Wordworth 6 vs. Final Writer 97
Samy Merchi
I'm debating buying a good word processor for the Amiga, and I'm
trying to find the right choice for me. It seems that the best
options are Wordworth 6 and Final Writer 97. Can anyone direct me
to any reviews on the net of either of these, or, failing that,
give some pointers on what advantages these two have over each
other? Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- Samy Merchi 1998 sam...@utu.fi http://www.utu.fi/~samerc
"What we leave behind... is not as important as how we've lived.
After all, Number One - we're only mortal."
"Speak for yourself, sir. I intend to live forever."
Picard and Riker, 'Star Trek: Generations'
Lawrence H
Samy Merchi <sam...@utu.fi> wrote in article <6ct0na$71a$1...@news.utu.fi>...
> I'm debating buying a good word processor for the Amiga, and I'm
> trying to find the right choice for me. It seems that the best
> options are Wordworth 6 and Final Writer 97. Can anyone direct me
> to any reviews on the net of either of these, or, failing that,
> give some pointers on what advantages these two have over each
> other? Thanks.
>
Well I went for WW because it fully supports the Amiga standard outline
fonts and the version of FW I saw would not do bold or underline using
these Amiga fonts. FW uses it's own non-standard fonts which are
apparently better (but I can`t tell the difference). I actually found FW
more sexy, but I'm don't want loads of alternative fonts systems cluttering
up my hard disk. FW 97 also has some HTML support?
WW7 will be out soon (March) and promises to be a major upgrade - so I'd
wait and see what it's like.
Adrian Pickering
Samy Merchi wrote:
> I'm debating buying a good word processor for the Amiga, and I'm
> trying to find the right choice for me. It seems that the best
> options are Wordworth 6 and Final Writer 97. Can anyone direct me
> to any reviews on the net of either of these, or, failing that,
> give some pointers on what advantages these two have over each
> other? Thanks.
>
I think WW7 is about to be launched.
I have no problems with WW6. OK, so it's not that powerful, but it's
dead cheap and great for knocking out letters and short documents.
Adrian
Samy Merchi
Adrian Pickering (adr...@cherwell.com) typed:
> I have no problems with WW6. OK, so it's not that powerful, but it's
> dead cheap and great for knocking out letters and short documents.
So in respects to what isn't it 'that powerful'? Why can't it do
long documents? What weaknesses does it have?
David R L Porter
The message <01bd4105$119596e0$413a...@pc-lha.inro.tno.nl>
from "Lawrence H" <l...@GEENSPAMinro.tno.nl> contains these words:
> Samy Merchi <sam...@utu.fi> wrote in article <6ct0na$71a$1...@news.utu.fi>...
> > I'm debating buying a good word processor for the Amiga, and I'm
> > trying to find the right choice for me. It seems that the best
> > options are Wordworth 6 and Final Writer 97. Can anyone direct me
> > to any reviews on the net of either of these, or, failing that,
> > give some pointers on what advantages these two have over each
> > other? Thanks.
> >
Haven't used FW but this may be of interest ...
Was given WW2, then bought a copy of WW5 on the net (for 5 ukp!). My
opinion after using it for a week or two was that I might as well
take ProPage 4.1 off my hard disk as WW5 did almost all I wanted
DTP-wise. In the end I didn't do it, but it was a serious option.
I do most of my daily work (as a writer) on a Pentium 200 using
Microsoft Office 97. WW5 compares pretty darned well, after making
the necessary allowances for price etc. Also, I printed a complex WW5
document to a postscript file, then brought it upstairs and printed
it out via MSDOS to my HP Laserjet 6MP, and got superb results --
muchy better than ProPage 4.1.
I don't know which WP you'll go for but IMO, WW is a very good bet.
NB that WW6 seems to be a fairly minor upgrade (good pricing though
on the bundle CD), and I'm running WW5 on an A4000 with a multisync
screen in DblPlus mode.
Hope this helps.
