Re: Best word processing application under Mac OS 9
- WordPerfect is a much superior product. The formatting is more
intuitive and flexible. If you have ever used a H-P calculator, the
Reverse Polish Notation they use is much superior to the standard
method used by most calculators. Of course RPN is not as intuitive as
the standard method, but its superiority comes from the ease of use
and flexibility it offers.
--- In email@example.com, "Frederic W. Erk"
> One year ago I switched to classic Macintosh for word processing,
> which is essential to my research work. I have installed Microsoft
> Office 2001 suite, as well as Corel WordPerfect 3.5e and Nisus. I
> would be interested to hear about fellow users and their opinion
> about those software. Whereas Microsoft does provide for standard
> performance, I have found Nisus and WordPerfect more appealing. Is
> that because Microsoft graphical user interface is so mediocre, or is
> it because WordPerfect is indeed a superior word processing piece of
> Frederic W. Erk
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Geoff Gilbert <Geoff@...> wrote:
>Well, in the worst case scenario, you could save as RTF in WPMac and then open that with X3.
> Dear All
> I have WP3.5e and I also have WP Office X3 under Parallels. I have
> installed all the converters for X3 and the Conversion utility
> includes WPMac 3.1-3.x. I have even saved as Wp3.x in WPMac to see if
> that would work. Whatever I do, X3 tells me that the file is of an
> unknown format. Ideas?
>I am very sorry about that question on this specific forum. I just
>You are asking on a WordPerfect discussion forum. What do you
>suppose that the answers will be here?
registered myself to two new discussion forums, the first being
devoted to using Apple Macintosh in Humanities - to which I thought
my message was posted -, and the latter being yours. So please accept
my humblest apologies for this bizarre introduction of myself.
>This is an issue, indeed. As I am new to WordPerfect 3.5e and have
>WP/Mac's one big
>failing is that it never had really good WP to Word translators, in a
>world where the Word file format is the de facto business standard
>for exchanging editable documents.
many Word files, would you mind explaining or at least pointing me at
a guide to converting Word files into WordPerfect.
>I am particularly interested in the foreign languages Thesauri and
>I think that the bottom line is that the word processor that is most
>"appealing" is the one that most appeals to you. Other factors, such
>as features, developer support, ease of use (from your perspective),
>and cost, will also probably figure into your decision as to which
>word processor is best for you.
dictionaries. After some fiddling with WordPerfect I have the feeling
that the Word support is superior (which is to be expected from a
more recent and world standard application.) For instance, using
WordPerfect in French and checking the spelling resulted in many
false errors, as if WordPerfect could not understand grammatical
situations or plurals.
Another issue is the compatibility of WordPerfect 3.5 with the
Windows X3 application suite.
>I don't think so, first because I have more important things to do
>After all that...have I just fed a troll?
than playing that kind of games, and second, because WordPerfect
would not be the ideal platform for sounding the troll alarm. I hope
that answered your question.
Frederic W. Erk
- fwiw we have continued to use wp/mac within os x using
the classic environment, and use maclinkplus as a
translator to or from ms word or any other word
processor. maclinkplus works well and its not too
expensive, thus enabling us to remain ms-free.
--- "Randy B. Singer" <randy@...> wrote:
jc sarmiento, sf
> On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:17 AM, Frederic W. Erk wrote:
> > One year ago I switched to classic Macintosh for
> word processing,
> > which is essential to my research work. I have
> installed Microsoft
> > Office 2001 suite, as well as Corel WordPerfect
> 3.5e and Nisus. I
> > would be interested to hear about fellow users and
> their opinion
> > about those software. Whereas Microsoft does
> provide for standard
> > performance, I have found Nisus and WordPerfect
> more appealing. Is
> > that because Microsoft graphical user interface is
> so mediocre, or is
> > it because WordPerfect is indeed a superior word
> processing piece of
> > software?
> You are asking on a WordPerfect discussion forum.
> What do you
> suppose that the answers will be here?
> You might want to ask this question on a more
> general Macintosh
> discussion list, but even then I predict that you
> will get answers
> similar to asking a bunch of men whose girlfriend
> was the best.
> Users are very attached and loyal to their Word
> processor of choice.
> Trying to be objective, I think that WordPerfect/Mac
> and MS Word are
> in a class that no other word processors for the
> Macintosh can
> approach. If WP/Mac hadn't been discontinued, and
> it incorporated
> the patches and additions made available since, I
> think that there is
> no doubt that it would be the best word processor on
> the Macintosh
> platform. Especially so if it had been in
> continuous development all
> this time and it took advantage of running on OS X.
> WP/Mac's one big
> failing is that it never had really good WP to Word
> translators, in a
> world where the Word file format is the de facto
> business standard
> for exchanging editable documents.
> I think that at this point Microsoft Word has more
> features than WP/
> Mac, and it became a really good product with the
> introduction of the
> first OS X version. It is now dead stable, and the
> interface, with
> situation-specific palettes, is quite a bit nicer.
> Word is different
> than WP/Mac in the way that it works, so a former
> WP/Mac user isn't
> likely to immediately find the interface easy to use
> or to their
> liking. Word also does not have the same level of
> formatting codes
> that WP does, and that is a big deal to many former
> WP users. The
> next version of Word, due anytime now, will have a
> heavily updated
> and a new default file format that is no longerhttp://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,106437,00.html?nlid=PM
> There are a bunch of other word processors for the
> None are as powerful as Word and WP/Mac, but if any
> of them have
> sufficient features for your needs, and you like
> their interface,
> then there is no reason not to use them. But many
> folks cannot
> consider anything other than Word or WP/Mac because
> they need any of
> a number of advanced features, such as document
> tracking, redlining,
> table of authorities, etc.
> I think that the bottom line is that the word
> processor that is most
> "appealing" is the one that most appeals to you.
> Other factors, such
> as features, developer support, ease of use (from
> your perspective),
> and cost, will also probably figure into your
> decision as to which
> word processor is best for you.
> After all that...have I just fed a troll?
> Randy B. Singer
> Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th
> Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
- "AND add the file extension .wpm"
My experience has been that one should always add the DOS extension to
any file name which will be opened on a PC. That's the only way the poor
thing has of knowing what to do with the file.
- On Aug 3, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Frederic W. Erk wrote:
> I am particularly interested in the foreign languages Thesauri andYou might want to check out this utility, which I find invaluable:
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance