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

[wpmac] Re: Any Advice for Porting WordPerfect 10 Documents to a Mac?

Expand Messages
  • Edward Mendelson
    ... But the original poster made it absolutely clear that it was crucial to preserve the live table math in WP documents - the spreadsheet- like feature that
    Message 1 of 24 , May 23, 2009
      --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Ilvento, Tom" <ilvento@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have used MacLink Plus Delux (not free) and have had good luck transferring Wordperfect files into Word. I cannot guarantee perfect format, but it does do a good job.
      >

      But the original poster made it absolutely clear that it was crucial to
      preserve the "live" table math in WP documents - the spreadsheet-
      like feature that automatically updates a sum when you change a
      value in another cell.

      Absolutely NO software - NONE - can convert this feature from
      WPWin into another format. Not Word, not Acrobat, not OpenOffice.org,
      not MacLink Plus, not WP for the Mac, not anything at all except
      WordPerfect for Windows or WordPerfect for DOS.

      So, in answer to the original poster, the ONLY solution is to use
      WordPerfect for Windows for these files, which can be done fairly
      easily (with the ability to print them) using VMware Fusion on a
      Mac. (Also Parallels, but Parallels is slower and flakier and there's
      no reason to use it instead of Fusion. VirtualBox can't print without
      elaborate setting-up, so it's not an alternative that's worth
      pursuing.)
    • Randy B. Singer
      ... Fusion vs. Parallels Benchmarks http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.04/VMBenchmarks/ index.html Conclusion: In the majority of overall
      Message 2 of 24 , May 23, 2009
        On May 23, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Edward Mendelson wrote:

        > So, in answer to the original poster, the ONLY solution is to use
        > WordPerfect for Windows for these files, which can be done fairly
        > easily (with the ability to print them) using VMware Fusion on a
        > Mac. (Also Parallels, but Parallels is slower and flakier and there's
        > no reason to use it instead of Fusion.


        Fusion vs. Parallels Benchmarks
        http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.04/VMBenchmarks/
        index.html
        Conclusion: "In the majority of overall averages of our tests,
        Parallels Desktop is the clear winner running 14-20% faster than
        VMware Fusion. "
        Macworld magazine published an online article comparing the various
        virtualization options:
        http://www.macworld.com/article/137305/2008/12/choosevm.html?lsrc=top_1

        or

        http://ruhao.notlong.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
        ___________________________________________
      • Michael Mulhern
        Yes Randy, I was going to Cite the same results. As a side note, current Fusion is faster than v3 Parallels, but v4 Parallels is faster than both. Michael.
        Message 3 of 24 , May 23, 2009
          Yes Randy, I was going to Cite the same results. As a side note,
          current Fusion is faster than v3 Parallels, but v4 Parallels is faster
          than both.

          Michael.

          On 24/05/2009, at 1:23 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:

          >
          >
          >
          > On May 23, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Edward Mendelson wrote:
          >
          > > So, in answer to the original poster, the ONLY solution is to use
          > > WordPerfect for Windows for these files, which can be done fairly
          > > easily (with the ability to print them) using VMware Fusion on a
          > > Mac. (Also Parallels, but Parallels is slower and flakier and
          > there's
          > > no reason to use it instead of Fusion.
          >
          > Fusion vs. Parallels Benchmarks
          > http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.04/VMBenchmarks/
          > index.html
          > Conclusion: "In the majority of overall averages of our tests,
          > Parallels Desktop is the clear winner running 14-20% faster than
          > VMware Fusion. "
          > Macworld magazine published an online article comparing the various
          > virtualization options:
          > http://www.macworld.com/article/137305/2008/12/choosevm.html?
          > lsrc=top_1
          >
          > or
          >
          > http://ruhao.notlong.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
          > ___________________________________________
          >
          >
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • dee.rrxing
          Wow; thank you guys very much for your responses! You ve been a great help. Once I get access to his computers again, I ll try the trials for VMware Fusion and
          Message 4 of 24 , May 23, 2009
            Wow; thank you guys very much for your responses! You've been a great help.

            Once I get access to his computers again, I'll try the trials for VMware Fusion and Parallels. If I get either of them to work, then I'm sure that my boss will pay for a license.

