#WordPerfect Upgrade
133 messages in this thread
Just received magazine "WordPerfect Report". Note that WP are now offering
to upgrade Amiga WordPerfect. However… The upgrade is to the DOS
Windows version – NOT a new Amiga one. Cost is quoted at $150.00
Suppose that WP have given up on Amiga as a serious machine.
Above – just for info'.
Hilary
Several months back I purchased WP, and called WP to see if it was the
latest version. I also asked whether there would be any further upgrades on
WP for the Amiga, but that they would continue to support Amiga users.
….via Whap \|/
| …Lewis
Hilary,
Just so that you know. I guess it was around a year ago now (perhaps
someone with a better memory could be specific about the time frame) Word
Perfect started bantering about upgrading Word Perfect for the Amiga to
version 5.1. They even went as far to call up beta testers.
Then, about 30 days later they posted here and everywhere that the Amiga
version of the software just was not profitable. They had evaulated the
platform and felt there was no market for Word Perfect for the Amiga.
Now I suspected at the time that there was more to this than met the eye.
When a guy from Word Perfect "Testing" appeared here to answer questions
regarding this decision–I directly challenged him. I said at the time
that the reality was that Word Perfect stirred the pot to get the Amiga
users "ready" for an upgrade and then went to Commodore to ask for some
porting dollars.
Guess what–I was right. At the World of Commodore show in Pasadena Jim
Dionne made it clear that Word Perfect had asked Commodore US for about 4
million dollars to do the Amiga port of Word Perfect. Commodore
declined.
Now here are my opinions about this decision by Word Perfect Corp. I feel
as though I was cheated from day one by Word Perfect Corp. The product
they shipped and that I bought was very buggy and quite un-usable. They
did 'patch' it up and finally after about 2 years produced a working
version that for the most part is acceptable. All along this development
process when I called Word Perfect Corp., they told me that they did
intend to continue to support the product and the machine. They also
promised a Word Perfect 5.1 port.
If many will remember Word Perfect posted that the Amiga Word Perfect
product was profitable and very successful early on. They claimed that
the piracy in Europe and the lack of acceptance of the product in the US
damaged their sales. Of course, they never have admitted that the Amiga
Word Perfect port was poorly done — and the fact that is was bug ridden
<continued>
Mark,
I've had Amiga WP since March 1, 1988 and it is unequivocally the best
all-around piece of software that I own. It literally has never crashed
once and for me, it has been one of the least buggy application software I
have purchased for the Amiga. And for pure word processing, not DTP, it
makes all the other Amiga word processors look like a joke. It still
remains the only professional word processor for the Amiga.
Also, every year through 1991, WordPerfect was consistently named the
best Amiga word processor in various Amiga magazines in both Readers'
Choice and Editors' Choice Polls, and for a few years it was named the #1
all-around Amiga software in any category, a decision with which I
wholeheartedly agreed.
So I'm not certain why your experiences with WP have been different
than mine and all the magazine people who consistently picked it as the
best in its field. Certainly, if it was as bad as you claim, it wouldn't
have had all those accolades bestowed upon it.
Of course WP Corp. never said that the reason for poor sales was that
the Amiga port was poorly done. That's because the port was not poorly
done. I regret very much that there won't be an upgrade, but WP Corp.
probably made a good business decision. On other platforms, WP is
practically a standard. Most Amiga users were too cheap to pay the
justified price for truly professional top quality software and sales
suffered because of that, and of course because of the tremendous amount
of Amiga piracy. And the support services from WP Corp. were unparalled in
the Amiga market.
So, unfortunately I can understand why WP Corp. withdrew their Amiga
support. They weren't selling enough in the Amiga market. I don't think it
was because they had an inferior product, but because many Amiga users
wouldn't pay the price for quality software.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dom,
I couldn't disagree with you more about Amiga WordPerfect. The Amiga port
*was* poorly done, not only in its implementation but also in its design.
It is an MSDOS program with parts of the Amiga's GUI simulated to give it
an "Amiga look". The current version is probably quite stable (I don't
know…I stopped using it a long time ago) but the first couple of
releases qualify as the most buggy commercial software I've ever had the
misfortune of using. I think the knock about Amiga users refusing to pay
for quality software is rubbish. I know plenty of Amiga owners who are
prepared to lay their credit cards on the line in return for value. 8^)
People stopped buying AmigaWP largely because _word got out_ that it was
flakey. I *know* this. We once had a WPCorp. rep. come to a local user's
group meeting…the poor guy was barraged with bug reports and complaints
about AmigaWP. I felt sorry for him but the complaints were totally
justified. Word gets around and people respond accordingly.
I make part of my living as a technical writer, and I'll tell you what I
use as my main "professional word processor": TxEd Plus. It doesn't have
any bells & whistles to speak of, no fancy stuff at all, but it lets me
write without getting in the way. WordPerfect got in the way all the time
with its instability and general all-around clunkiness, so I junked it.
I'm sure those who need its more advanced features are happy to have it
around, and I concede your point that no other Amiga wordprocessing
package (that I know of) shares its potential power. But things could've
been so different, and better for all of us, had WPCorp. done their job
properly in the first place and given us a stable application that made
proper use of the Amiga's OS resources. But they didn't…. In the end
it doesn't matter what magazine writers say about a product…it's the
experiences of the product's users that matter.
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
David,
> "I couldn't disagree with you more about Amiga WordPerfect." <
Yes you could have. You could have NOT conceded the point that no other
Amiga word processing package shares its potential power. 😎
The Amiga port could have been better and would have been better if we
got the 5.0 upgrade. But even in its current 4.12 incarnation, I feel it
is vastly superior to any other current Amiga word processor.
I don't know when you stopped using WP, but it hasn't been buggy since
I started using it in 1988. The first few releases of Pagestream were
extremely buggy, but the bugs were fixed and it continues to sell today.
The funny thing is that a WP Corp. rep also appeared at a user's group
meeting in New York and he didn't receive complaints, but only praise for
the product. So I don't see how you can say that you "*know*" that people
stopped buying Amiga WP because word got out that it was flakey. I don't
think anyone can "know" for sure why it didn't sell. We had opposite
experiences at our user's group meetings.
Also, many people, including software developers, have stated that you
can't charge as high a price for Amiga software as you can for MS-DOS
software, so it's not just my opinion.
As far as the magazine articles are concerned, it wasn't just the
editors who consistently picked WordPerfect as the #1 Amiga word
processor, but the readers as well, and the readers are the users of the
product. How could so many people consistently pick it as the best, if it
was as bad as you say?
So I guess we disagree, but you're not just disagreeing me; you're
disagreeing with all those who consistently rated WordPerfect as the #1
Amiga word processor.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dom,
I stopped using WordPerfect nearly two years ago. At the time it didn't
run under 2.0, and since I wasn't using 1.3 much at that point WP got left
behind. Besides, I was already pretty fed up with it.
I think people cut WP a lot of slack just because it was WP. We were
pleased to see a major software vendor release an Amiga product, so we
treated it with kid gloves and told WP reps how wonderful it was (well,
apparently some of us told 'em that <g>) and gave it awards it didn't
deserve, perhaps hoping other major vendors would follow suit and
"legitimize" our humble machine. I bought WP sight unseen…I'd never
even used the MSDOS version. I just assumed it would be a superior
product because of all the glowing press the MSDOS version was then
getting. I've learned since then….
The case with PageStream is quite different to that of WordPerfect.
PageStream started out slowly, and was indeed initially very buggy and
rather non-Amiga-like, but its authors stuck by their commitment to the
Amiga market (not out of any altruistic motivation, I'm sure, but because
their other market, that of the Atari ST series, was beginning to
atrophy), and turned the software into a good, perhaps excellent, product.
WordPerfect started out with a bang (largely because, as I said before,
it was WordPerfect), was also very buggy and rather non-Amiga-like, and
went downhill from there. WPCorp's commitment to the Amiga marketplace
slacked off along with WP's sales. WPCorp definitely deserves credit for
moving into the Amiga market in the first place; it's a pity other major
software firms haven't followed their lead. But I fault them greatly for
their arrogance in failing to consider that the fall-off in WP's sales may
have had something to do with the quality of the product. I don't blame
C= a bit for not underwriting their second try at getting it right.
When it comes to productivity software, bear in mind that nearly all Amiga
<continued>
sales are to individuals. A big percentage of MSDOS/Windows sales are to
corporations. Judging by the large numbers of ersatz software manuals we
sell at the bookstore where I work, I suspect lots of clone machine owners
are stealing their software from work or getting it from friends who stole
it from work. (I should also add that more books are stolen from our
computers section than from any other.) Maybe if the software were less
expensive more people would acquire it legitimately…but at any rate I
don't think the higher prices necessarily reflect the reality of the
marketplace. Also, it's not only market forces that determine software
prices; the "prestige factor" also plays a part. I don't think the Amiga
market is big enough for prestige to mean much.
These days I see some pretty expensive video packages on my dealer's
shelves…somebody obviously believes they can charge big bucks for these
products and get away with it. 8^) Hmmm…maybe we _are_ seeing the
prestige factor coming into play…or perhaps Amiga owners are just
willing to pay for software that makes use of the machine's strengths.
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
David,
I'm very confused about your coment that WP would not run under 2.0! I
have been running WP under 2.0 & 1.3 (almost solely under 2.0 though) for
almost 2 years and I have had no more problems than any other Amiga title,
word processor or not.
I can understand some of the bitter feelings that many have regarding WP
pulling out of the Amiga market. I too was very disappointed. As an Amiga
community, we could solve that problem. If WPCorp got enough mail and
phone calls requesting that they reconsider, I'm sure that they would.
Even if you had no plans to use WP ever again, it would bennifit the Amiga
community by having a top name software producer programming for our
platform. It just plan leads status & credibility.
Besides, you can give them your two cent worth!
Matt
Mathew,
WP does run under 2.x now, but it had problems with early versions of 2.0.
WP issued a maintenance release that dealt with the problems.
I guess I'm not all that upset about WPCorp leaving the Amiga market.
They weren't making any money off us, so from a bean-counter's perspective
they were justified. But I was, and continue to be, upset about their
less-than-stellar performance while in our market. They could've and
should've done better.
WPCorp knows my feelings on the matter pretty well…I "spoke" regularly
online here with their reps during their Amiga market tenure. I agree
with you that the Amiga community would benefit from the presence of major
software vendors. Just keep MicroSoft the h*ll away! 8^)
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
David,
I agree completly!
Matt
Dom,
I have to agree with you that Word Perfect is the best word processor we
have, in spite of the fact that it has not been updated in a long time.
It does not really bother me that it doesn't do graphics, since I can move
the WP text into a DTP program for those. It does bother me that the
other word processors for the Amiga have not yet added those features that
are so needed.
—Betty
"It does bother me that the other word processors for the Amiga have not
yet added those features that are so needed."
Hear Hear! And I read a message here that said Commodore knocked back the
port because it was going to cost them 4 million. Did they consider the
number of Amiga users who would not have migrated to other platforms if it
became clear that Commodore was serious about the Amiga becoming a
mainstream business platform? Not to mention the reverse migration from
Dos and Mac. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Erron, perhaps C= just prefers not to be extorted by an exceedingly well
capitalized company with a poor track record in the Amiga marketplace.
The Amiga is not going to become a mainstream business platform, at least
not in the forseeable future. It wouldn't happen even if C= threw
truckloads of $100 bills at WPCorp, Lotus, MicroSoft, etc. The clone
train is just too big and powerful to derail. At least C= seems to be
finally serious about developing the niche markets Amy has a chance in.
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
"The Amiga is not going to become a mainstream business platform, at least
not in the forseeable future."
That's the kind of defeatist thinking that typifies the Amiga community
and Commodore. The Amiga will become what we, and Commodore, have the
nerve to push for.
Erron,
I'm not being defeatist at all…I'm being realistic. When it comes to
business the clones rule. I don't *like* it one bit…I have to deal with
the tempermental beasts every day…but I face up to reality when I see
it. If the Amiga is to make any inroads into the business market, it'll
be through the back door as a niche (video) machine. Once we're in the
door, though, who knows what'll happen….
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
"If the Amiga is to make any inroads into the business market, it'll be
through the back door as a niche (video) machine."
Dave,
Where I work, Australia Post, I had to fight tooth and nail to get an
Amiga. It's proved itself in the image manipulation area I use it in, but
I still have to justify it's idiosyncratic software base from time to
time. Currently I'm under pressure to shift my work to a Sun or Windows
based machine so I can use Adobe packages like Illustrator and Photoshop.
If those packages were available on the Amiga, I could sell a half dozen
machines in the space of a few days, without trying.
"Once we're in the door, though, who knows what'll happen…."
– Dave, it took hell for me to get in that door, and I'll tell you what'll
happen – either Commodore gets serious and ports the necessary software or
the Amiga dies due to what a colleague termed "lack of vendor support".
Betty,
> "It does bother me that the other word processors for the Amiga have
not yet added those features that are so needed." <
Very well put, Betty!
ProWrite still doesn't have Macros and probably never will. I think
they just recently added timed-backups. We've always had both original and
user-definable timed backups from the beginning, and those are just
considered minor features.
The problem is that many companies now don't add many features to
programs because the programs have an ARexx port. I believe that the
"Taking Sides" feature by Rhett Anderson and Randy Thompson in Compute's
Amiga Resource once had a column on this topic. I agree with the one that
said ARexx is an excuse for lazy programmers. When someone asks them to
implement a feature, the programmer responds that the feature can be added
via ARexx. That turns the user into the programmer. Why should I have to
learn ARexx and do the programming myself every time I want a feature
implemented? That's the programmer's job. The programmer should put the
feature directly into the program.
You can create macros in Pro Write by using ARexx, but it's definitely
not the same thing as the WordPerfect macro recorder and editor. Also, the
fact that WP could be more "Amigatized" is really not that important,
since the mouse tends to get in the way when your hands are on the
keyboard anyway. And WP is fast, too. I think I'll be staying with it for
some time to come.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
The features in WP that I find most important (aside from the basics that
just about everyone has) are the macros, the end and footnotes, and the
index/Table of Contents.
As for indexing – I have a public domain program that runs on MSDOS that
can make an every-name index just by reading your document! Of course, it
gets a few things that are not really names. It can even so Last Name,
First Name by taking two consecutive capitalized words as names. So – you
might get quite a few River, Tennessee; River, Cumberland, etc., as names
– but they ARE names, aren't they? I've never seen such a feature in any
word processor, and for genealogical writing it is a wonderful aid.
—Betty
I have never realy cared for WP for Amiga, I bought it and Library
years ago, and was very disapointed in the look and feel department, but
ended up using it since it was WP and I had used WP Dos 4.1 for quite a
while, and it was almost identical.
After a while I saw Pen Pal and switched to it, it lasted me a year,
and the n when Prowrite 3.0 came out I switched to it, since it was
getting close to WP, but still like Betty said, it still lacked TOC,
Index, and other WP features. Ive also tried Final Copy I (havent botherd
to upgrade to II yet) and liked the look and feel of it.
I have now fallen in love with Excellence 3, it is very much worth
taking a look at for WP users, It has TOC, Index, Headers, Footers,
Summary, Speel Checker, Gramer Check and Thesaurus, among other features.
It also uses standard Amiga fonts, including CG Fonts. It is a great
program..
Forrest
I've been taking a second look at Excellence. I may try the new version.
Earlier ones had too many problems, but I hear only good from those who
have tried Excellence 3.
—Betty
Does the speel checker work good for you?
Paul,
And what about the "Gramer Check"? 😎
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Spell checker works just dine for me..
Forrest
Dom, I agree with you about AREXX being an excuse for a lack of features,
but without totally knocking the developers… Instead of having them add
features to the program, let *them* right the AREXX scripts that we users
can really use.
-Jonathan
Jonathan,
Exactly! Software developers should either implement the features in
the program, or include ALL the ARexx scripts with COMPLETE documentation
for those scripts, that will give us the features. ARExx is just the easy
way out. They put in an ARexx port and then expect the users to write the
scripts. If writing the scripts is a major hassle, then the users
shouldn't be asked to do it. If it's not a hassle, then the developers
should do it. Either way, the developers should write the scripts. In the
alternative, a warning should be issued that "Knowledge and proficiency in
the ARexx programming language is required to utilize this program to its
fullest".
Since when did a user have to be a programmer in order to use the
features of a software program? I don't like it when a developer is asked
if a certain feature can be added to a program and they reply, yes YOU can
write an ARexx script to accomplish that. WRONG! The DEVELOPER can write
the ARexx script and not the user. The developer gets paid for
programming. The user shouldn't have to pay money in order to program.
