Don't Install Word 6.0!
Lyle Zynda
sanf...@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu (Philip M. San Filippo) wrote [edited to
reduce space]:
> I just installed Microsoft Word 6.0 on my Quadra 840AV. ...
> The program needs 3M of RAM to run correctly and you need 15M of hard disk
> space to install all of its components.
Actually, Word 6.0 requires 25M for a complete install. (Yikes!)
>...If you share Word files and have both versions installed on
> a network, forget it! Believe it or not, you cannot save a file in a "5.1
> format" when in version 6.0 You have to save it as a text file and then
> convert it into the Word format when you are actually in 5.1.
That's not true. You can "save as..." in either Word 4.0, 5.0, or 5.1
format as you please from Word 6.0. Maybe you didn't install all of the
converters.
Also worth mentioning is that Microsoft provides a converter that enables
5.1 users to read 6.0 files. You can download it for free from the usual
ftp sites, including Microsoft's. Since Word 6.0 has more features than
earlier versions, however, some things don't translate downward. Check
the readme file that comes with the Word 6.0 for Windows/Macintosh
converter for details on what's converted and what's not.
Lyle Zynda
Caltech
Bryan Walls
sanf...@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu (Philip M. San Filippo) wrote:
> As a Macintosh network manager, I am seriously thinking of sending the
> program back. If you share Word files and have both versions installed on
> a network, forget it! Believe it or not, you cannot save a file in a "5.1
> format" when in version 6.0 You have to save it as a text file and then
> convert it into the Word format when you are actually in 5.1 Since most
> computers in this dept. are not hardward-powerful enough for the new
> version (we have many IIsi and IIci machines installed), this solution will
> not work too well.
Save it as a Word for Windows 6.0 document, and then use the converter in
Mac Word 5.1 to convert it. 'Should work fine. If you don't have that
converter, get it -- it's free from Microsoft, and available on line.
--
Bryan Walls Bryan...@msfc.nasa.gov My words are not NASA policy.
Matthew Clark
: space to install all of its components.
If you've got enough RAM, experiment with running the program and its
support files in RAM Disk. I've speeded up both 4D and Pagemaker 5 that
way. RAM Disk tends to turn fat, sedintary cats into spry kittens.
Tom Saxton
sanf...@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu (Philip M. San Filippo) wrote:
> One test, an
> AutoFormat of a 44K file took 35.9 seconds on an 840AV. On a 8100, the
> same test took 1:16 seconds (almost three times slower).
This just shows that emulation is not as fast as a Quadra in some cases.
The PowerPC native version of Word will be much faster.
> As a Macintosh network manager, I am seriously thinking of sending the
> program back. If you share Word files and have both versions installed on
> a network, forget it! Believe it or not, you cannot save a file in a "5.1
> format" when in version 6.0 You have to save it as a text file and then
> convert it into the Word format when you are actually in 5.1 Since most
> computers in this dept. are not hardward-powerful enough for the new
> version (we have many IIsi and IIci machines installed), this solution will
> not work too well.
When you run setup, you need to install the converter called "Word 4.x-5.x
for the Macintosh". You don't need this to read Word 4 or 5 documents, but
you do need it to save in Word 4 or 5 format. (You can run setup again to
install this one piece, you don't have to reinstall from scratch.) Once
you have installed this converter, the Save As dialog will have options to
save as "Word 4.0", "Word 5.0" and "Word 5.1". Of course Word 4.0 and 5.0
can read 5.1 files, so you can just pick "Word 5.1 for the Macintosh". (I
suspect the reason all three are listed is because some customers were
upset because Word 5.0 didn't have an option to save as Word 4.0. They
didn't realize that Word 4.0 can read Word 5.x files, a nifty trick when
you can make an upgrade without changing the file format.)
--
Tom Saxton
Microsoft Corporation
Any opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employer.