            It would not have been crucial to be able to edit old invoices, but he does still make new ones, and the easiest way is to use a template file with said formatting already complete and Save As a new invoice. A brief look, and I don't think any of the programs I have tried make the table math nearly as simply as WordPerfect.

            I was hoping to make due with free programs, but that's alright.
          • Edward Mendelson
            ... Interesting. I hadn t done any serious testing since Parallels Version 3. It turns out that both VMware and Parallels are more or less similar in timings
            Message 5 of 24 , May 24, 2009
              --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Randy B. Singer" <randy@...> wrote:

              > Fusion vs. Parallels Benchmarks
              > http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.04/VMBenchmarks/
              > index.html
              > Conclusion: "In the majority of overall averages of our tests,
              > Parallels Desktop is the clear winner running 14-20% faster than
              > VMware Fusion. "

              Interesting. I hadn't done any serious testing since Parallels Version 3.

              It turns out that both VMware and Parallels are more or less similar in timings
              (more about this below). But timings aren't everything. With VMware, WPWin
              could print perfectly to my printer. Parallels' printing was a total mess - the
              Mac OS "Printer Proxy" window displayed error messages on each print job,
              and I had to press the "Go" button on my printer to get the Parallels output
              printed. And the Parallels printing output typically had the wrong fonts.
              VMware worked perfectly, in contrast.

              However, if you don't care about printing, only about timings, then the
              two programs are more or less equal. I did this test:

              I set up two identical XP machines (same RAM, same disk size, same
              configuration, each with respective tools) in Parallels and VMware,
              on a 2.4GHz MacBook with 4GB RAM. Install WPWin on each; launch
              WPWin in Unity/Coherence mode, and suspend the virtual machine
              and shut down Parallels and VMware.

              I then opened a 500KB WPWin file from the Mac desktop in each system,
              and timed the delay before the file opened in the WPWin window and was
              editable. The times varied a bit, but averaged 11 or 12 seconds for each.
              VMware had the fastest time (9 seconds), Parallels the slowest (18 seconds),
              but the average was about the same.

              I also timed a huge search/replace operation in both systems. Again the
              times varied, but averaged about 2-3 seconds in each.

              So, yes, Parallels is close enough in speed to VMware. The big difference
              is that VMware prints correctly, and Parallels doesn't. Take your pick.
            • Edward Mendelson
              ... It turns out there s a workaround for this if you search hard enough on the Parallels forums - it involves installing an Apple LaserWriter driver in XP.
              Message 6 of 24 , May 24, 2009
                --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Mendelson" <em315@...> wrote:
                >

                > It turns out that both VMware and Parallels are more or less similar in timings
                > (more about this below). But timings aren't everything. With VMware, WPWin
                > could print perfectly to my printer. Parallels' printing was a total mess - the
                > Mac OS "Printer Proxy" window displayed error messages on each print job,
                > and I had to press the "Go" button on my printer to get the Parallels output
                > printed. And the Parallels printing output typically had the wrong fonts.
                > VMware worked perfectly, in contrast.
                >

                It turns out there's a workaround for this if you search hard enough on
                the Parallels forums - it involves installing an Apple LaserWriter driver
                in XP. But it's preferable not to need a workaround at all, presumably.
              • David Derbes
                About a year ago, when I finally replaced my much-customized Blue and White with a new Mac Pro, I did a little research on Parallels vs Fusion. One report,
                Message 7 of 24 , May 24, 2009
                  About a year ago, when I finally replaced my much-customized
                  Blue and White with a new Mac Pro, I did a little research on
                  Parallels vs Fusion. One report, maybe at Ars Technica, indicated
                  that while Parallels was a little more user-friendly, Fusion
                  stressed the hardware much less. That was good enough for me.
                  (The comparison was, IIRC, between Fusion v.1 and Parallels v.2,
                  but I can't be sure.)

                  I don't think I've fired up Windows XP on this machine more than a
                  half-dozen times, but Fusion hasn't had any problems at all.

                  Good luck with your choice.

                  David Derbes
                  U of Chicago Laboratory Schools


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Chad Russell
                  ... The problem is that although Parallels 4 is faster than VMWare Fusion 2, it is still much flakier -- for example, the upgrader from Parallels 3 to 4 was
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 24, 2009
                    > Yes Randy, I was going to Cite the same results. As a side note,
                    > current Fusion is faster than v3 Parallels, but v4 Parallels is faster
                    > than both.