I think we're on the same wavelength on this.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Now, THAT's a good idea, Jonathan. After all, AREXX is so easy that even
the end-users can whip up a script to do anything the programmer left out,
so a *programmer* should be able to do them with almost no outlay of time
and effort. Whenever a user asks for a feature that was missing, the
programmer could take a few minutes off his lunch hour and whip it up.
Right? 🙂
—Betty
Betty,
I don't care when or how the programmer provides the features, just as
long as they're provided. My time is more valuable to me than the
programmer's time. I paid for the program, now the programmer should get
to work. Actually, he should have gotten to work BEFORE he released the
program. 😎
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dominick,
I guess we disagree about Word Perfect in general, or you are very
forgiving. I can not count the number of times that the printer drivers
that I needed would not print my document in the format that I specified.
I can not count the number of times I have had the print program crash my
system. My rule of thumb was — save before printing — always!
My last straw with Word Perfect had to do with it's installation under
2.0. The installation program that I got guru'd the system and did not
copy itself correctly onto the hard disk. I might also add that the
program was unbelieveably slow at doing simple things–like opening normal
requestors. Why? Because they didn't use requestors, but custom windows
instead.
And speaking of requestors–just where in the world did they get the idea
that this custom requestor of theirs in Word Perfect was better than the
ASL.library when they did the 2.0 version? At least with ASL you can use
any number of PD replacements!
The current version does not correctly support any other font than topaz 8
as the system default font when you go into the printer control menu, and
if you ever make the mistake of going into the preview mode — well that
was rewarded with either a lockup or an empty page.
I have a friend of mine who beta tested Word Perfect. He tried like hell
to get them not to release the code at all when they did. It was my
understanding that Commodore was forcing a release. They released. Then
they bug chased. I don't really blame Word Perfect in the early days for
anything other than a bad decision on their part for porting WP 4.1, it
should have been 5.0, or at least 4.2. The second being for allowing
Commodore to influence them to release a product before it was ready.
Let me also clue you in on another fiasco that has been forgotten. Do you
remember WordPerfect Library? Now that was a bugfest and a half. Tell me
that there was not somebody at WordPerect that said "Hell, just put our
<continued>
name on it–it will sell". If that was not the case, it sure seemed that
way. Just when was the last time that program has seen an update. Is it
2.0 compatible yet??
There have been two times that Word Perfect talked about a port of 5.1.
Do you not remember the talk about developing Amiga Word Perfect to 5.1
and then porting it to the NeXT? Do you remember when WP then nearly
decided to pull out of the market and was forced back in because of the
human outcry? Have you forgotten their promise the day you got Word
Perfect 4.1?
Now lets move up to recent history. My beta tester friend was called up,
and so was other beta testers. Word Perfect had ported WP 5.1 to the
Amiga (using the Mac version supposedly) and they intended to show it at
either an AmiExpo or Word Of Commodore show. They did not show up.
Further, two to three weeks later they decide to drop the bomb in public
that they were dropping the Amiga version of Word Perfect. Never telling
us the truth that Commodore had refused to pay them for the port. Instead
they decided that they would try to cause as much public trouble for
Commodore as they could–claiming there was no market, etc. etc.
So, I am angry at Word Perfect for a lot of reasons. Mostly for lying to
me and lying about the Amiga community and the marketplace in general.
Secondly for releasing code that shouldn't have been released, and finally
for not supporting the product with any sense of urgency.
I am glad that Amiga Word Perfect works for you. I think your message has
a thumbnail of truth when you talk about what the 'typical' Amiga owner
will pay for a piece of software. However, I think you are being awful
forgiving to a company that took you for a ride.
Me? I regret that it took me so long to support the Amiga developer who
is truly committed to the technology. That is New Horizons. They have
been there from day one and survived Word Perfect. Their product
continues to advance and I have hopes that ProWrite v4.0 is a more
<continued>
professional product that sports many of the features that Word Perfect
has. I know that in this last year the hottest selling productivty
package for the Amiga has been ProWrite. Perhaps if you had decided to
support the Amiga developer you might find yourself today with a Word
Processor far more powerful than WP 4.1 ever was.
Finally, the awards. Magazines often times do not indicate a real sense
of what is good vs. what is bad. I can think of several occasions when
products won awards that I just couldn't understand–until I saw how much
certain companies advertise in that magazine. I have to evaluate a given
product on its own merit and my experience. Word Perfect, though I used
it for years, was a big love hate relationship. It turned to complete
hate in disgust in later years.
-mark=
Mark,
You make some good points. And yes, WP could be better. No question
about it. However, the current WP, even with all its faults, is still the
most powerful Amiga wp there is. That is a sad commentray on the current
state of Amiga word processors.
Also, I simply haven't experienced the bugs that you have. I never get
a lockup or crash while printing. I consider WP to be one of the most
stable application programs that I own.
I'll stay with WP for awhile, but since it won't be upgraded, I imagine
I'll switch programs in the future. I was considering ProWrite, but I
decided against it because it doesn't have macros. Arexx is NOT the same
thing. I'm simply not willing to give up using WP's excellent macro
recorder and editor that easily. And I have supported New Horizons by
purchasing both QB and QB Tools.
Finally, in the magazines, it wasn't just the editors, but the READERS
also, who consistently picked WP as the #1 Amiga word processor. Why would
the readers pick it if it was as bad as you say? The readers are the users
of the product.
So, yes, while Amiga WP could be better and hasn't been updated in a
long time, it's a shame that it's still the most powerful Amiga wp out
there. New Horizons should make a list of WP's features, and then
implement each and every one of them in ProWrite 4.0. Then maybe, I'll
switch.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Actually, over the last year, Final Copy has gotten the magazine editor's
thumbs up. -Not WP.. I believe in ProWrite and Final Copy. They may not
have all the features of WP, but they work on all the Amigas and will
continue to grow in capability as time progresses and both companies have
exhibited Amiga commitment.
-Jonathan
Jonathan,
Both of those programs are excellent, I'm sure. I haven't tried Final
Copy, but I hear great things about it here. I've used earlier versions
of ProWrite, and it was great. As far as it went. But for those of us
who do a great deal of writing, and who NEED footnotes, endnotes,
indexing, and tables of contents, neither of them can handle the need.
ProWrite has been around for years, and it has improved and grown – but
these real needs have never been addressed. They continue to improve
their graphics abilities, but not the basic fundamental needs of macros,
foot/endnotes, and indexing/table of contents. Without those, you simply
cannot do the more demanding types of word processing. And without those
capabilities, we will not have an acceptable word processor for the user
who needs those things.
—Betty
Dom,
There is just as much, if not more piracy of WP on the IBM. It's
just that the actual sales are high enough to justify it's continued
existance.
Don
Don,
> "It's just that the actual sales are high enough to justify it's
continued existance." <
You're right on that account. I agree with you. That's what I meant
about the percentage of sales, but your analysis of the situation is
better than mine. I don't have any figures, but even if the percentage of
pirated IBM WP were higher than the Amiga, it would still be worth it
because of the much higher sales of IBM WP. I was phrasing it differently
by saying that because of the higher sales, even if there were more actual
pirated copies of IBM WP than of Amiga WP, that the percentage of pirated
copies of IBM WP could still be less than the percentage of pirated copies
of Amiga WP.
I like your statement better. Regardless of the percentage of pirated
copies, there are still enough actual sales of IBM WP to make its
continued support feasible.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dominick,
Sorry just can't let you get away with saying WPerfect makes other word
processors look like a joke. Really, nothing could be further than the
truth or indeed a travesty of the truth. Protext By Arnor Ltd of
Peterborough has so many features and abilities as to make the top of Dos
type packages over here. Thats against the Window style word pros such as
Prowrite etc.
For example just some of Protexts features include;
Pull doen menus with dialogue boxes and alerts, file selectors, mouse
dragging to set blocks, keyboard shortcuts, enhanced printing facilites
with support for dozenz and dozens of printers, always kept up to date;
mixing of different font sizes and proportional fonts. proportional
formatting whilst editing; side margin headers and footers independent of
main text font; all line and page breaks correctly shown on scree; tabs,
decimal tabs, centre tabs; inter paragraph space adjustment; auto formatted
footnotes; nespaper style columns and printing; multiplr file editing of up
to 36 file open, split screen editing, auto time save, virtually any screen
mode support including 50lines and large screen displays where available,
user defined characters, on screen bold italics and underlining, use of 13
different accents on any character; support for 27 languages at the last
count, 10 different keyboard layouts plus ability to define own keyboards
and symbols; index and contents generation; indexer marked words or
phrases, contents entries automatically taken from titles wrapped in
control codes and many other options for style of contents output.