Philip M. San Filippo
It takes twice as long to launch the new version of Word than it did with
5.1a. Actually, in this week's MacWeek, they strongly recommend NOT using
version 6 on anything OTHER than a '040 machine. Microsoft advertises the
product as working with anything higher than a 68020, but don't believe it!
In MacWeek, every single benchmark test they ran for version 6.0 showed
that it was much slower (in some cases, 5 times as slow!) than the previous
version 5.1a. If you have a new PowerPC machine, don't even think of
installing the program until the native version comes out. One test, an
AutoFormat of a 44K file took 35.9 seconds on an 840AV. On a 8100, the
same test took 1:16 seconds (almost three times slower).
The program needs 3M of RAM to run correctly and you need 15M of hard disk
space to install all of its components.
As a Macintosh network manager, I am seriously thinking of sending the
program back. If you share Word files and have both versions installed on
a network, forget it! Believe it or not, you cannot save a file in a "5.1
format" when in version 6.0 You have to save it as a text file and then
convert it into the Word format when you are actually in 5.1 Since most
computers in this dept. are not hardward-powerful enough for the new
version (we have many IIsi and IIci machines installed), this solution will
not work too well.
Think about waiting for Microsoft to fix some of the major bugs in this
version before buying it or even installing it.
Let me know what your experience has been with this product. Thanks so
much.
--
Philip M. San Filippo
Mount Sinai Medical Center
Department of Neurobiology
New York, New York 10029
(212) 241-5964
Jerry Goldstein
:Think about waiting for Microsoft to fix some of the major bugs in this
:version before buying it or even installing it.
Well, I thought about it. After reading all the messages and articles
regarding Word 6, I decided it's time to say "Goodbye Mr. Gates and Word 6".
No upgrade for me. Just got WordPerfect 3.1. Have only spent a short time
with it, but so far I'm very impressed. Also, they have a special $99 dollar
price for new users of WP. Hard to beat this offer.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Jerry Goldstein |"All thoughts and opinions come directly from me...
jer...@netcom.com | or someone just like me." Anonymous (52 B.C.)
VAr...@varase.it.luc.edu
>That's not true. You can "save as..." in either Word 4.0, 5.0, or 5.1
>format as you please from Word 6.0. Maybe you didn't install all of the
>converters.
I just upgraded Word from 5.1 to 6 <yikes!>, and I have a MS Word folder and a
Microsoft folder (at the same level).
I also had in the MS Word folder:
A Word Commands folder (which I initially figured was left over from 5.1 so I
disposed of the folder but saved its contents).
A Word Extensions folder (which appears to contain some externals and some
translators).
Unfortunately, the Microsoft folder also appears to contain translators and tools.
Is there a reason for keeping stuff spread out in two (and possibly three)
directories?
Also, is the Word Commands folder simply a left-over from 5.1?
Curious minds want to know ...
VAr...@varase.it.luc.edu
>Save it as a Word for Windows 6.0 document, and then use the converter in
>Mac Word 5.1 to convert it. 'Should work fine. If you don't have that
>converter, get it -- it's free from Microsoft, and available on line.
Unfortunately, the Word 6 translator for 5.1 can also produce totally impossible
formatting should the document employ a new Word 6 feature not present in 5.1.
Paul A Hagstrom
> Unfortunately, the Microsoft folder also appears to contain translators and tools.
>
> Is there a reason for keeping stuff spread out in two (and possibly three)
> directories?
Presumably, the Microsoft folder is the same one that appears with FoxPro
2.6 as well; in other words, perhaps these are shared items that all of the
new Microsoft products will be using (and thus no longer requiring them to
be saved twice on your hard drive). What's in there now (from FoxPro) is:
Custom Dictionary, FoxPro Help Engine, Help On Help, Microsoft Graph,
Microsoft Graph Help, Microsoft Help, Microsoft Setup, Microsoft System Info,
MS US English Dictionary, MSInfo, QT Ole Server, and Spelling.
Anyway, this is just a hypothesis, but it seems reasonable..