                    The problem is that although Parallels 4 is faster than VMWare Fusion 2, it is still much "flakier" -- for example, the upgrader from Parallels 3 to 4 was so badly-written and poorly-tested that it managed to utterly destroy all my virtual machines (even those on a backup server that I had accidentally left mounted), requiring me to manually downgrade and restore all my PC files from offline backup.

                    I then switched to VMWare Fusion 2 and imported the restored machines into it without a hitch.

                    VMWare appears to have a superior beta-testing process, and -- in my experience -- produces a much more reliable product; perhaps this is the reason Fusion is slower than Parallels and has a somewhat smaller feature set. I finally got Parallels 4 running, and it is a faster, slicker product -- but I will never trust it again, and am going to stick with VMWare Fusion 2 for the foreseeable future.
                  • J Busch
                    You can also install Sun s Virtualbox for free, minus the windows license. It has worked well with my WinXP with WP x4 setup. It seems to be as fast as the
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 24, 2009
                      You can also install Sun's Virtualbox for free, minus the windows license. It has worked well with my WinXP with WP x4 setup. It seems to be as fast as the Fusion and Parallels demos. WP 12 also worked as a previous setup. Parallels coherance mode works a little better and my Sony eBook reader won't work with Virtualbox.

                      Jonathan

                      Sent from my iPod

                      On May 24, 2009, at 1:22, "Edward Mendelson" <em315@...> wrote:



                      --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Ilvento, Tom" <ilvento@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I have used MacLink Plus Delux (not free) and have had good luck transferring Wordperfect files into Word. I cannot guarantee perfect format, but it does do a good job.
                      >

                      But the original poster made it absolutely clear that it was crucial to
                      preserve the "live" table math in WP documents - the spreadsheet-
                      like feature that automatically updates a sum when you change a
                      value in another cell.

                      Absolutely NO software - NONE - can convert this feature from
                      WPWin into another format. Not Word, not Acrobat, not OpenOffice.org,
                      not MacLink Plus, not WP for the Mac, not anything at all except
                      WordPerfect for Windows or WordPerfect for DOS.

                      So, in answer to the original poster, the ONLY solution is to use
                      WordPerfect for Windows for these files, which can be done fairly
                      easily (with the ability to print them) using VMware Fusion on a
                      Mac. (Also Parallels, but Parallels is slower and flakier and there's
                      no reason to use it instead of Fusion. VirtualBox can't print without
                      elaborate setting-up, so it's not an alternative that's worth
                      pursuing.)







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • J Busch
                      You can map your Mac Documents folder to a shared drive in XP with Fusion, Parallels or Virtualbox. Then change your XP My Documents folder to this shared
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 24, 2009
                        You can map your Mac Documents folder to a shared drive in XP with Fusion, Parallels or Virtualbox. Then change your XP My Documents folder to this shared drive and your docs folder will be accessable and identicle from any program.

                        Jonathan

                        Sent from my iPod

                        On May 23, 2009, at 15:57, "Edward Mendelson" <em315@...> wrote:



                        --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "dee.rrxing" <dee.rrxing@...> wrote:

                        > My boss at work stores all of his invoices in a WordPerfect 10 document (.wpd) format, on a Dell Laptop using Windows XP. These invoices contain images, tables, and text.
                        >
                        > He recently purchased a new MacBook, using OS X 10.5.7, and asked me if I could move all of his invoices over.
                        >
                        > How might I go about doing this, with no loss of format?

                        Unfortunately, the ONLY sensible way to do this is to buy a copy of XP (on eBay, probably) and to buy a copy of VMware Fusion, which runs XP in a window on the Mac. Then install XP in Fusion (takes some time), and then install WordPerfect in the XP installed in Fusion. If you turn on "Shared Folders" and "Unity mode" in Fusion, your boss will be able to run WP in a window, just as if it were a Mac application, and he'll be able to keep his invoices in his Documents folder (it will be inside Drive Z: in Windows) and also print them to whatever printer he uses with his Mac. Once you set this up, it's seamless and foolproof. I use this exact setup, and I guarantee that it actually works.

