programming. But it was the only
program out there suitable for doing academic-style writing, with footnotes
and that sort of thing.
I assume they're still going to sell 4.1.12… I hope so, as it's the only
choice out there for college students and professors who have to follow
stylebooks precisely. Excellence has too many problems, and ProWrite's lack
of footnote capability disqualifies it.
…Denny Atkin
Denny,
Have you used version 2.0 of excellence!? It is a VAST improvement over
1.0. While I disagree with the way they handle graphics they offer quite a
few Word Perfect-type features.
Leslie,
I've used Excellence 2.0… I've had way too many problems getting a decent
printout from that program. The bitmap-font support is so bad as to be
almost unusable. The user-interface is quirky and garish. And the way they
handle graphics is just ridiculous.
I like MSS. I used Scribble! and Online! for years. But I had way too many
problems with excellence.
Buzzz! <grin>
Nope… AmigaTeX is not only "suitable" for "academic style writing", it
kicks WPs butt from here to Alpha Centauri in terms of power, features, and
final looks of the document. It's also a darn sight more flexible,
something I appreciate no end of.
It's also too hard to use for most people, unfortunately.
Perhaps someone will front-end it. Now THERE is a thought. :^)
Ben
Ben,
The last thing I want to deal with when I'm worrying about writing a
doctoral paper is a bunch of AmigaTeX codes. AmigaTeX is great for certain
uses, but I wouldn't want to use it for college writing…
Too bad. I'd much rather worry about Tex macros, which I can see and handle
at all times in the text body, than WP's absurd little window with "Reveal
Codes", which is a darn sight less powerful, and a lot harder to deal with.
Ben s
Isn't the term "REVEAL CODES" an oxymoron(sp?)?
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
Something like that. Perhaps it is something created by an oxidized moron.
<grin>
Ben
"WORD PERFECT"
hmmmm…
another oxymoron?
You got it.
Ben
Denny –
A friend of mine just finished writing his master's thesis (about 380
pages) using TeX and LaTeX, because he wanted to have his equations look
exactly as he desired and felt that TeX was the best route. But I also see
your points. WordPerfect is the only processor the school supports with
style sheets, etc. The CS department has developed templates for
FrameMaker (now I wouldn't mine seeing that product ported to the Amiga as
it has been to the Mac), and my friend developed the TeX/LaTeX macros
necessary to deal with the schools somewhat non-standard thesis format.
Jeff Schweiger
Jeff,
Yeah, it depends on your field. If you're in engineering or CS, TeX is a
great solution, especially since you have to deal with equations and such.
My field (other than a minor in CS) is Journalism/Communications, though,
so TeX is overkill. Features like WP's Thesaurus are more valuable for this
kind of writing.
So you'll be putting WP for the Next machine in the ol' trashcan real soon
now, right?
Mike
To WP:
Booooooooooooooo!!!!!
Love, Jeff Kisseloff
– via Whap!
All I have to say is no great loss. Seriously, I don't own the Amiga
version of WP, but I have seen it on a friends computer. I am not
impressed and really not impressed with the IBM version for that matter.
Sure, it has plenty of features, but with all the complications involved I
just assume use a type writer over it. I guess I'm tired of hearing people
complain about WP. As far as I'm concerned if they don't want to develop
on the Amiga(continue developing), it will allow dedicated Amiga developers
to do better. I'll take ProWrite(which I own) over Amiga WP anyday, and
honestly, buy the time WP Corp. learned how to program the Amiga and put
out a new version I'm sure it would be outdated like the current version.
Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.
Tim..
Word Perfect has just released a Windows version of their IBM WP5.1, and it
is a WYSIWYG system. I have to say it is very impressive (having used it
since their Beta II came out) but it falls short of its competition
Microsoft Word V2.0.
I don't doubt that the Windows version of WP is impressive, but lets just
say I have a 286, Amiga 2000(030 based), 3000, and 1000. I'm not impressed
with Windows either. It's too slow for the 286, and I really don't want to
upgrade to a 386 just to run a slow GUI when I have one that runs very fast
with my Amiga, and what do you know I didn't have to go out and buy it.
Anyways, the point being, I use the Amiga for all my work and WP on the
Amiga doesn't fit the bill.
Tim..
Outdated, maybe. But the only professional quality WP out there for the
Amiga. And now it's dead in the water.
Hopefully one of two things will happen…
(1) A concerted letter writing campaign will start, with constructive "but
I'd pay MONEY for WP 5.0" comments and not flames, and the company
will
change their mind, or…
(2) New Horizons will see this as a market opportunity and add a
feature-set
as rich as WP's to ProWrite, as well as import/export to WP format.