-Paul Hagstrom
hags...@mit.edu
Darren A. Apfel
hags...@athena.mit.edu (Paul A Hagstrom) wrote:
> Presumably, the Microsoft folder is the same one that appears with FoxPro
> 2.6 as well; in other words, perhaps these are shared items that all of the
> new Microsoft products will be using (and thus no longer requiring them to
> be saved twice on your hard drive).
Or more than twice if you have Office and they didn't have a common folder...
If you use more than one MS program, you'll be happy that all of this
stuff is stored in one place: all of the Office apps will share
dictionaries and common tools like OLE. How many times have I seen people
asking for a common spelling dictionary for all of their apps... Office
takes everything that it can share and installs it once.
_____Darren_A_...@minerva.cis.yale.edu___________Yale_95______
Paul Duckenfield
<apfel-darren-0...@pierson-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>,
apfel-...@cs.yale.edu (Darren A. Apfel) wrote:
> Or more than twice if you have Office and they didn't have a common folder...
>
> If you use more than one MS program, you'll be happy that all of this
> stuff is stored in one place: all of the Office apps will share
> dictionaries and common tools like OLE. How many times have I seen people
> asking for a common spelling dictionary for all of their apps... Office
> takes everything that it can share and installs it once.
True, but it would be nice if they used the Preferences Folder a little
more than they do and don't just plop that Microsoft Folder into the
System Folder like they have been known to do.
It would make things a whole lot easier if programs just installed all the
appropriate files into one single folder rather than into every little
nock and cranny and then neglect to tell you that they did it.
--
Paul Duckenfield
The College of William & Mary
pad...@mail.wm.edu
Chris Foote
Duckenfield, pad...@mail.wm.edu writes:
>True, but it would be nice if they used the Preferences Folder a little
>more than they do and don't just plop that Microsoft Folder into the
>System Folder like they have been known to do.
>
>It would make things a whole lot easier if programs just installed all
the
>appropriate files into one single folder rather than into every little
>nock and cranny and then neglect to tell you that they did it.
I did the installation of MS office 4.2 this weekend (one of the most
revolting procedures I've been through) (8100 AV, Sys 7.5). It's very
location dependent; you can't move things around after installation.
There are 30 double density disks; the installer goes as follows: insert
disk 1, eject, insert disk 2, eject, insert disk 1, eject, insert disk 2,
eject, insert disk 3, insert disk 1, eject, insert disk 3...ad nauseam. I
finally copied all the disks to a 128 MO and that made the installation
manageable. But what did I get?
First of all, the installer puts about five or six new extensions and
control panels in the system folder, some of which appear to conflict
with stuff I already have. Excel 5 is great (although an ENORMOUS memory
and disk hog), Powerpoint corrupted some files so they can't even be read
by the OLD powerpoint and still can't find its help file, and the less
said about Word the better. In particular, it won't support the EndNote
plugin or Chemdraw editing in place. It's going in the trash.
Fortunately, I didn't let it delete old versions, which it wanted to.
It seems very unlikely that Word 6 will run satisfactorily on any
preQuadra machines such IIsi's.
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher S. Foote |Internet:c...@argon.chem.ucla.edu
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry |
University of California, Los Angeles |FAX: (310)-206-1843
CA 90024-1569 |Phone:(310)-825-1409
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panjandrum
>program back. If you share Word files and have both versions installed on
>a network, forget it! Believe it or not, you cannot save a file in a "5.1
>
>much.
After reading all this thread since it began, I have already advised our
department not to upgrade to 6.0. We recently purchased a 30 copy site license
for 5.1, and everyone seems more than happy with it...
_________________________________________________________________
|-! -David Butler- dhbu...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"It's supposed to be automatic but actually you have to press this button."
- John Brunner
Tobin C. Anthony
sanf...@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu writes:
>Let me know what your experience has been with this product. Thanks so
>much.