Ummm…what else, oh yes, 110,000 word spell checker which is very fast
indeed and user defined dictionaries auto loaded on boot up; also anagrams,
thesaurus, spell check as you type
Mail merge and powerful programming language built in for personalised
letters and all types of correspondence. Program language includes read
data from files, use of variables read from keyboard input as well as
imbedded variables, display message
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
whilst printing, reformat while printing conditional printing and repeat
until loops; numeric calculations and string expressions including sub
strings, self incrementing variables; maths mode including row and column
calculation, background printing, box manipulation and drawing, macro
recording and executable exec files, widows, orpahns, headers footers, on
screen help, time and date macros, and about another 30 odd facilities that
I don't have time to type in.
That sound any good to you?
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Pete,
To the best of my knowledge, that word processor is not available on this
side of the Atlantic. Hmmm…. does it have both English and American
spelling dictionaries? Tim would love it if I could spell in English.
—Betty
Betty,
I'll ask Mark Tilley who is the boss of Arnor if he exports to the US.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Thanks, Pete. It sounds like a great product.
—Betty
Pete,
Do you have a phone number for Arnor?
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Yes Arnor Ltd phone No is 0733 68909. I have no idea what you would dial
for England though.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Thanks for Arnor's number, Pete.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Pete,
Protext sounds great! How do us Yankees get a copy, anyway? Does it do
Postscript?
Jonathan, via AutoPilot // Only Amiga makes
\\// it possible…
Johnathan,
I'll have a talk to Arnor and see what they say. The one thing I can say is
that it doesn't talk Postscript. It can use downloadable fonts and will
automatically address whatever fonts a printer has built in. So for example
on my Ricoh LP1200 laser it has CGTimes 10 and 12pt, CGUnivers 10 and 12pt,
Courier and what it calls Line printer.
I'll get back to you soon ( NOT RSN 🙂 ) and let you know.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Pete,
I'm sorry but I'm not that familiar with ProText. Yes, your list does
sound impressive and maybe I should look at a demo of the program. Do you
know if one is available? I haven't really heard of ProText spoken about
when people are discussing the best Amiga word processors, though.
Two questions. Does the program have a macro recorder and editor? You
mentioned macro recording in the context of the programming language, but
I'm asking if you can define macros from within ProText without
programming and also edit them. Next, is the program fast? Excellence for
the Amiga has a few good features, but it's as slow as molasses. Speed is
important to me.
Thanks.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dom:
Excellence 3 is not slow at all.
Michael,
Maybe Excellence 3 is not slow for a graphics word processor, but it is
much slower than a straight text wp, isn't it?
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
correct
correct (on the amiga that is), but it is not as slow as WP5.1 on any
speed '286, and as fast as most 386's.
Bob Comer
Dominick,
Yes you can record macros very easily indeed the maximum length is 255 key
presses. You can have a maximum of 92 recorded macros via F keys, Alt,
Shift and CTRL keys. As the macro is saved as an ascii file it can be
edited in another window and tried out has you do the modification. An Exec
file is similar but can do rather more than a macro. It is safe to say that
Protext in the hands of an expert can do nearly anything you could possibly
think of. It looks very tidy on screen.
Yes it is generally accepted as being a fast word processor in all
respects, hang on a minute I'll do a spell check….. Ok, the doc file for
Khalid Aldoseris File requestor is 40k and it took 8 secs to read it and
tell me it didn't know 20 words. I reckon thats quick.
Arnor do a demo disk with various bits and pieces disabled.
Write to Arnor Ltd,
611, Lincoln Road,
Peterborough PE1 3HA
England.
I don't have anything to do with Arnor in any way what so ever other than
use their product. I do however, recommend Protext unreservedly.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Pete,
Thanks for the Protext info.
Two more questions. Does the macro recorder allow you to record menu
selections and mouse clicks or just key key presses? Do they have an
American version of their spell checker and thesaurus or just British
versions?
Thanks.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dominick,
The macro recorder can do key press and mouse selections. However, when
this is all done you can edit the stuff if necessary.
I don't know about American spelling but will ask.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Maybe someone could ask Arnor to post the demo version of Protext here on
CompuServe, or allow someone else to post it.
-Jerry
What a good idea. I'll ask Mark Tilley. I doubt he would mind
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Pete,
If Arno does a demo disk of ProText, can you get it and upload it
here?
…Steve
On AutoPilot! (at last)
Hey, Steve! How's it going?
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dominick,
Not too much going on here, have tried to call afew times but got `the
machine'. Maybe soon!
…Steve
On AutoPilot! (at last)
Steve,
If you ever do get the machine, leave a message and I'll call you back.
Also, sometimes I might even be there, but I'm just screening calls, so
say something. 😎
Talk to you soon.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Yup will do.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
So how do I get a copy of Protext? I haven't seen it available here in the
States.
Chris
See a message from yesterday. You need to contact
Michtron,
3201, Drummond Plaza,
Newark DE 19711
Phone 302 454 7946
Fax 302 454 1403
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Pete,
That's telling 'em about Protext!
I even use mine for typing in Russian. Just had to change the screen font,
redefine the keyboard and modify a printer driver. Now I can type in both
English and Russian in the same document. All I need now is a Russian
dictionary and thesaurus for it…
Regards,
Shraddhan – via Whap! from Hertfordshire in the UK
Hi Shraddhan,
How are you? Havn't seen you around here for ages.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
Pete,
I _have_ been around here – but keeping a low profile!
Actually I'm around quite often – too often from the point of view of the
credit card company – it's just I haven't had anything to say really, nor
read any messages where I thought I could contribute.
I've also been suffering from overload – I work late on Monday nights, go
to a Russian class on Tuesday nights, work late on Wednesday nights, go to
a Portuguese class on Thursday nights. In between times, I've been getting
stuck in to a little program I'm writing. I've added 12000 lines of code
to it in the last few weeks. All this is getting to be a bit much, but
fortunately I'll be going away on holiday to Portugal in a few days' time.
This will give my brain a chance to cool down.
I really enjoyed the weekend at your place a while ago. It was very
interesting too.
Regards,
Shraddhan – via Whap! from Hertfordshire in the UK
probably did a lot to kill it as a product.
So here is my final postion. I maintain that Word Perfect Corp has every
right in the world to decide which machines they will support and which
machines they will not support. I have a right to not purchase, nor
support, nor ever advise anyone to purchase their products–a right that I
exercise daily.
In my opinion, Word Perfect Corp can rot in Word Processor Hell–right
along with TextCraft. 🙂
-mark=
Good Christ! $4 MILLION for the port?!? Sounds to me like they were TRYING
to kill off WP-Amiga. I notice thet they tried to blame the failure of the
program on the USERS and not the fact that the program was a piece of
drakh when first released. Typical.
// Brian — Cruising on AutoPilot…..
\X/
Mark,
I agree with you completely about Amiga WordPerfect and the company that
produced it. The initial release of Amiga WP was a disgrace. I think
that product did more than a little harm to the Amiga software market, and
thus to us as well.
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
Well Mark, whilst I go along with many of your sentiments re WPerfect the
3 words that I thought stuck out were 4 MILLION DOLLARS. They want to gold
plate the product or what? So its hardly surprising that C= or indeed
anyone else have suported the company re an Amiga WP that is up to date.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
"the 3 words that I thought stuck out were 4 MILLION DOLLARS."
Ah, come on – it's a lot to you or me personally, maybe, but consider the
figures: 3 million Amigas worldwide at present, you port maybe a half
dozen top line packages, how many Amigas would you get? If you doubled the
number – 6 million – you would have to be making the princely sum of 8
bucks a machine to cover the porting costs, based on 4 mill. a port. This
is before you start counting sales of peripherals, etc. and the fact that
Commodore would be in a considerably better bargaining position in the
later ports due to it's existing stable of top line software.
Am I being too optimistic? I don't know, it just seems to me that if
you're serious, Commodore, you get serious. Otherwise drop all this high
powered machine crap and content yourself to slugging it out with Sega and
Nintendo.
I would say a definite YES. I don't know of many people who would run out
and buy an Amiga instead of a PC to run WordPerfect, esp. now that Windows
is out and completly supported by all PC developers. If I were buying
right now, it would be hard for me to justify buying an Amiga over a 486
Windows system. AmigaDOS is better right now, but there is more support
for Windows. But since Ive been in Amiga for the last 7 years, and I have
all the software, I wont change. Not to say I wont buy a second system.