…Denny Atkin
Option (2) is the right idea, though which company should do it is moot.
Let someone who understands AMIGA programming learn to write a real
wordprocessor, not the other way around.
—–Paul—–
I think 2 is more likely than 1. New Horizons has an excellent chance
here. Once word is out that WP is stuck at level 4…
> "Hopefully one of two things will happen…"
xxx
_three_
(3) WP will sell the rights to its Amiga WP to Oxxi 🙂
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
I vote for New Horizons improving their product. They have stood
behind their product and it looks to me like that they want to be the
"word processor" company for the Amiga. I will no longer miss the
Word ImPerfect.
Well, I really doubt that WP will change their minds. I just saw them dump
out of another market. They did have a Unix version for Intergraph
Workstations. Only thing I saw really impressive about it was it's
network support. The interface was very primitive, no pull down menus,
etc.. Anyways, they are not longer supporting this platform. Guess the
demands wasn't high enough. I suppose when you charge $2000+ for something
like that, people don't buy it. I see the same thing on the Amiga.
Tim..
I would pay money for 5.0 or better features, but not as much as I
originally paid for WP.
– via Whap!
looking at the PC\s newest generation of graphic WP's I wish they could be
made to come over to the amiga. Since WP Corp is now a dead issue Microsoft
and Lotus come to mind. I have just received Eval copies of Microsofts new
Word for Windows 2.0 and Lotus's AmiPro 2.0 (strange how a product called
AMiPro isnt for us) and am very impressed with the new features on these
Graphic WP's They are WYSIWYG and do things we still wish to do. adly I
also got the new WP for windows too and it too is very impressive (more
than likely the now dead new Amiga WP would have had many of it's features.
I now suggest writing to Lotus and M icrosoft and maybe they can develop
better mousetrap for us.
As I promised on GEnie… I'll eat my AmigaBASIC manual if MicroSoft
actually ports Word for Windows to the Amiga. It'll never happen.
Why would we want Windows?
No no no. ;^) "We already HAVE windows"
Yeah, I know, that's why I asked why we'd want Windows.
…Dave
Denny thats just MY *wish list*!
Yeah but if they ever do port Word for the Amiga, I'm going to have great
joy in seeing you eat your AmigaBasic manual. Of course you will have to do
it at one of the Amiga shows so we can all enjoy watching you feast 8^)
John – K7KB (via Whap!)
WPCorp PC Testing, et. al. —
..I struggled with your program while developing a storyboard back in 1988.
The incredibly clumsy interface and marginally functional utilization of
the capabilities of the Amiga platform crippled our efforts to integrate
your product into our production studio with any degree of reliability
whatsoever. Frankly, I was quite dissapointed. WP went back in the box,
never to return to another disk drive.
We waited for a logical upgrade and redesigned interface. We waited for
the famed "user friendliness" WPCorp products touted in all of the leading
PC publications.
Too bad. If your company had delivered a product which made the most of
the Amiga platform, you would have enjoyed a very profitable and heavily
user-promoted product.
..Oh well, I suppose the grey suits are pleased.
– Lorenz K. Sievers –
Couldn't have said things better myself! Regards Charles
In a large company, standardization is the law. While I have 2 amigas in a
building where there are probably 500 IBM's and maybe a handful
of Macs, the company has dictated that you will use Excel and Wordperfect.
The main reason for this is the cost of upgrades on a company
bases. By buying a liscense to support that many copies, the company saves
alot. Unfortunately, they have also standardized to IBM's. I have
struggled over the last 5 years to keep the Amiga's (face it, once you have
used this great computer, its hard to regress), I am loosing mine at my
desk. While I have been using the Amiga WP, there will no
be a great differences on the IBM (except for the multitasking!). My wife
uses Amiga WP at home because she needs to interface at her job with WP
files for those IBM's. Now I bought 4 copies of Amiga WP.
I know that there are better Amiga products for Amiga computers. BUT THE
STANDARDIZATION ISSUE WILL ALWAYS EXISTS! Wordperfect corperation fails to
realize that as the number of Amiga's increases in the home, there will
always be the need to use a progra
m that is being compatable with the one used by the same people at work in
the IBM/MAC/whatever workforce.
michael –
What you need, and I want, is "EXPORT WP 5.1" added onto ProWrite 3.X….
. . . . . JimDoc
That would make life between the crack much easier.