--
Best wishes,
David.
david....@zetnet.co.uk
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Astronomically speaking, man is virtually meaningless."
"Yes, but astronomically speaking, man is the astronomer..."
[Anon, quoted by John Stott].
men...@coloradomtn.edu
On 24 Feb 1998 09:17:48 GMT, "Lawrence H" <l...@GEENSPAMinro.tno.nl>
wrote:
>Well I went for WW because it fully supports the Amiga standard outline
>fonts and the version of FW I saw would not do bold or underline using
>these Amiga fonts. FW uses it's own non-standard fonts which are
>apparently better (but I can`t tell the difference). I actually found FW
>more sexy, but I'm don't want loads of alternative fonts systems cluttering
>up my hard disk. FW 97 also has some HTML support?
For bold you need a font that is specifically bold, FW will not try to
fake a bold font. Technically a normal font and a bold version of
that font are different fonts and that is how FW handles them. Unless
compugraphic fonts can have bold information embedded in the font
definition, in that case it would definitely be a shortcoming. As for
underlining I'll have to try that when I get home. FW can also use
postscript fonts. So FW can use Compugraphic, NimbusQ, and Postscript
fonts. What is supposed to better about NimbusQ is that it is
supposed to look better and be faster to draw on screen but like you
can't really tell the difference and for the most part I feel most
NimbusQ fonts don't look good on screen (unless they are some large
point size) while most Compugraphic fonts I have seen look good at
most point sizes and the speed penalty is not that great.
Yes FW97 has HTML support, haven't used it though.
I think the original poster also needs to outline his needs for a
word-processor before comments can be made about FW vs WW. For
example if he wants footnotes, that would definitely rule out FW,
unless endnotes will also do. I don't know what shortcommings WW has
that might automatically rule it out. Something useful for
wordprocessing like a grammer checker, which WW6 lacks, might rule it
out.
To see what features each has go to the following:
http://www.softwood.com/
http://www.digita.com/
As for a review AmigaReport 502 has a quick review of WordWorth
Office.
William B King
On 24-Feb-98 15:30:43, in reference to Re: Wordworth 6 vs. Final Writer 97, mendoza said:
>Yes FW97 has HTML support, haven't used it though.
I have & it works like a charm
>I think the original poster also needs to outline his needs for a
>word-processor before comments can be made about FW vs WW. For
>example if he wants footnotes, that would definitely rule out FW,
>unless endnotes will also do.
This is my only beef with FW, I love everthing else.
Although I must say that text frames were a bit
annoying at first (I forgot to RTFM first :-)). They
are turning out to be quite powerful.
I have not tried WW though, so I can't compare
William KING
mailto:wbk...@peachnet.campus.mci.net
Adrian Pickering
Samy Merchi wrote:
> Adrian Pickering (adr...@cherwell.com) typed:
> > I have no problems with WW6. OK, so it's not that powerful, but it's
> > dead cheap and great for knocking out letters and short documents.
>
> So in respects to what isn't it 'that powerful'? Why can't it do
> long documents? What weaknesses does it have?
Well, the lack of anchored graphics is my biggest quarm.
I don't use it for long docs because it can be slow on my 030 ;(. Having
said that, I'm comparing it to straight ascii do-dah's and this is only an
issue for 50+ pages.
WW6 is *loads* faster than ww2, though.
I have used FW4 quite a lot (on a friend's 4k), but nothing newer. My main
gripe was concerning incompatibility with that pop-up menu under the
pointer patch. I cannot live without that patch, so something had to go.
WW6 was a good price and I don't regret it.
Also, tip for anyone who has a PC also:
I bought myself a little Oki laser printer new for around £100. This uses
windows-only drivers, but, in a dos session from windows, emulates HP's. I
can tell the Amiga I am using such an HP, redirect output to a file then
simply copy the file to PC to printer. Hey presto, a £100 laser printer.
Adrian
men...@coloradomtn.edu
>I have used FW4 quite a lot (on a friend's 4k), but nothing newer. My main
>gripe was concerning incompatibility with that pop-up menu under the
>pointer patch. I cannot live without that patch, so something had to go.