So would Commodore get anything out of giving WordPerfect Corp. $3
million, probably not.
Instead of worrying about who we are "slugging it out with.." we should
all be talking to developers who are willing support our machine to get
the software we want.
// .An Ameoba on AutoPilot 🙂
\X/
Mark:
What I'd love to see would be some form of Windows emulation add-on for
AmigaDOS. Rather than a plain MS-DOS emulator like they currently have,
I'd like to see hard/software (possibly using the existing 386Bridgeboard)
so that rather than have a separate screen runing MS-DOS &/or Windows, all
you'd have to do is stick a disk with a windows app on it into the Amigas
floppy drive, and an Icon would popup just like an AmigaDOS disk. Then if
you opened the disk icon you'd get a window that would show you all the
windows programs applications Icons properly, as if you were running
Windows rather than AmigaDOS, and if you selected show all from the menus
it would then show you all the files on the disk, just like it now works
for AmigaDOS. Of course if you double click on an icon you would be able
to run whatever application you were clicking on.
This way the Amiga would become Windows Compatible, and the
hardware/software should be called the "Windows Compatiblity Option"
rather than Bridgeboard, as I think BridgeBoard isn't really that clear as
to what it is. If this combo (well the software really, the hardware
already exists) were to be made, I think you'd see Amiga sales jump thru
the roof. The more often asked question when a new customer looks at the
Amiga isn't "is it DOS compatible?", but rather "Will it run Windows?",
and with this, the answer is "Yes, all you need it to add the Windows
Compatibility Option, and you'll be able to run all your Windows apps, as
well as all these really cool Amiga apps."
As an alternative method (and one that actually might even be better, I'm
not sure, havn't thought it thru enough yet) would be to do it the way
OS/2 does, and actually have a separate screen, one that looks very much
like Windows looks. In OS/2 they call it WIN-OS2, so I guess we could call
it WIN-AMI, or something like that.
I think that if something like this was to come out, it'd probably be done
by a third party, not Commodore, although it'd be nice if Commodore was to
<continued>
Considering that Windows is driven by device drivers, and they hand out the
"device driver kit" as part of their developer's kit, someone could craft
up drivers to handle the display, keyboard and mouse in such a way that
your BridgeBoard (or similar hardware) could be running Windows, yet all
the windows would open on an Amiga screen. With the advent of AGA, it
makes a lot more sense… 16 color Windows is the pits, but 256 or better
is what most people expect.
Although this approach is possible, I can think of a much faster and more
expandable solution: a smart switch that toggles between Amiga and PC
screens. It would switch the video (allowing you to use whatever kind of
PC video card you prefer) between Amiga and PC video; switch the keyboard
(or its logic) from talking to the Amiga to the PC, and same for the mouse.
Kludgey but effective, I'd think. Maybe there'd be a way to trigger it
from software, so it would just be a matter of hitting a hot-key
combination to toggle between PC and Amiga modes.
John:
The thing I don't like about the switching idea is that it still treats
the bridgeboard as a separate computer within the Amiga. What I'd like to
see, whether on it's own screen (WIN-AMIGA, like WIN-OS2), or the
workbench itself is a totally intergrated system whereby the bridgeboard
isn't treated like a computer within a computer, but rather simply as a
coprocessor within a computer. All disk i/o should be strictly Amiga
based, using CrossDOS (now included in the OS) to handle IBM formatted
floppies.
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
John,
Your post to Mike Schiller brought a thought to mind, although I know
this should be addresses to C= (I'm pondering out loud). With the new AGA
display modes, wouldn't it be possible to incoperate VGA (or SVGA for that
matter) into a new line of bridgeboards to allow the user VGA without 2
monitors or A/B switch? Would Janus slow the video up to much to make it
usable? That has been one of the big hangups with using bridgeboards;
either stick with CGA, get 2 monitors, or kludge it with a switch. Any
thoughts on this anyone?
…Steve
On AutoPilot! (at last)
I don't know – VGA has certainly been closed a zillion times, but I can't
think of a DOS emulator that does it – maybe one of the Mac-based "SoftPC"
type emulators do it. But for applications that bang the hardware
directly, that's hard to emulate in software.
But couldn't the needed hardware be added to a new line of Bridgeboards
that are for use in the AGA machines? Just let janus pass the video to
the AGA chipset to detemine the proper video mode to display? I am way
out of my league here but it seems reasonable to me :->.
…Steve
On AutoPilot! (at last)
John,
Vortex claims to have such a smart switch for use with its Golden Gate
line of bridgeboards. It's attached by a cable to the Golden Gate and you
feed your Amiga video and PC video card signals into it. Of course, a
multisync is attached to the output. They say that when you click on
their equivalent of the PCWindow icon, the smart switch automatically
switches the monitor to the PC's video card and that there's a hot key
combination on the PC side to switch it back to the Amiga. Sounds nice,
but they want $128 for it.
Darron
That sounds cheap to me. Does it require their emulator cards, or is it
separable? I'd love to use it to switch between a PC's video and the
Amiga's video. Why, that would save a lot of desk space. (I've got five
monitors on my desk now, and I could certain use room for another.)
John,
The switch plugs into the back of their Golden Gate cards, so it looks
like you're forced to go with them to make it work "out of the box." I
haven't seen one of these in person, so I don't know if the port on the
Golden Gate card is truly custom (as their promo material implies) or is
just a serial port used to communicate with the switch.
Darron
do this themselves, and possibly increase the speed of their 386BB to
something really fast, and make sure that the screen drivers written for
Windows was REALLY fast, so that it would be a really impressive
implementation of Windows on ANY machine, rather than a hohum slow thing.
With this emulation package, WordPerfect for Windows could easily be run
on the Amiga! Not to mention Lotus, Excell, etc.
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
I assume you mean something like what XWindows is supposed to be on
Unix machines, a standard set of graphics routines, ie Windows routines,
running on a variety of different processors. This way developers could
simply recompile with little effort on different platforms. Maybe high
hopes, but I would love it too. Give us more of a chance with the
developers.
While were at it, I REALLY would like to see
device-independant-graphics in AmigaDOS. Workbench on a 24 bit graphics
board would be amazing. But since Commodore doesn't seem to want to even
gives us that, which MS has for a long time, Im not holding my breath for
much from C= soon. Then again, Ive tried Windows, and I don't care for it
much at all.
// .An Ameoba on AutoPilot 🙂
\X/
Mike,
Your Windows Compatibilty Option sounds like a great idea! It appears
that you've given this a lot of thought. Now, how do you get it
implemented?
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dom:
I don't really know. Perhaps threaten somebody at C= with bodily harm? 🙂
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Thats all very well but 4 million dollars is a lot of money in anyones
language. Bear in mind that the programmers who do a port are all
experienced professionals not a happy hacker like me. The consequence being
that a small group of programmers, say 3 to 6 should surely be able to port
a product like Wperfect in a relatively short time and even with producing
a manual a yar doesn't seem untoward.
No I don't see that sort of exercise costing anything remotely like $4
million. That is unless most people work very slowly and havn't any sense
of urgency.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
"No I don't see that sort of exercise costing anything remotely like $4
million."
We're not talking about cost – since when did companies sell at cost
unless it was a fire sale? The market worth of WP may be debatable,
nonetheless it's the vendor's right to ask what they think they can get
for it/and or what the entire process will be WORTH TO THEM.
Erron,
I think over here we would say that WP deliberately asked for a ridiculous
price as they didn't want the jbob anyway.
Pete from Dorset in Englands West Country – via Whap!
"I think over here we would say that WP deliberately asked for a
ridiculous price as they didn't want the jbob anyway."
Yes, sounds feasible. It's a shame, I'm going to miss having an Amiga at
work, and I don't think I'll ever get used to using a clone.
Hilary,
WordPerfect announced about 2 years ago that they were pulling out
of the Amiga market (and some others too). After a lot of users
complained, they recinded that and said they would continue to work on it,
but with less manpower. About a year ago, they recinded that earlier
recision and went back to their original position…WordPerfect on the
Amiga is dead. No new releases.
Don
To tell the truth after seeing WordPerfect running on my brother 486 33mHz
PC under Windows, I can honestly say the MS-DOS world got what they
deserve. A word processor that is nearly incomprehensible for the average
user, and next to useless to me compared against FC II. It seems to lack
any sophistication, just like the operating system.
Hmm… to many pirate copies in Europe of the Amiga version, I wonder how
many pirate copies for the PC there are in the US??????????