If WordPerfect Amiga had compared favorably with the other available
Amiga word processors in both price and quality, you would have had a good
selling software package on your hands. Because your market ing
researchers didn't have the brains to realize that Amiga users are just not
going to pay the kind of money WP wanted for a fair to good Word Processor.
They would rather spend about half the dough and get a better Word
Processor. You would have had a better profit on the product if you had
realized the market you were getting yourself into and priced it
accordingly. Also, it would have been nice if you had realized the
computer you were writing it for and used the outstanding capabilities it
offered you, instead of ignoring them and writing a clone of the PC
version.
You're developing for the NeXT? What kind of installed user base does
that have? 60,000 machines? Less? More? Definitely no where even close
to 3,000,000 and growing. Of course anyone stupid enough to buy the
overpriced NeXT would be willing to shell out at least $500 for a word
processor. Most Amiga users just aren't.
Maybe WordPerfect should look at releasing WP5, scaled down, yet
productive, at a lower, more realistic price in tune with the other
software available for the Amiga.
For my money, I would expect to get regular updates. The cost of WP 4.1.12
was high enough to warrant it. WP Corp has supported the IBM market very
well, while leaving the Amiga Market with only two versions (4.1 & 4.1.12).
The later of the two was a step in the right direction and is the reason I
bought it. I had seen 4.1 on friends machines and thought it sub-standard
to even the old MSDOS 4.2 version. (I've used MSDOS 4.2 and 5.0 at work
{U.S. Army}).
Please reconsider your reported decision. We need a good all around Word
Processor for the Amiga. Excellence! had the right idea, MSS just fell
short of execution and customer Support. I bought Version 1.0 from them,
I've owned their Analyze!, Organize! and Online! for most of my Amiga time.
I've never gotten upgrade notifications from them once. Their customer
support sucks. I swore that if MSS didn't provide support for me with
Excellence! I would never buy another of their products. When I finally
found out about Version 2.0 I called it quits.
I bought Prowrite 3.1. I like the way Prowrite handles everything except
printing. I suspect that the problem is more with my Tandy DMP-133 then
Prowrite though. (Did I mention that WP's printer support is excellent!)
If WP folds, I'll use it until it drops and then go to PPage 2.1 for my
printing needs.
nough said!
– via Whap!
"I bought Version 1.0 from them, I've owned their Analyze!, Organize! and
Online! for most of my Amiga time. ??I've never gotten upgrade
notifications from them once. Their customer support sucks."
Rodger:
I too have used MSS stuff since Amiga ground zero. I have found that they
have always answered their telephone nad had some qualified to help me with
any problem or question I had, whether with Online!, Analyze!, Organize! or
excellence!.
I have moved 3 times since first getting my Amiga (and first MSS software)
and have ALWAYS received new product and upgrade notices. Infact, my only
complaint about MSS was the terribly long wait for excellence! 1.0 to come
out… but even then, they honored their $99 offer, and then sent the first
upgrade, automatically, and without charge.
I don't doubt that you've had problems with MSS, but I thougt it
appropriate to post my experience as well.
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
This really points out something to me. Software Companies may be
Corporations or what ever, but they are still run by people that are prone
to make mistakes. I lived in the same place for 6 years while buying MSS
Software. I always (ALWAYS) mailed in my registration cards (if you don't
mail the cards in how can they support you!) and somehow managed to slip
through the cracks. I hope MSS is listening! Maybe I'll call them and
remind them I am an old customer that owns all their programs except the
Platinum series. I'm reasonable, I'll give anybody a second chance.
That brings me to a question. If we purchase a software package for
$100+ ($195 for Excellence! 1.0) and the software agreement is forever,
shouldn't the implied customer support be for the length of the software
agreement?
– via Whap!
I'm glad to hear that your willing to give MSS a call and let them try to
make things right by you. That (IMHO) shows a lot more charachter than
many folks here ;). Software support is different for evey company and
product. It is, after all, one of the 'features' of the product.
Some companies will support a product free of charge forever. Ohers. like
Oxxi, will support it free of charge for a specified time, and then cahrge
for additional support. I personally have no problem with that. In any
case, the support a company offers has nothing to do with the license you
buy that allows youto USE the software.
BTW, I've been calling MSS for years, and as long as I had a registration #
for the product I was calling about, they have most helpful.
Yeh, but they can charge more for the NeXT version because those NeXT
owners have to have money to burn. NeXT ain't cheap!
– via Whap!
Your news on the lack of a future for WordPerfect on the Amiga is very
disapointing. When I read the many rumours of the proposed upgrade I
decided that since my work site was going to adopt WordPerfect as the word
processing standard I would also purchase it for my Amiga. Of course you
have now lost that sale. I wonder how many other lost customers like
myself are out there?
– via Whap!
Before my company went out and bought a number of copies of WP for our
Amigas in 1987 I received assurances from WPCorp that they were developing
a more capable version of WP for the Amiga which really used it's
capabilities. I swallowed it hook line ands sinker.
It's still the best we have. I deeply regret that the revenue was not
sufficient for you to continue to develop it, because we truly need it!
Can we at least count on updates that will keep it current with changes in
the operating system?
Betty
WP CORP:
I too, have been waiting for a 'real' version of WP for the Amiga. I have
not yet puchased 4.1.12 because of the lack of Amiga type functionality of
the program. I was counting on WP Amiga 5.x to meet the high standards WP
Corp had set for its PC products. I am sorry to hear that WP Corp feels
that if Amiga users won't support a so-so product, then it's not worth the
effort to provide a great product.
– Whapping from the North Coast Michael
I use WP5 on a PC, and would have bought it for the Amiga if it had come
out.
Another lost sale…
Interesting message.
I only have a few facts available to me. Bear with me on this.
WP Amiga came out. WP Amiga paid all it's development costs within sixty
days of the product going on sale. Almost all of the Amiga magazines that
talked about WP Amiga made a very big stink about that, that a product
could sell so well as to recover the development costs so quickly.
The fact that you provide, that the Amiga version has not developed enough
revenue to justify a new version, or improvements, only means one thing in
my mind.
People bought the product when it was first released, without question. A
lot of copies were sold. People soon discovered that the product wasn't
really 'Amiga-ized' in that it just didn't 'fit' right on the Amiga
workbench. The interface had very little to do with the Amiga, save the
pull down menus. Magazine reviewers gave WP a mediocre review, at best.
You see, Amiga people just don't settle for second best. If we did, we'd
all have Macs or PC's. The Amiga market is different, and it's Word Perfect
Corp's relatively poor design of WP Amiga that ultimately did it in.
This isn't intended to be a flame of any kind. It's a mere compilation of
the facts, past public record, and the facts that you have made public via
your message.
It's unfortunate that Word Perfect Corporation chooses not to learn from
it's error, and invest in a version of WP for the Amiga that would meet
with approval from the Amiga community at large. It is a sad waste of
resources, as a great deal of work has been done, and the experience of WP
Amiga could be the seeds that form a much better product. I suspect that
some complacency on the part of the people that make these decisions is
probably to blame also.
I can picture a collection of executives saying "those Amiga users must be
really stupid. It's *Word Perfect*…how can they NOT like it??"
I hope I'm wrong on that one. That sort of attitude won't bring any
prosperity to a corporation like Word Perfect in this ever-changing,
multi-platform society. DOS ports just don't cut it. Not in this neck of
the woods anyways.
Thanks for your message.
I can't help but comment on this, either. I'm not responding to you in
particular, Jim, but you were a good place to start.
Without hard facts behind it, I've always regarded the "recouped its costs
in 60 days" story as largely apocryphal. Even without the facts, it's a
ridiculous assertion. WP-PC had a great reputation and immense market
share, not to mention the effort behind the code that was ported to the
Amiga. That's a "cost", too, that's not accounted for by this story. A
better story: A small team ported some PC code to the Amiga. Upon release,
its "profits" covered the cost of the port, which were next to nothing, if
you don't count the rest of the company. That did not mean that WP-Amiga
would sustain itself as a profitable product. As time has shown, it
couldn't.
Given the flush reception of the PC-like version 1.0 of WP-Amiga, why would
WP Corp. think that the product would need to be "Amiga-ized" in order to
survive? The opposite is easier to argue: that any WP-Amiga would remain
profitable if it remained a close clone of the ever-popular PC version. If
it didn't look like a PC-duck and act like a PC-duck, then why would people
buy it? If it didn't resemble "Word Perfect", then how could they sell it
as such?
I'm appalled by the depth of cruelty in the suggestions of people who
encourage WP Corp. to continue developing an unprofitable product on an
unprofitable platform. Perhaps they should ask WP Corp. to burn piles of
cash, too, to help cure the savings and loan crisis.
John,
There's several arguments for why some company should be able to
maintain product on multiple platforms for next to no "cost" (that being
specific to bring out a port…not total company costs). Using your logic
of the (what you call unaccounted) total cost of the Amiga product…then
total profits should likewise be counted towards the Amiga product. After
all, if you count the cost of developing the PC version in with the
specific port costs to the Amiga, isn't it fair to also count the profits
made by the PC version as part of the profit from the Amiga version? Isn't
it true that many people bought the Amiga version because there was a PC
version also?
But all that aside, I think what most folks are upset at is that WP
corp stated several times that they would not drop the Amiga line. In
fact, upto a few weeks ago, they were even telling their beta testers that
a new version was just about ready. They (WP) also went thru this "we're
gonna drop it" stuff a year or so ago. After lots of messages, the
president of the company comes on here, and publicaly states, ok…we'll
cut back on developement, but will bring out a new product in a year or so.
So it's not that they've decided the Amiga market isn't worth it
that's got so many upset…it's that they have many, many times said they
wouldn't drop it and then they did that's got folks upset.
As an aside, WP has also stated in some of their ads that they had
intended to being out WP for as many platforms as possible. Obviously,
they really didn't mean that either.
Don
Nope, that's not my logic… I pointed out the illogic of repeating
"WP-Amiga recouped its costs in the first 60 days" as if this were a
blanket of "profit" that somehow explains that WP-Amiga can be developed
and sold forever. Yes, people bought the Amiga version because of the PC
version.
As for corporate responsibility, yes, I agree, they've gone back on their
word. That's bad. In ca company that size, it's hard to point fingers,
and even if you can, what can you do about it? I've seen corporate execs
say "X Y Z" with all good intents. The next day, new financial figures come
out that force them to change their statements. From a marketing
perspective, it doesn't make any sense to present a wishy-washy front,
either. How would the market have responded to statements "Well, we're
thinking about dropping the Amiga product line because the sales have been
really poor and because the company's going through a general
belt-tightening."?
"As many platforms as profitable", their ads should read.
John,
But WP Corp did recoup their "costs to port" within a very short
time.
However, on the other hand, that "blanket of profit" (your words)
didn't cover the continuing costs of the product, i.e., support, continued
development and so forth.
Thus….for a while, the Amiga product itself was profitable. When
sales dropped off, then it became unprofitable. Which leads to the
question of why sales dropped off. The most often cited reason was that
the port was poor, not Amigatized, and an older version.
And that leads to the question, "Should we upgrade the product so
it again becomes profitable or should we simply drop it because it will
never be profitable"
And based on past statements by WP, they've decided it'll never be
profitable, and thus have left a 1/2 (2/3rds, whatever) built product (the
supposed alpha stage upgrade) on the shelf.
And that…is what hacks people off. They did a lousy port, and
based on the sales of that…decided the Amiga market wouldn't support a
"modern" port.
I wonder what their profit/loss statements would look like if they
did a good port in the first place?
For me…it's a moot point. I don't use WP, but for others…it is
an issue.
Don
I don't think the Amiga market is large enough to please a company as large
as WP. Sure, maybe there was some pent-up demand or long-standing wish for
an Amiga WP – but the everyday, continuous sales level is not enough to
keep it going. If CBM is only selling X thousand Amigas a month, their
sales must be a small fraction of that. I think 'X' is pretty small, don't
you?
John,
In the US and Canada…yes, 'X' is relatively small.
And WP doesn't participate in the European market (or so they said
in the past).
Don
Don, I,m using WP here in Germany. There is a German Amiga version (4.1)
incl. the 700 page handboock for DM 448.- (US$ 260.-). They run here even a
hotline for telefon and fax. And as far I know WP-corp. has sold quite a
lot of copies. – Horst –
– via Whap!
Horst,
About a year ago…one of the WP reps said they had tried the
German market, but found that for every 1 copy they sold…there were about
9 stolen copies around. So they gave up that market.
So I was basing my statement on that. Perhaps they changed their
mind again…or perhaps you got in on the market when they first got there.
Can you still buy WP (German version) in stores there?
Don
John…
Don't take this the way it is going to sound… 🙂
Since the number most popular answer to the age old question "what are you
going to use your computer for?" is "Word Processing"…then that makes me
wonder if the market for WP is as small as you claim it is.
By my estimates, about 75% of Amiga owners WILL use a word processor at one
time or another. How many of them will steal that software is another
issue…however, given that stat (agree with it if you like, or not), then
I fail to see how the market is so small?
And my second question (the part I don't want you to take the wrong way)
is, if the word processing market is so small, then what about all the
other markets? Like font and image conversion? Surely that's a tiny market
in comparison to the word processing market.
Just a thought.
Jim
– Signed, sealed, Whapped!
I won't take it the wrong way. 🙂 Just because people say "word
processing" doesn't mean they want Word Perfect. Just as New Horizons.