That was fixed with either the newest version of MagicMenu or FW97,
not sure which, but I am fairly positive it was MagicMenu.
Lawrence H
> So in respects to what isn't it 'that powerful'? Why can't it do
> long documents? What weaknesses does it have?
WW6: No Word import/export (same for FW), no sections like Word, limited
RTF filter
Stanley Anderson
Adrian Pickering <adr...@cherwell.com> writes:
>I have used FW4 quite a lot (on a friend's 4k), but nothing newer. My main
>gripe was concerning incompatibility with that pop-up menu under the
>pointer patch. I cannot live without that patch, so something had to go.
any problem with FinalWriter at least through FW97.
Stan Anderson
ZVERsec
Stanley Anderson wrote:
>
> Get the latest version of Magic Menu (v2.15, I think),
>
--
GGWY!
*********************************************
*WARP prvi Amiga hrvatski časopis: *
*http://islands.zesoi.fer/~dpuljiz/warp *
*Krščanska WEB stranica: *
*http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7074*
*********************************************
Alf Inge Wang
Lawrence H wrote:
What do you mean with that FW dosen't have sections ? You can define
sections in FW (if I understand what you mean).
The main difference feature that FW does not have that Word has full support
for is BUGS ;)
Word is ok if your going to write letters or small reports. For serious work
stay away from Word (big documents).
I have been superviced a lot of student groups writing reports on several
houndred pages. Most of the groups using
Word have been using A LOT OF time trying to make the features in Word to
work. With big documents, Word
crashes a lot and the automatic features does not work and the documents get
messed up.
If you will do some serious document writing find another program. FW does
not have all the features of Word, but at least it is stable
(as long as you don't have to many workbench patches running as background
processes).
If you want a program that does not crash and is suited for big document use
Latex. It is definetly not WUSIWUG, but it handles
really big document well (also awaileble on Amiga).
Phd.Student,
Alf Inge Wang
David Baker
Nothing can touch TeX or LaTeX for handling long documents - especially
when LaTeX & TeX are public domain ;)
bro...@minded.u-net.com
> Nothing can touch TeX or LaTeX for handling long documents - especially
> when LaTeX & TeX are public domain ;)
I love LaTeX. The feel of it on your skin, especially when you've
doused your self with a layer of Johnson's Baby Powder......
Oh YES! YES! YES! It's at times like this that I wished I smoked ....
LaTeX, Rubber and even Leather. Frank Zappa /was/ right!
Simon
--
··········································
»»»» bro...@minded.u-net.com ««««
··········································
A1200, 1230/50, 18Mb, 4xEIDE CD
SCSI Zip, Flatbed Scanner,
56K Flex Dynalink &
»» NET CONNECT ««
Team *AMIGA*
Oliver Hodgson
Lawrence H wrote:
>
> > So in respects to what isn't it 'that powerful'? Why can't it do
> > long documents? What weaknesses does it have?
>
> WW6: No Word import/export (same for FW), no sections like Word, limited
> RTF filter
I have mailed Paul Barnham at Digita, and he says that it is to do with
Microsoft. They want to keep their format secret apparently. God knows
why.
SeeYA
Eagle
Charlie Gibbs
In article <34FB0A...@the.computer.lab> m...@here.com (Oliver Hodgson)
writes:
Given that, in the computer industry, Bill Gates is God, I'll tell
you just exactly what he knows. If other programs can read and write
your format, then they're able to <gasp!> compete with you. This
must not be permitted. That's why there are so many closely-guarded
proprietary data formats out there. These formats are changed often,
to try to keep ahead of those who would reverse-engineer them.
I'm afraid there are a lot of computer people who are against the
free exchange of data. The larger the corporation, the more they
are threatened by standards. Someone might come along and interfere
with their carefully-crafted plans to force you to purchase (from
them, of course) ever-more-bloated software once a year or so.
--
cgi...@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.