As a grunt engineer, I am trying to think of a compelling reason why I
_need_ to upgrade to 6.0; 5.1a does everything I need. My word
processing needs are minimal. I do any complicated word processing in
LaTeX. Others in my group use FrameMaker. It seems that Word is gaining
on FM in terms of capabilities, size, and unfortuately, price.
Unlike PowerPoint, which I cannot wait to get a hold of, I'm gonna hold
out on upgrading my group to 6.0.
------------------------>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<------------------------
Tobin C. Anthony ph: 301-286-1273
Code 712 fax: 301-286-1718
NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center tobin....@gsfc.nasa.gov
Greenbelt MD 20771 WWW: http://bongo.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<------------------------
Christopher Gunn
<c...@argon.chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
> In article <paduck-0210...@carter.widomaker.com> Paul
> Duckenfield, pad...@mail.wm.edu writes:
> [....] and the less
> said about Word the better. In particular, it won't support the EndNote
> plugin or Chemdraw editing in place. It's going in the trash.
> Fortunately, I didn't let it delete old versions, which it wanted to.
> It seems very unlikely that Word 6 will run satisfactorily on any
> preQuadra machines such IIsi's.
> Chris
I hope you let everyone know how this (the de-install of Word 6)
goes. I'd like to know for sure that you *can* back down from
6 to 5.1 without endless rooting-out of the changes made by 6....
I'd also like to know if anyone has been able to get 6.0 and 5.1
working in parallel. Will 5.1 run after 6.0 has been installed if
6.0 *remains in place*?
Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Laboratory
1k1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu University of Kansas
Phone: 913-864-4428 or -4495 Malott Hall
Lawrence, KS 66045
C. S. Foote
1k1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) wrote:
> In article <36ns6p$8...@news.mic.ucla.edu>, Chris Foote
> <c...@argon.chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <paduck-0210...@carter.widomaker.com> Paul
> > Duckenfield, pad...@mail.wm.edu writes:
>
> > [....] and the less
> > said about Word the better. In particular, it won't support the EndNote
> > plugin or Chemdraw editing in place. It's going in the trash.
> > Fortunately, I didn't let it delete old versions, which it wanted to.
> > It seems very unlikely that Word 6 will run satisfactorily on any
> > preQuadra machines such IIsi's.
> > Chris
>
> I hope you let everyone know how this (the de-install of Word 6)
> goes. I'd like to know for sure that you *can* back down from
> 6 to 5.1 without endless rooting-out of the changes made by 6....
>
> I'd also like to know if anyone has been able to get 6.0 and 5.1
> working in parallel. Will 5.1 run after 6.0 has been installed if
> 6.0 *remains in place*?
>
Deinstall works fine (if you didn't deinstall the old versions). 5.1a and
6.0 work together OK, except that 6.0 opens if you doubleclick a file.
Chris
Paul Duckenfield
1k1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) wrote:
> In article <36ns6p$8...@news.mic.ucla.edu>, Chris Foote
> <c...@argon.chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <paduck-0210...@carter.widomaker.com> Paul
> > Duckenfield, pad...@mail.wm.edu writes:
>
> > [....] and the less
> > said about Word the better. In particular, it won't support the EndNote
> > plugin or Chemdraw editing in place. It's going in the trash.
> > Fortunately, I didn't let it delete old versions, which it wanted to.
> > It seems very unlikely that Word 6 will run satisfactorily on any
> > preQuadra machines such IIsi's.
> > Chris
I don't know why my name is attached to this quote. I didn't write it.
Paul
Evan Torrie
>I just installed Microsoft Word 6.0 on my Quadra 840AV. Talk about slow!
>It takes twice as long to launch the new version of Word than it did with
>5.1a.
I have a question for people who have Word 6.0 and Word 5.1 on the
same machine... Have any of you actually timed some of the functions?
In particular, I honestly couldn't believe the MacWeek benchmark which
showed a "Word Count" taking 23 seconds under 5.1, but 2 minutes under
6.0 (on a Quadra 840AV). Come on, how complicated can a Word Count
be? Finding spaces?? It's like Exercise 1 in Introduction to
Programming. What could possibly have changed between 5.1 and 6.0 to
make it this slow?
