Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Best word processing application under Mac OS 9

Expand Messages
  • manfred_dogg
    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
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Frederic W. Erk"
      <discuss.ihsd@...> 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?
      > --
      > Frederic W. Erk
      > http://fredericerk.com
      >
    • Frederic W. Erk
      ... I am very sorry about that question on this specific forum. I just registered myself to two new discussion forums, the first being devoted to using Apple
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        >You are asking on a WordPerfect discussion forum. What do you
        >suppose that the answers will be here?

        I am very sorry about that question on this specific forum. I just
        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.

        >
        >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.

        This is an issue, indeed. As I am new to WordPerfect 3.5e and have
        many Word files, would you mind explaining or at least pointing me at
        a guide to converting Word files into WordPerfect.

        >
        >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.

        I am particularly interested in the foreign languages Thesauri and
        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.

        >
        >After all that...have I just fed a troll?

        I don't think so, first because I have more important things to do
        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
        http://fredericerk.com
      • J. C. Sarmiento
        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
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          > interface,
          > <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/wysiwyg.html>
          >
          <http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/uioverview.mspx>
          > and a new default file format that is no longer
          > proprietary.
          >
          http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,106437,00.html?nlid=PM
          >
          > There are a bunch of other word processors for the
          > Macintosh:
          > http://www.emailman.com/software/wordproc/mac.html
          > 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
          > editions)
          >
          > Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
          > http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
          > ___________________________________________
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • David Patterson
          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
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            "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.

            David Patterson
          • Randy B. Singer
            ... You might want to check out this utility, which I find invaluable: Spell Catcher http://www.rainmakerinc.com/ ___________________________________________
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On Aug 3, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Frederic W. Erk wrote:

              > I am particularly interested in the foreign languages Thesauri and
              > dictionaries.

              You might want to check out this utility, which I find invaluable:

              Spell Catcher
              http://www.rainmakerinc.com/

              ___________________________________________
              Randy B. Singer
              Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)

              Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
              http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
              ___________________________________________
            • Frederic W. Erk
              ... Thank you for this very interesting suggestion! -- Frederic W. Erk http://fredericerk.com
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                >You might want to check out this utility, which I find invaluable:
                >
                >Spell Catcher
                >http://www.rainmakerinc.com/

                Thank you for this very interesting suggestion!
                --
                Frederic W. Erk
                http://fredericerk.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.