Whoops. Just ask New Horizons. As for "size", do you mean potential, or
initial sales size, or continuous monthly sales? We do know that WP-Amiga's
sales were good (by some measure) for the initial sales. We've heard that
the continuous monthly sales weren't enough to keep WP Corp. interested.
Other Amiga companies continue to sell other WPs with differing features.
Yes, the other markets are correspondingly small. I think you're catching
on.
Jim-
If Commodore's sold 3,000,000+ Amigas in 6 years, that works out to a
minimum average of 42,000 Amigas a month. If you consider that it took
Commodore nearly two years to sell the first 150,000 machines (rough
numbers taken from my flawed memory), then the average is more like 120,000
a month. That's not really bad at all, now is it? 🙂
Small market, my #@^*!
————————————————————TL———-
Yeah, but Trevor, how many of those are sold in the USA, and how many of
those USA machines are A500's with 512K memory? As I understand it the big
majority of Amiga sales are overseas, and here in USA are A500's… (not
that the A500 isn't a capable machine, but in it's 512K ram config it's
barely able to run some of today's software). Maybe Jim O has some stats
🙂
–jp–seattle–
John…
As I said, the product failed because it failed to address the special
needs and interface considerations of the Amiga platform. The product
failed for that reason, and a host of others. The reasons are the fault of
WP Corp, and no one else. Further, it is WP Corp that could have fixed
those problems, but failed to have the foresight to do so.
I am not abdicating that they continue to sell an unprofitable product on
(what YOU call) an unpopular platform. I am merely stating that WP Corp
should (have) addressed the specific needs of the platform in order to make
their product more popular.
Concering the 60 day story…it is the development costs that were claimed
to be recovered by WP Corp. in the initial 60 days. You can't take into
consideration the original PC code as part of the development cost, because
as was pointed out, all projects are self-financed. They are inter-related
in no way.
Anyways, John, as far as looking like a PC-duck and acting like a PC-duck,
that's the kind of thinking that gets a WP type company into trouble.
Does the Mac version of WP look like a PC port?
Jim
– Signed, sealed, Whapped!
Excuse me? Feldercarb!
Did WordPerfect just now get around to looking at the bottom-line? Or was
this revelation about "the revenues recieved are not nearly enough to
finance a full-fledged development effort" discovered when it was learned
that Commoodre would not finance this effort?
Your company must really think the average Amiga owner is stupid. Contrary
to your company's belief their are many Amiga users who do serious work
with their systems and also just happen to believe in a "better mousetrap"
that is the Amiga. I am not some ex-c64 game pirate who wants to write a
few notes to his 'way kool friends in europe'. I am a person who has
control over software purchasing decisions for an entire campus, and yes, I
own an Amiga, and yes, I have owned, worked with, and programmed PCs.
Heck, I have even used WordPerfect on a PeeCee! See I am part of the
"mainstream". All I ever wanted from your company was a decent port of a
decent (read not the best) word processor. What do I get instead? I get a
buggy program and a whole lot of BS from sales droids. "WPCorp PC Testing"
has gotta be a sales droid position because I believe that WordPerfect
Corp. has never hired anyone to test their amiga products. Don't believe?
Why don't you try to install WordPerfect's latest under AmigaDOS Release 2?
Heck, try it under 1.3!
Lets take a trip down memory lane shall we?
1 I supported WordPerfect with my hard earned cash, when the program
should have never been released. It took nearly a year and a half
before the program became even remotely stable. Even when it became
stable it did not follow what little established standards that
did exist on the amiga. It was crude as a cob, and still is today.
Rule: When you are in business sometimes it is important to provide a
quality product. Sometimes name is not enough. Oh yes, you will sell a
few to the suckers who buy for a name (me!) but believe me when I tell you
I did nothing to help WordPerfect sales after I had the "Word
Perfect" experience. Does that come to you as a surprise?
2 WordPerfect claimed that they had recovered their _entire_
development cost in the first few months of release.
Rule: There are a lot of people who buy a product believing a company is
crediable based on a name and a good history on another platform.
3 WordPerfect released WordPerfect Library
Rule: Hey if we can fool them stupid Amiga owners once, hey we can do it
again. Well that was the plan, wasn't it? Fool me once, shame on you,
fool me twice, shame on me! Guess what!? You didn't get me a second time!
4 WordPerfect is the company that started all of this stuff about
doing a feasability study on doing the WordPerfect 5.1 port
not anyone else. They did agree to go to AmiExpo and show it, they
pulled a 'no-show' without even an explanation.
Rule: In a time of recession, why not suck milk out of all the cows we
can… Hello Commodore, yeah, about that WP 5.1 wouldn't it be neat
if…..???
5 I contacted WordPerfect when they were doing this "study" and was
given the strong impression that many had called and written and it
looked "good" for an updated WordPerfect. The comment it "looked
good" was said by the WordPerfect represenative not me. Why do a
study if the "the revenues received are not nearly enough to
finance a full-fledged development effort"? Was there just enough
funds to do half-baked development effort? Just what was the
thinking? Did WordPerfect stumble on a copy of 'vi' source that they
thought they could port over and label WP 5.1?
Rule: Get them Amiga Users hoppin'! If they are hoppin' they will ping
loud and clear, Commodore will have to finance the port, after all it would
really hurt Commodore if WordPerfect abandoned the Amiga.
5 I happen to know one of the beta testers, and was _told_ that he/she
had been contacted to do beta testing for the new version. This was
two months ago. He/She was told that the program had just finished
alpha and was a port of the Mac version.
Rule: Make the beta tester hopefuls believe something exists, that
doesn't. Translation: Add a bit of gas to that there fire. The more
Amiga users pinging about WP the more likely Commodore will opt to pay for
it.
——–In my opinion, WordPerfect owes the Amiga marketplace an apology.
They blew it from day one. They hired PCers to do the "port". They
released it before it was ready. They didn't even have the sense to become
registered Commodore commercial developers! You didn't think that tidbit
had slid from my memory did you?
I am also aware that Commodore pushed to have WordPerfect released before
it was ready. See, I am trying to to be fair. However, even after this
early release bug fixes did not arrive for some time.
The Amiga marketplace is quite big enough to support a good product from
WordPerfect. Don't believe it? Try producing a good product… I
certainly have been patient enough waiting for one.
Let me tell you about your latest upgrade you offered Amiga owners:
1 The Install program is broken, it guru's my machine(s) when I ran it.
I had to finish the install by hand.
2 The fonts in the printer control program are broken under 2.0 if
you decide to use another font. Clue: Most people who use 2.0 no
longer use topaz, time to get rid of a null in a text structure I
guess. If you want to force user to use topaz, specify it. A NULL
in the text structure under 2.0 gives you the system default font,
which believe it or not is usually not topaz, and get this, it is
usually bigger than 8 points!
No, the reason the WordPerfect product and WordPerfect Library did not
succeed on the amiga is simple. The program is a poorly done port of an
IBM program, and done by a company that has lost its edge.
Let me go further to say that I believe that this whole WordPerfect
5.1 study was designed to get funds from Commodore. It was probably
thought by the bean-counters at WordPerfect that if they stirred the
pot a bit on WordPerfect 5.1 for the Amiga, they probably could talk
Commodore into sinking a few million into WordPerfect Corp. Commodore
for once, wisely said, "forget it…". So instead of telling the
truth or just letting it go you (your company) decides to rub our
noses in the fact that a _big_ IBM software house has _dropped_ our
beloved machine. Well sir, good ridiance to you and your company.
Let me tell you that I am going to effect your bottom line on your PC and
VAX version of WordPerfect. I grant it will only be a few hundred copies,
but a person has got to do what he has got to do right? From this point on
I will never authorize the purchase of WordPerfect for any of our PC labs
on our campus, and will never put a version of WordPerfect on the VAXen I
administrate. No, it won't put you out of business but it will give me
satisfaction, and hey, after four years I think I deserve a bit of
satisfaction, don't you?
I am also immediately purchasing ProWrite from New Horizons. They support
their product, and hey they have stuck it out for long enough. I should
have done this long time ago.
Your company sir, is lying.
Due to your original Amiga support, I managed to convert our office, while
I was at UCLA, to WP. I also trained numerous students and converted my
father's business and many friends to WP.
Due to your current Amiga support, I will not be buying MS-DOS DrawPerfect,
Plan Perfect or Data Perfect. The current group that I am working with will
not be buying any WP products and will be using Micrsoft Word for the
MACINTOSH. Now that WP does not support all major computer platforms, there
will be know more effort from me to swith anyone to WP.
Compatability was WP's main attraction for the Amiga. Cost, graphics
support and ease of use were Amiga WP's failings. Poor logic is used when
making a product that is harder to use, more expensive and doesn't take
advantage of a platforms strong points (graphics), and then wondering why a
market doesn't support your product. The same logic might even fail in the
PC market.
Release the new technology in the Amiga market…and compete! Until then,
MS-DOS and MAC WP sales will be dropping in my neighborhood.