                        If someone offers you a different solution, make sure to ask if they have ever actually used the setup they suggest, or if they merely think it ought to work, or if someone told them that it might work, or if they read somewhere that it could possibly work. The method outlined here actually does work, and I actually do use it.







                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • J Busch
                        Crossover office has worked well for me with simpler XP programs such as a notepad editor. WP was difficult to install, printing did not work, and had several
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 24, 2009
                          Crossover office has worked well for me with simpler XP programs such as a notepad editor. WP was difficult to install, printing did not work, and had several other usability issues.

                          You will also have difficulty with the XP reinstall disk on Parallels, Fusion or Virtualbox.

                          Jonathan

                          Sent from my iPod

                          On May 22, 2009, at 23:51, "dee.rrxing" <dee.rrxing@...> wrote:



                          I'm working into a dead end with this problem, as far as I can see. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

                          My boss at work stores all of his invoices in a WordPerfect 10 document (.wpd) format, on a Dell Laptop using Windows XP. These invoices contain images, tables, and text.

                          He recently purchased a new MacBook, using OS X 10.5.7, and asked me if I could move all of his invoices over.

                          How might I go about doing this, with no loss of format?

                          So far, I have tried Open Office, NeoOffice, and Nisus Writer Pro in terms of OS X word processors. Each of these can open the documents, but they do not display the images in the file nor do they preserve the special table formatting, where a "Total" column is automatically calculated by an "Amount" and "Price" columns (The Total column will not update when the latter two are changed.).

                          I tried WordPerfect 3.5e, but that's a little outdated, which I didn't realize.

                          I also tried using Wine (CrossOver), but upon trying to install WordPerfect 10 (Which is not a supported product), the install reports that I do not have administrative privileges and closes. I also tried installing a free trial of the latest WordPerfect office, but the installation hangs.

                          Unfortunately, Boot Camp is not an option, because the only Windows XP disk that my boss has is the one supplied with his Dell laptop. I've read that those reinstallation disks will not work for Boot Camp. Additionally, my boss is not well-versed with computers, and I do not want him to need to deal with restarting to switch between OSs so often.

                          What other options might I have?

                          Thank you very much for your help.







                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Randy B. Singer
                          ... I ve never tried Fusion. I run Parallels along with Vista Home Premium, and it works perfectly. Not flaky at all, excellent speed, and no problems with
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 25, 2009
                            On May 24, 2009, at 9:41 PM, Chad Russell wrote:

                            > The problem is that although Parallels 4 is faster than VMWare
                            > Fusion 2, it is still much "flakier"

                            I've never tried Fusion. I run Parallels along with Vista Home
                            Premium, and it works perfectly. Not flaky at all, excellent speed,
                            and no problems with printing or anything else.

                            However, the installation instructions for Parallels left a lot to be
                            desired, and technical support was just this side of "horrid."

                            So, if Fusion can be installed easily, and if it has decent technical
                            support, it might be worth foregoing the speed advantage that
                            Parallels enjoys.

                            It might be worth the trouble to try the free demos that both offer
                            before making a choice.

                            ___________________________________________
                            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
                            ___________________________________________
                          • Michael Mulhern
                            Such is the world of technology. My upgrade from Parallels v3 to v4 went so smoothly - no problems and the resulting W2K system felt even better than before.
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 25, 2009
                              Such is the world of technology. My upgrade from Parallels v3 to v4
                              went so smoothly - no problems and the resulting W2K system felt even
                              better than before.

                              To each their own.

                              Regards,

                              Michael


                              On 25/05/2009, at 2:41 PM, Chad Russell wrote:

                              >
                              >
                              > > Yes Randy, I was going to Cite the same results. As a side note,
                              > > current Fusion is faster than v3 Parallels, but v4 Parallels is
                              > faster
                              > > than both.
                              >
                              > The problem is that although Parallels 4 is faster than VMWare
                              > Fusion 2, it is still much "flakier" -- for example, the upgrader
                              > from Parallels 3 to 4 was so badly-written and poorly-tested that it
                              > managed to utterly destroy all my virtual machines (even those on a
                              > backup server that I had accidentally left mounted), requiring me to
                              > manually downgrade and restore all my PC files from offline backup.
                              >
                              > I then switched to VMWare Fusion 2 and imported the restored
                              > machines into it without a hitch.
                              >
                              > VMWare appears to have a superior beta-testing process, and -- in my
                              > experience -- produces a much more reliable product; perhaps this is
                              > the reason Fusion is slower than Parallels and has a somewhat
                              > smaller feature set. I finally got Parallels 4 running, and it is a
                              > faster, slicker product -- but I will never trust it again, and am
                              > going to stick with VMWare Fusion 2 for the foreseeable future.
                              >
                              >
                              >