My only supposition is that perhaps MacWeek ran 6.0 in less memory
than 5.1, and 6.0 was swapping portions of the text in and out from
disk more frequently than 5.1. So my question is: has anyone here
timed these functions for themselves and got comparable or different
results from MacWeek?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<A HREF="http://liber.stanford.edu/~torrie/>Evan Torrie</A>.
Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu (finger for PGP)
"A penny saved is impossible" - Ogden Nash
Peter Haase
(Evan Torrie) wrote:
> sanf...@cortex.neuro.mssm.edu (Philip M. San Filippo) writes:
>
> >I just installed Microsoft Word 6.0 on my Quadra 840AV. Talk about slow!
> >It takes twice as long to launch the new version of Word than it did with
> >5.1a.
>
> I have a question for people who have Word 6.0 and Word 5.1 on the
> same machine... Have any of you actually timed some of the functions?
> In particular, I honestly couldn't believe the MacWeek benchmark which
> showed a "Word Count" taking 23 seconds under 5.1, but 2 minutes under
> 6.0 (on a Quadra 840AV). Come on, how complicated can a Word Count
> be? Finding spaces?? It's like Exercise 1 in Introduction to
> Programming. What could possibly have changed between 5.1 and 6.0 to
> make it this slow?
I am running the non-native version of Word 6.0 on PowerMac 8100 and
other than launching, It does not seem that slow to me....I am on the
list to get the PowerMac native version in a couple of weeks so I
imagine things will only improve......
I think that soemtimes because Word is a Microsoft application and
dominant in the PC world, Mac people tend to give them a bad rap.....
-- Pete
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Haase Network Support 505.667.2684
Engineering Sciences & Applications Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ha...@lanl.gov
Tim Collins
--
Timothy L D Collins | phy...@gps.leeds.ac.uk
Physics Dept. | phy...@phys-irc.novell.leeds.ac.uk
University of Leeds, |
Leeds. | "Opinions expressed are just that: opinions!"
Allan Marcus
>I am running the non-native version of Word 6.0 on PowerMac 8100 and
>other than launching, It does not seem that slow to me....I am on the
>list to get the PowerMac native version in a couple of weeks so I
>imagine things will only improve......
>
>I think that soemtimes because Word is a Microsoft application and
>dominant in the PC world, Mac people tend to give them a bad rap.....
>
>
I disagree. Word 6.0 is a Windoz program running on Mac. If I wanted a
Windoz Program, I'd run Windoz! The graphics are extrememly slow on my PPC
7100 and all the dialog look horrible! They didn't even use Chicago 12
point for their buttons!
Overall, I was not impressed with the new features. I suppose I may need
them at some point, but I'll probably be using WordPerfect by then. For
now, I'm using 5.1a again.
-------------------------------------------------
Allan Marcus
"My opinions are my own, I think..."
AppleLink: Allan.Marcus
CIS: 76666,2113
InterNet: al...@apple.com (not affiliated with Apple Computer)
eWorld or NewtonMail: Allan.M
Day Job email: allan_...@lanl.gov
Day Job Voice: 505-665-1828
-------------------------------------------------
Thomas Reed
ha...@lanl.gov (Peter Haase) wrote:
>I think that soemtimes because Word is a Microsoft application and
>dominant in the PC world, Mac people tend to give them a bad rap.....
No, in this case, I think that Word 6.0 is going to do Microsoft more harm
than good. Sure, all the home users out there who have bought themselves
nice expensive machines aren't going to have a problem with Word 6.0.
They have the space and the speed to run it comfortably. However, the
majority of buyers of such products are businesses. And businesses almost
ALWAYS have an existing base of older machines. Here, the department for
which I work has a few PowerMacs here and there, and some Quadra 800's,
but for the most part, everyone's sitting behind a IIsi, IIci, IIcx or LC
(not LC II or III -- the original, slow, crappy LC). Some of these
machines only have 5 MB of RAM, much as I'd like to change that.