// .Cruising on AutoPilot
\X/
Mark,
I agree…Word Perfect is a pile of junk in my opinion. I'm force
to use it at work, it's been adopted as the "standard" only because it's
available on all the platforms we use. I hate it.
As a matter of fact, I'm going to get in a big fight Monday over
what word processor I'm going to be allowed to buy for the laptop I'm
getting. Right now, I've got to get Word Perfect…and since I work for
the agency that is supposed to enforce the standards…it wouldn't look too
good if we bought some other word processor. However, since a laptop is
truely a personal computer…no one else is going to use it but me, and
since the word processor I'm considering (AmiPro 3.0 from Lotus) is so much
better…I think I can convince them to let be dump Word Perfect.
Don
Don:
I installed AmiPro 3.0 on my office machines, as well as my laptop… the
install script even has a 'laptop' option that leaves out all of the style
sheets and a bunch of other hard-drive hogs that you probably don't need
on a laptop. I'm really quite impressed with AmiPro.
Michael,
I too was impressed with what I'd heard about it…but I gave in to
the political pressure today…and bought WP. I actually ended up with
permission to get AmiPro…but with a whole lot of 'But if you do…be
prepared to…'. So I caved in.
But I can also guarantee you this…I'm getting a demo copy of it
from Lotus and if I find WP for Windows to be as much of a piece of junk
that it was for DOS, and I find the demo of AmiPro to be everything I
expect it to be…I will make sure that the Dept buys me a copy of AmiPro.
That is definate.
For what it's worth, AmiPro 3.0 has come out on top of every
comparison of word processors I've seen. Significantly on top in many
cases.
Don
Don:
The final swing for my AmiPro decision was the inclusion of very easy to
use utilities that allow AmiPro to read/write WP format docs. Featurewise
and GUIwise, AmiPro won hands-down.
Michael,
I also really like AmiPro. For my usage, though, I've found the WP
conversion utility to be seriously lacking in several areas that make it
almost useless for what I need to do. Automatic Paragraph Numbering, and
special formatting, for example, don't make the transfer.
My hope is that Lotus has significantly upgraded the WP translator.
David
Michael,
From what I've heard from a number of PC users, AmiPro 3.0 is really a
great product.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Mark,
Re: WordPerfect.
> "A word processor that is nearly incomprehensible for the average
user,..: <
Try reading the manual. 😎
I feel Amiga WordPerfect was one of the best pieces of application
software for the Amiga. Most people agree with that statement, since WP
was consistently rated the #1 word processor for the Amiga by the major
Amiga magazines and was even picked as the #1 all-around Amiga product at
one time.
I really don't understand why you and Mark dislike WP so much. I
consider all the other Amiga word processors to be a joke. Not counting
graphics, I don't know one Amiga word processing program to this day that
even has all the features now for straight word processing, that Amiga
WordPerfect already had in 1988.
Also, the actual number of pirated copies of PC WordPerfect isn't the
issue. It's the percentage of pirated copies that is important. There are
many more PCs than Amigas. So even if there are more pirated PC copies, it
is probably a much small percentage of total sales of WP, than in the
Amiga market.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
I agree about Word Perfect … it is an excellent word processor on the
Amiga. The problem was that it was a little too powerful for most people,
and the extra features scared many away.
I tend to use it a little less than I used to (because I run Word Perfect 5
on the PC in the office), but it's very useful for its many features
(including outlining which I find I use quite a lot).
Mike (from the UK)
Mike,
I'm glad you agree with me about WordPerfect. Being upset about WP
Corp. no longer supporting such an excellent product is one thing. But for
someone to say it was not a good port is another thing.
I agree with you that it might have scared some people away because it
was too powerful. I read every page of the 600+ page manual. Some people
just want to point-and-click and not read the manual to learn a program.
Those kinds of people like the simpler and inferior Amiga word
processors.
You must read the manual to learn everything about a program. No pain,
no gain.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Thats where my biggest gripe with WordPerfect is. I don't epect a word
processor to do DTP, but handling simple graphics and text layout is not
epecting too much. I suppose my real problem is the lack of standards in
the PC world – thank God an EA for IFF. Trying to get graphics into the
right format for WordPerfect is too much of a chore, and the last thing I
need is more effert when Im trying to get my thoughts onto paper….or is
that floopy???
As for reading the manual. I do not own WordPerfect or have any copies of
it, I was trying to help my brother complete a report on a laptop at my
place. The laptop was connected to my monitor and HP printer, and we were
tring to get it sorted out quickly. Since I wanted to do other things, we
were working and searching the manual to find the information we needed as
we worked. Printing was the first problem, we tried the Windows driver
for the HP 500C, and we waited 5 minutes for 2 pages with simple graphics.
First thing we learned, HP programmers are better than Microsoft
programmers. I dug out the drivers that came with the printer, it cut
printout times down to immediate on demand. The graphics created its own
problems and nightmares I choose to forget and don't want to recall.
OTOH..I now use Final Copy II on my 3000, print times are good, maybe a
little slow. Inserting and manipulating graphics are a breeze. The
quality of the print is near laser quality on my 500C. Installation was
flawless with little assistance on my part. All this without having to
read the manual. And Im not exacly sure what it is missing that
WordPerfect has for straight word processing. It has everything I need,
and has never crashed on me.
As for best application on the Amiga, my vote goes to SAS/C 6.0. The
product is beyond excellent, and the company continues to support the
product and its users even though it is a small market. Can WordPerfect
Corp. claim the same.
<continued>
Piracy problems are a lame excuse for abandoning a product. How many
people who have PC buy upgrades to MS-DOS 5.0 and how many simply copy it
from someone else. My guess would be around 50% at least. Should MS
simply abandon MS-DOS. As long as the product sells enough to cover costs
and make a profit, they continue to work on it. If WordPerfect was better
than all else on the Amiga, it would be reflected in sales to the masses
of Amiga users, like ProWrite or Final Copy.
// .Cruising on AutoPilot
\X/
Mark,
> "If WordPerfect was better than all else on the Amiga, it would be
reflected in sales to the masses of Amiga users, like ProWrite or Final
Copy." <
That's not necessarily so. WP used to have a list price of $299. I've
seen ProWrite at computer shows for $30.
I don't remember all of the features of Final Copy, but I believe it
doesn't support macros. That is one of the best features of WP; its macro
recorder and editor. Start the macro; name it; perform your keystrokes,
commands, menu selections, and mouse clicks; stop the macro, and you're
all set. Now you can perform virtually any complex series of commands with
a simple macro, by pressing a key or two. Automatic Table of Contents and
Index generation; Two Headers and Footers per page; Footnotes AND
Endnotes; Speller and Thesaurus; Outlining, Redlining, and Overstrike
functions; Math and Columns support; Mail Merge; excellent Editing,
Searching, and Formatting features; Original and user-definable Timed
backups; plus more, are just some of the features, power, and flexibility
in Amiga WordPerfect.
Other Amiga word processors have some of these features, but I'm not
familiar with any other Amiga word processor that has them all.
I'm not familiar with the MS-DOS version, but I still consider Amiga WP
to be better than all its Amiga competition.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Ill take a shot at your list:
1. Macros – it doesn't support keyboard macros, but it does support AREXX
macros, which would give a whole lot more power than simply WP macros
since AREXX macros can tie multiple programs togather to do a task.
2. No on the TOC and Index, although I suppose an eager programmer may be
able to do it via AREXX.
3. Headers and Footers, yes, including graphics in the header or footer
via master pages.
4. Footnotes and endnotes, no, but its not that hard to simply create
your own manually.
5. Speller and Thesaurus, who doesn't have both these days?
6. Redlining and overstrike. I can put text in any color, underline in
any color, and do strikethru in any color.
6. Math and columns support, math yes and how many columns do you want,
FC II can do 6 columns.
7. Mail merge, of course.
8. excellent Editing, Searching and Formating. This seems to be more of
a personal opinion than a definable item. I like FC II feel, and it
doesn't hinder me when I type.
9. Timed backup, no but again a very simple AREXX program.
Plus more features including the ability to handle 24 bit graphics.
Seems FC II stacks up pretty well, and it is still evolving, in fact their
section on AmigaVendor continues to draw suggestions for improvements in
the NEXT version. Not meerly bug reports to squash.
// .An Ameoba on AutoPilot 🙂
\X/
Mark,
No offense, but your comparison vs. WordPerfect was pretty shabby, and
then you conclude by saying that FC II stacks up pretty well. Huh?