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Edward Mendelson
                              ... Another advantage of Fusion is that it lets you choose your actual printer from the Windows Print dialog. If you have a Deskjet and a LaserJet, then you
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 25, 2009
                                --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Randy B. Singer" <randy@...> wrote:

                                > I've never tried Fusion. I run Parallels along with Vista Home
                                > Premium, and it works perfectly. Not flaky at all, excellent speed,
                                > and no problems with printing or anything else.

                                Another advantage of Fusion is that it lets you choose your actual
                                printer from the Windows Print dialog. If you have a Deskjet and
                                a LaserJet, then you can choose the Deskjet or the LaserJet from
                                the list of printers in the Windows Print dialog.

                                With Parallels, the Windows dialog always tells you that you're
                                printing to an HP Color LaserJet or an Apple LaserWriter, which
                                tends to be confusing if you don't actually have either printer.
                                If you want to switch between two printers that you actually have,
                                you need to go to the Configure dialog and then the Parallel Port,
                                which isn't exactly intuitive. The whole printing system is a mess.

                                In the real world, the speed difference between the two isn't
                                noticeable - I have fully licensed copies of both. Both of them
                                work, but Fusion works better than Parallels, and its printing
                                system is vastly superior. Obviously, there's no reason to switch
                                away from Parallels for anyone who paid for it, and for whom it
                                continues to work. But for anyone starting out, there's no reason
                                to prefer Parallels, and plenty of reasons to avoid it.
                              • Kipperman@aol.com
                                does MacLinkPlus work? ************** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Message 15 of 24 , May 25, 2009
                                  does MacLinkPlus work?


                                  **************


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • J Busch
                                  I have lost three virtual machines under Fusion 2 (~Jan Build), two virtual machines with virtualbox and one with parallels 3.0. I had backups to recover from,
                                  Message 16 of 24 , May 25, 2009
                                    I have lost three virtual machines under Fusion 2 (~Jan Build), two virtual machines with virtualbox and one with parallels 3.0. I had backups to recover from, but in my experience I trust Fusion less than Parallels. They each have issues from time to time. Try the demos out and choose what works for you.

                                    Jonathan
                                    Sent from my iPod

                                    On May 25, 2009, at 6:41, Chad Russell <boomslang@...> wrote:



                                    > Yes Randy, I was going to Cite the same results. As a side note,
                                    > current Fusion is faster than v3 Parallels, but v4 Parallels is faster
                                    > than both.

                                    The problem is that although Parallels 4 is faster than VMWare Fusion 2, it is still much "flakier" -- for example, the upgrader from Parallels 3 to 4 was so badly-written and poorly-tested that it managed to utterly destroy all my virtual machines (even those on a backup server that I had accidentally left mounted), requiring me to manually downgrade and restore all my PC files from offline backup.

                                    I then switched to VMWare Fusion 2 and imported the restored machines into it without a hitch.

                                    VMWare appears to have a superior beta-testing process, and -- in my experience -- produces a much more reliable product; perhaps this is the reason Fusion is slower than Parallels and has a somewhat smaller feature set. I finally got Parallels 4 running, and it is a faster, slicker product -- but I will never trust it again, and am going to stick with VMWare Fusion 2 for the foreseeable future.







                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Randy B. Singer
                                    ... Yes. But not nearly as well as you might hope. If has problems with advanced formatting. It would be nice if it was the supreme solution to file
                                    Message 17 of 24 , May 26, 2009
                                      On May 25, 2009, at 7:40 AM, Kipperman@... wrote:

                                      > does MacLinkPlus work?

                                      Yes. But not nearly as well as you might hope. If has problems with
                                      advanced formatting.

                                      It would be nice if it was the supreme solution to file translation
                                      problems, but it isn't.

                                      ___________________________________________
                                      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
                                      ___________________________________________
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.