Obviously, we don't have the power to run Word 6.0. So, since this is my
descision, I have decided that we are most definitely NOT upgrading to
Word 6.0. We will continue to use Word 5.1a until our needs outgrow it,
and then I will look for an alternate, like WordPerfect. I will not
upgrade to Word 6.0 as long as, in addition to being big and slow, it
doesn't support some of Apple's new technologies, like Drag and Drop.
I'm sure that many folks in businesses will agree with me -- not because
they don't like Microsoft, but because they don't like the new Microsoft
Word.
-Thomas
=====================================================
Thomas Reed Washington University
re...@telesphere.wustl.edu Medical School
re...@medicine.wustl.edu Saint Louis, MO
-----------------------------------------------------
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no
influence on society. -- Mark Twain
=====================================================
Opinions posted are not the opinions of Wash. U.
P-M Ericsson
Do you really need all the features of Word 6.0 (or Word 5.1)?
There are a lot of other apps that is doing the same thing with less RAM
and less cash.
/P-M
Michael Sattler, San Francisco
ti...@microsoft.com (Tim Graves) writes:
> Yes, but what if you're using a system from a RAM disk? Then you wouldn't
> want the Microsoft folder in the Extensions folder, which is where we used
> to put it.
>
> For all the new Microsoft apps, we put all shared items in a folder called
> Microsoft. This folder is created by the first application from the 'new
> generation' that you install, and every other app from the 'new generation'
> you install afterwards uses the originally created Microsoft folder.
>
> You should be able to move the Microsoft folder whereever you want. In my
> case, I moved it so it is within the Microsoft Office folder, that way all
> of my Microsoft stuff is in the same location.
That's a good explanation of a perhaps misguided implementation. My
general bitch with Word 6 for the Mac is that instead of being a small,
hot, speedy core application with lots of optional extentions, it's a
big pig of a poorly-implemented demented vision of what a
word-processor should be.
After spending several days with Word 6 for Mac I've decided that it'll
take Microslop another iteration (or the new MacOSes) to understand
that a word processor that's over 10 meg is a pathetic joke.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Michael Sattler <msat...@jungle.com> Don't try to teach
_/
_/ FTP Software, West Coast Operations a pig to sing;
_/
_/ Quality Assurance Manager it's a waste of time
_/
_/ http://www.wco.ftp.com/~msattler/ and it annoys the pig.
_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Tim Graves
> True, but it would be nice if they used the Preferences Folder a little
> more than they do and don't just plop that Microsoft Folder into the
> System Folder like they have been known to do.
>
> It would make things a whole lot easier if programs just installed all the
> appropriate files into one single folder rather than into every little
> nock and cranny and then neglect to tell you that they did it.
>
> --
> Paul Duckenfield
Yes, but what if you're using a system from a RAM disk? Then you wouldn't
want the Microsoft folder in the Extensions folder, which is where we used
to put it.
For all the new Microsoft apps, we put all shared items in a folder called
Microsoft. This folder is created by the first application from the 'new
generation' that you install, and every other app from the 'new generation'
you install afterwards uses the originally created Microsoft folder.
You should be able to move the Microsoft folder whereever you want. In my
case, I moved it so it is within the Microsoft Office folder, that way all
of my Microsoft stuff is in the same location.
-tim
Tim Graves
---> But isn't it the case that for all the new Microsoft apps to share the
---> same 'Microsoft' folder the applications must all be installed at the same
---> hierarchical level. For example, if Word 6.0 is the first 'new
<much other stuff showing scenarios delete>
No, this isn't the case. The 'Microsoft' folder is registered in the
Registration Database file, so every other app from the new generation
should use the same folder. If the Registration Database file is thrown
away or corrupted, then yes, you would probably end up with several Microsoft
folders running around. No problem, just put all the contents together
in one folder, and put it whereever you want.