You say FC II does NOT support Macros, TOC and Index generation,
Footnotes and Endnotes, nor Timed Backup. WP has had these features since
1988. That's almost five years ago!
We all know Amiga WP doesn't support graphics. My list was for a
straight word processing comparison. Also, people had complained about
bugs in the early releases of WP. I use WP constantly and haven't found
any current bugs. So although WP won't be upgraded anymore, it's now
bug-free and has many features that FC II doesn't have. Why does that make
it a worse word processor than FC II?
It seems as if FC II has to evolve quite a bit using suggestions for
improvement, merely to even approach all the features that WP has had for
about five years. That's progress? I prefer built-in features rather than
ARexx. Let the programmer do the programming; not the users.
Don't get me wrong; if you like FC II, then use it. I'm not criticizing
FC II, I'm just defending WP. You have stated that WP is not a good word
processor, yet it seems to have many more major features than FC II. 😎
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dominick,
No, I stated "I" did not like the Windows implementation of WP. I have
no idea how well it works on the Amiga. After going thru many gyrations
to get the program to do what we wanted, and then trying the same on FC
II, I concluded that FC II – for me – was a much easier system to install
and use.
As for the graphics support, to me that is critical, since I produce
simple flyers and such for a club Im in. So again for me FC II is the
obvious choice. And it is still evolving, Softwood is quite willing to
respond to suggestion in AmigaVendor.
I definitely agree though use what you like and prefer, since everyone
has, whether they deserve it or not, an opinion and their own is ALWAYS
right. 🙂
// .An Ameoba on AutoPilot 🙂
\X/
FC II is a weak compromise. WordPerfect for writing and PageStream for
flyers.
That's the logical choice.
–Paul
Logical choice for people willing to spend $300+, which I am not one of.
I am quite willing though to spend <$100 for a package that does what I
need. Pagestream for me would be severe overkill for the little work I
would use it for.
// .An Ameoba on AutoPilot 🙂
\X/
Mark,
I don't think my opinion is always right. Maybe that's the problem. You
apparently think your opinion is always right and you erroneously make
that assumption about other people.
What I was getting at in the comparison list was that you could have
said that FC II doesn't have many of the features of WP, but that those
features weren't important to you, and that the inclusion of graphics in
FC II was far more important to you, so that you were willing to give up
the other features for now.
But that's not what you said. You compared the features of the two
programs and FC II was missing about half the features of WP. Then you
concluded in such as way as to indicate that FC II DID have virtually all
the features of WP. You seemed unwilling to admit that FC II was missing
many features that WP has.
Now, it's a different story if you say you just don't like the Windows
implementation of WP. From what I've heard, it's far better than Amiga WP,
so you probably wouldn't like Amiga WP either.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
I also don't believe my opinion is always right, it is JUST MY OPINION. I
make no warranty on its correctness and accept no liability for losses
incurred from its use. How that for a disclaimer.
I just stated what some of the features of FC II were, and am quite
willing to admit is missing probably many of the feartures WP does have.
OTOH..WP is also missing some of the featues FC II has in handling
graphics, so each has their strengths, and each also has weaknesses. So
it is up to the end users to decide what is best for them.
// .An Ameoba on AutoPilot 🙂
\X/
Dom,
I've not used the Amiga version of WP, but have used the MS-DOS
version, and it is undoubtably the most un-intuitive piece of junk I've
ever used. F7 to quit??? where the heck did that come from? And that's
just the start.
The Windows version is supposedly much better, unfortunately, I'll
get to find out…I just picked up WordPerfect for Windows today. I fought
the good fight against it…and actually had permission to buy Lotus'
AmiPro instead. But the political reality at work is that we set the
software standards, and we have to enforce them on others…and since I'm
one of the administrators, I couldn't very well tell someone else they had
to use WP if I didn't use it. We may have made a mistake several years
ago when we picked WP as the standard for us, but at this point in time
we're stuck with it. So politically, I'm stuck with it. I just hope the
Windows version is more intuitive than the DOS version is.
As to piracy…as I said in my last message, the percentage of
software being stolen isn't the issue…it's the number being sold that's
the issue. MS-DOS has over 100 million machines out there. IF WP is on
20% of those machines…that's 20 million pieces. IF 50% of those are
stolen, that's 10 million legitimate sales. On the Amiga, if WP is on 20%
or our machines, that's 800,000 pieces, if 50% of those are stolen, that's
400,000 legitimate sales. Which market would you rather be in?
And the fact of the matter is that WP isn't on 20% of the Amiga,
I'd suspect it's only on 1% or so of them. Consider that 80% of the Amigas
are in Europe where WP wasn't sold. That only leaves a base market of
800,000 to start with and even selling to only 5% of that base…with NO
stolen copies (which we know isn't true) gives them total sales of 40,000.
Not a big market for a company like WP.
Don
Don,
You know I was aware that the Amiga sold well in Europe, but I didn't
know that the percentage was as high as 80% of the Amigas are in Europe.
So with 4 million Amigas, and with 20% in America, that makes 800,000
Amigas in America, as you stated. Now take into account the number of
people with more than one Amiga and the Amigas that are no longer being
used, and that means there are less than 800,000 Amiga users in America.
That is a pretty low number.
I remember in 1988 it was said that 1 million sales of a computer was
the magic number that would get the top software companies to take notice.
There are now 4 million Amiga sales, but not in America. Do you think that
the Amiga will get more software support from big name developers when
sales of the Amiga in just America reach 1 million?
Let me know how you like WordPerfect for Windows. Maybe it will
surprise you. I hope so.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dom,
Ok…I've got a loaner laptop right now, until the one that was
ordered for me comes in, so I won't be using WP until I get mine.
Don
Don,
I'm quite confused about your statement that WP is junk & unintuitive.
What, in your vast wisdom, would you have selected for the exit command.
As the undisputed Dos leader for many years, you would have to choose
something. I have always been impressed with WP because *all* the commands
within *all* their products were the same (f7=exit, etc.). It took years
for other companies to catch on to that. That was untill windows, and now
WP for windows complies with the windows standards.
Matt
Mathew,
Escape, Control-X, Control-Q are far more intuitive than F7. Even
Control-Z would have been better (in my mind). How about F3 for Help?
Wouldn't F1 have been a bit more intuitive? The point being that it seems
that WP simply started thinking up things they'd need, and then picked the
next key available…with no logic or ordering to the keys.
If you've used WP products before…fine, you know the keystrokes,
but if you haven't…there is nothing intuitive (in my mind…and I've been
using computers for close to 30 years) about their setups.
It'd be fine if you could put up a screen menu for novices, and
have the option of turning the menu off as you've learned it. Then who
cares what keys they use for what…as long as you can see them no problem.
As to standardization…not really. We use a UNIX version of WP at
work and even though our keyboards have alt, shift and control keys (that
do send different codes) WP in it's infinite wisdom decided to use the F12,
F13 and F14 keys instead of shift, alt and control. To delete a line is
even more fun, F13-Keypad 1-keypad period.
You may like WP, and that's fine for you….my opinion of the
program is that I don't like it and basically refuse to use it. I will
give the windows version of it a try at work, and if I like it…fine
(BTW…it will NOT be run in DOS keystroke compatability mode), and if I
don't like it…then I'll get AmiPro even if I have to buy it myself.
Don
Don,
I know you don't like WordPerfect, but in the Amiga version, the HELP
key is used for Help, not the F3 key. Also, I prefer the Function keys
instead of control sequences, because they only require one keystroke,
insteading of hold and press.
I know you still don't like it. 😎
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dom,
I don't do any word processing on the Amiga…just text editing, so
I use a vi clone for that. It suits me just fine, I have to use it at
work, so I only have to learn one text editor…not several.
Don
Surely ESC, CTL-X and CTL-Q are not intuitive … they're part of your
computer background and therefore part of your learned experience. At
least with F7 you can have an F-key command strip in place (and WP ships
with these included) and all you do is look for the word QUIT, and press
the button next to it. That, to me, really _is_ intuitive, even if it
isn't terribly neat.
Of course, WP on the Amiga and PC both have menus … maybe not perfect,
but they work.
However, I would agree that, in user interface, WP is not the best in the
world … on the other hand, it has a power unrivalled in all WPs that I
have seen to date and I, for one, am happy to put up with some of its
idiosyncracies.
… and, if you don't like the setup, it's very easy to change. We have
WP5.1 on the PC in the office. Three of the five of us are far from
computer literate and so I've `cut down' Word Perfect … it was very easy
to do, and my colleagues can handle it. The macro capability is excellent
(if rather quirky!).