Drop dead word perfect.. Drop friggin dead!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, do we need this message?
Good Riddance. Yourlame presence in the Amiga market just kept others from
developing truly competitive products
—————————————-P.S. Where I work, we switched from
WordPerfect to Microsoft on the PC about a year ago. You guys are losing
your edge. Too many pin-stripe suits I imagine.
WPCorp;
I use the Amiga both at home and at work. When I heard that a new upgrade
of WP was coming out for the Amiga, I was ready to get to my dealer and
give it a test run immediately. If it had worked on the Amiga the way
programs are meant to, I would have been an instant sale. The old version
just didn't cut it for the Amiga.
This decision is truly unfortunate, and I'm sure that you'll be getting
a lot of unpleasant replies to your announcement. Amiga owners are on the
defensive – first you give us a mediocre product, and then you punish us
because we didn't buy it.
One last thought – the percentage of folks that own the Amiga and can be
classified as "computer professionals" is much higher than you might think
– probably higher than other platforms. As a micro-coordinator with 120
employees to look after, I fit into this classification. After this
treatment, I will need much more convincing that WP is a product I want my
users to have on their machines, no matter what their platform.
Jonathan
Jonathan – from Albany, NY, via whap!
Jonathan,
I agree with your comments about the classification of most Amiga users.
I'd love to recommend the machine more to "general" computer users but I
know that they lack the knowledge and determination required to survive and
utilize the hardware with the lack of Commodore and "real" computer
companies.
Can't WP Corp see from these messages that most Amiga users are
knowledgable not just about their machine and its software but also about
other platforms and software products? I too think like many here that the
Amiga version of WP didn't fully utilize the hardware. I also think that
it was another example of "Amiga is another Commodore game machine"
thinking when the AMiga version of WP lacks the features of IBM-WP like
Styles and Tables that I want and really need. Trust me I would use
Amiga-WP for more than just writing a quick letter or two. I would be
working on the same over-100-page documents at home that I do at work.
Anyway I just wanted to once again express my feelings on this matter. I
hope that all of the activity on this thread will at the very least cause
WP Corp. to rthink their apparent inacurate impression of the "average"
Amiga user.
Garry
Someone on Compuserve is not an "average" computer user. Someday, maybe,
but not now – especially Amiga users. Ten messages on Compuserve do not
make a trend. The problem is, you're voting against all the people who
didn't buy Amiga WP.
Garry,
In reference to your statement:
…Can't WP Corp see from the messages here that most Amiga
users…
Unfortunately, EVERY member of this forum could leave a supportive
message (on any subject) and it would represent less than 1/3 of 1 percent
of the Amiga owners out there.
Those of us here in the Amiga forums are, for the most part, the
"upper crust" of Amiga owners. Not only can we afford an Amiga, we can
afford a modem, the cost of CIS, are interested enough to join a public
forum, and have the time to do so.
But…keep the messages coming…because we're also the most
probable buyers of higher priced software such as WP.
Don
Don,
The point that I wanted to make was that your "average" computer user
doesn't buy an Amiga; as we hear from all of the various sources. It takes
a special person to buy Amiga; someone that has investigated the various
platforms and appreciates the various aspects of the Amiga that make it
"special". Amiga buyers also have to be a somewhat independent type
considering the lack of support from Commodore and "real" software
companies.
Also Amiga users are more likely to be much more aware of other platforms.
This is somewhat the result of the sheer volume of "info" for these other
systems. Often it's becuse we have to deal with other systems at work.
Back to the topic of this thread; I think that particularly for the average
miga users, WP would be (make that would have been) a very good choice
because there is some information out there for the IBM version. A
non-technical user could use WP-Amiga for their needs and still get widely
available help. This depends on the fact the the IBM and Amiga versions
are fairly close in features.
Garry
This discussion on WordPerfect started I believe when the AmiExpo people
announced here on CIS that WordPerfect would be at the recent AmiExpo in
Oakland with an announcement about a new release.
What on earth happened between then and now, WordPerfect never showed up at
AmiExpo, did they ever intend to or did the AmiExpo folks mess up?
-=Martin=-
– via Whap!
Well, guess I'll spend the dough I had reserved for WPerfect on another
word processor. Also guess I will stop using it on the VAX and PC's, will
stop recommending it for those environments and do everything in my power
to prove to your management that the day of the single system user are
dead. The whole attraction of WordPerfect was portability. Somehow your
management has missed the point.
BTW, I'll bet I was not the only one with cash in hand waiting to get a 5.x
amigatized version of WP.
wmc