Everyone has their own views as to what is good and bad for them. I think
WP is okay, and it has served me very well … I've looked at all sorts of
other packages and, for the time being I won't be changing because none of
them offer the word processing features I want in a single package.
Mike
Mike,
For single user versions of WP, you're correct that WP sends a
keyboard template along with the program. But for multi-user systems (ours
is a UNIX system) they only send ONE copy of the template (and 2 copies of
the manual).
Don
Don,
I administer WP 5.0 on MY UNIX system, and it uses the correct keys for
every terminal I have that is capable of it. The only real difference is
that WP for UNIX substitutes SHIFT-CTRL for ALT, in deference to the
ALT-Fkey method of switching virtual consoles.
16-Fkey Wyse 60 keyboards are forced to use F13, etc, for lack of better
control in the TERMINAL (the codes returned from F6 and Shift-F6 are
IDENTICAL, no way for WP to tell them apart).
On the other hand, if you get the Enhanced PC keyboards, then WP uses
shift, ctrl and shift-ctrl, just like you would expect.
It's one of those idiosyncracies, like the fact that Wyse 50 keyboards
send CTL-H for both left-arrow and Backspace, making destructive backspace
harder to implement, and Lotus 1-2-3 forces you to use CTRL-B so it can
tell them apart (I usually re-program SHIFT-BACKSPACE to ^B to make it
easier).
But, hey, if you don't like the key layout, use WPKEY to make it whatever
you want, and set up your WPTERM variable to your new layout. WP is VERY
configurable.
Pat,
We use AT&T terminals, in particular, the 605,610, 620, 630, 730
terminals do send out different sequence on the F-keys when shift'ed,
alt'ed, or control'ed. We ended up buying AT&T 705's because they do have a
PC mode that WP recognizes properly.
Our intent is to allow our users to move back and forth from PC
based WP to UNIX based WP (depending on where they are working that day)
with minimal difficulty so they can get their work done rather than have to
figure out which keyset to use on which machine.
OUr users are all "dumb" users…that is, they are locked to the WP
application only. They can't exit to a UNIX shell, nor can they do
anything else on this particular system. In order to accomplish that, long
ago, I had to write a program that automatically queries the user's
terminal and sets their environmental variables properly with no user
interaction required.
Yes, I could have used WPTERM to reconfigure WP's terminal filters
but if you've ever used WPTERM, you know what a pain it is…or it
certainly was for me.
For Joe Average User, providing them with the 705's solved the
problem for them…but for me, I need the 730 for other jobs…so I rarely
use the UNIX WP, I use an old version of WordStar 2000+ on a PC for most of
my word processing.
As I said, as soon as my new notebook computer gets in, I'll load
up WP for Windows and give it a whirl. I've got v5.1, but already have a
pre-order for v5.2 which is supposedly a big improvement on 5.1 (couldn't
tell by me…haven't used the 5.1 yet) and should be out in the next week
or so according to WP.
Don
Don,
Ah. I'm not familiar with those particular terminals, as we tend to have
Wyse 50', 60's and 150's.
By the way, WP learned from their mistakes. Originally they shipped
ONE keyboard overlay, as you stated. Then they shipped 10, but they
were all console overlays, and NOW, they don't ship any, but you get
a coupon good for 10 overlays of your choice for whatever keyboard
you use. A big improvement, in my mind.
I don't have 5.1 yet, but I'm budgeted to upgrade it next year.
Don,
Sorry to disagree. I have used WP on numerous platforms and I have found
that it is still the best option for me(perhaps not Amiga as other
programsare starting to match and surpass WP Amiga). I think that you
would be very hard pressed to find a company that supports as many
platforms, supports multiplatform file transfer and offers *toll free*
support. I'm sorry that it doesn't work for you.
I was just wondering if you had access to the WP manuals, if so, did you
bother to read them? WP DOS does offer pulldown style menus that can be
accessed with mouse or keyboard. They can be made to always be there, at
the press of a key, or not in your way at all. Also, F3, F3 displays a
command/key stroke template on screen.
Matt
Matt,
Yes, I read most of the manual. The version I'm working with is
version 5.0 for UNIX.
Yes, I agree it's a very powerful program…and it's supported on
multiple platforms…that's why we use it as a standard at work (and I
helped set that particular standard). And yes, I have printed out a
template for my particular keyboard. I've seen nothing about an on screen
menu…and like I said, I've read most of the manual…including the
administrator's manual (this is the multi-user version also).
I just don't happen to like it. And even after reading the manual
and going thru all the on-line help, I still can't find a single keystroke
that will delete a line…I've got to use 3 keystrokes.
Don
Don-
That is one of the things I like about the Amiga version of WP.
Delet a work ctl+del – Delete a line shift+del – Delete a paragarph
alt+del. The alternative is to block the text with the mouse then
hit left Amiga X. Very fast, very simple. The main reason I like WP
on the Amiga is because it makes editing very, very simple. I do use
WP on my MS-DOS machine and don't like it nearly as well. To me the
implementation of WP on the Amiga (version 4.1) is better than
version 5.1 on the DOS machine. Of course I don't use the graphics
portion of WP 5.1. If I want to format a report I have written on
Amiga WP I simply import it into PageStream and use that as my
Graphics engine. Works well for me and has for many years. I was one
of the original Amiga WP purchasers ($199.00 mail-order special).
Through the years WP provided me with four or five upgrades totally
free of charge. I am one of their happy customers.
Carl,
Yes, I received about four or five free WP updates myself. That's four
disks per update. Also, don't forget that to delete, you can also block
the text with the mouse and simply hit the DEL key on the Amiga. Sounds
pretty intuitive to me. 😎
I, too, am a happy WP customer.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Dominick,
Regarding piracy: I'm glad to see someone still has their wits about them!
It would be very hard for a person or company to justify doing business if
they felt that the rewards were not there, regardless of how high or low
that reward is expected to be. Criticts would also leave if they felt that
their efforts were better spent elsewhere.
Regarding WP: Try getting toll free customer support from any other
company, even when they have discontinued development!!! I think that
speaks quiet highly of their concern for customers over all.
Matt
Mathew,
I heartily agree with your comments about WP Corp. Some people were
saying that WP Corp. didn't really support the Amiga. That's a joke. As
you said, they do still support the current Amiga version of WP with a
toll free number, even though they aren't going to upgrade it. Most Amiga
developers are so small that if they stopped upgrading a program because
it wasn't profitable to do so, it would probably mean that they had to go
out of business. Then there would be NO support at all for even their
exisiting products.
I know at least one company that currently makes some popular Amiga
software products that doesn't even answer the phone at all. If you call,
you're put in an endless loop of voice mail, without the option of
speaking to a person. Some people say that's because it's a small company
and you can't compare them to a huge company like WP Corp. Fine, but then
don't penalize WP Corp. for the support they are able to give to a
discontinued product, just because they are a big company.
WP Corp. supports the Amiga better for its discontinued product, then
many Amiga developers do for their current existing products.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>
Hilary: I suppose they want me to "upgrade" to Wordperfect for Windows as
soon as I decide to "upgrade" my Amiga to one of those oh-so-powerful 386
or 486 boxes running Windows. Screw 'em. I'll stick with Excellence! 3.0,
which for $99 street price offers most of the functionality of WP for
Windows, and few of the performance bottlenecks.
But with Excellence! you can't read or write doc for a MS-DOS PC and I have
a PC at work ! About piracy in Europe for WordPerfect : many users have
bought it in the US because WordPerfect France has never sold it ! WHY ?
WordPerfect France gives hat ( yes the thing that you put on your head ! )
in computers shows but it is all ! I am not realist because they make ad
and offers for WordPerfect Office since few months but it is new !
Regis: Yes, you can read/write between Excellence! and MS-DOS word
processors. Just save out your E! documents using the "text" button, which
creates a pure ASCII file that can be read by any word processor. Of
course, you will not preserve any formatting except for line breaks and
paragraph marks.
When I want to read/write a MS-DOS Wordperfect file, I use Transwrite
(formerly Transcript), a text editor for the Amiga by Gold Disk that
understands Wordperfect 4.x and 5.x files. Along with Excellence!, that
gives me all the functionality that I need.
Hilary,
Yes, WP Corp. announced some time ago that they would no longer be
releasing upgrades for Amiga WP. They just plan on bug fixes for the most
recent version.
Dom Fontana
<– Sent from New York via AutoPilot –>