---> Though I appreciate your comments regarding the Microsoft folder and use
---> of RAM disks, if the alternative is to have multiple Micorsoft folders
---> scattered about because someone didn't follow a consistent installation
---> scheme, I'd opt for putting the Microsoft folder back inside Extensions.
---> At least this way the Setup program for each application will be directed
---> to a common location regardless of where each user elects to install the
---> applications.
Again, see above. You should only end up with one folder, and if you aren't,
then something is going wrong with the installations. Maybe an init conflict...?
-tim
Michael Guzzo
>From: ti...@microsoft.com (Tim Graves)
>Subject: Re: Don't Install Word 6.0!
>Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 01:38:20 GMT
>In article <sek-131094...@sekmac.bellcore.com> s...@itc.cc.bellcore.com
>wrote:
>---> But isn't it the case that for all the new Microsoft apps to share the
>---> same 'Microsoft' folder the applications must all be installed at the
>same
>---> hierarchical level. For example, if Word 6.0 is the first 'new
><much other stuff showing scenarios delete>
>No, this isn't the case. The 'Microsoft' folder is registered in the
>Registration Database file, so every other app from the new generation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>should use the same folder. If the Registration Database file is thrown
>away or corrupted, then yes, you would probably end up with several Microsoft
>folders running around. No problem, just put all the contents together
>in one folder, and put it whereever you want.
This smells suspiciously of Windows here....;-)
>---> Though I appreciate your comments regarding the Microsoft folder and use
>---> of RAM disks, if the alternative is to have multiple Micorsoft folders
>---> scattered about because someone didn't follow a consistent installation
>---> scheme, I'd opt for putting the Microsoft folder back inside Extensions.
>---> At least this way the Setup program for each application will be directed
>---> to a common location regardless of where each user elects to install the
>---> applications.
>Again, see above. You should only end up with one folder, and if you aren't,
>then something is going wrong with the installations. Maybe an init
>conflict...?
> -tim
________________________________________________________________________
Michael S. Guzzo msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov
Email me for the FutureBasic FAQ
Spencer Kantor
But isn't it the case that for all the new Microsoft apps to share the
same 'Microsoft' folder the applications must all be installed at the same
hierarchical level. For example, if Word 6.0 is the first 'new
generation' app I install and I locate MS Word 6.0 in "Macintosh
HD:Apps:MS Word 6.0" then both the MS Word 6.0 folder and the Microsoft
folder will be created within the Apps folder. If I then install Execl
5.0 and PowerPoint 4.0 within the Apps folder then indeed they will share
the Microsoft folder that's at that level.
If, however, I install Word 6.0 in "Macintosh HD:Writing Apps:MS Word 6.0"
and install Excel in 'Macintosh HD:Spreadsheets:New:MS Excel 5.0" and then
install PowerPoint 4.0 in "Macintosh HD:Presentations:Graphics:MS
Powerpoint 4.0", I will wind up with 3 Microsoft folders. The first will
be installed with Word within the 'Apps' folder. Since Excel was
installed in a different folder level than Word a second Microsoft folder
gets installed at the level of Excel (in the "New" folder using my
examples). For the same reason a third Microsoft folder will get
installed with PowerPoint since its in a different location/level than
either Word or Excel.
Though I appreciate your comments regarding the Microsoft folder and use
of RAM disks, if the alternative is to have multiple Micorsoft folders
scattered about because someone didn't follow a consistent installation
scheme, I'd opt for putting the Microsoft folder back inside Extensions.
At least this way the Setup program for each application will be directed
to a common location regardless of where each user elects to install the
applications.
--
Spencer Kantor
Bellcore
Paul Z. Myers
re...@medicine.wustl.edu writes:
>Anyway, I just wanted to let folks at MicroSoft know why I'm going to be
>recommending to my department that we NOT upgrade to Word 6.0. So, if
you
>could pass this on to your boss and whoever else you feel might want to
>see it, I'd appreciate it. The reason that I'm doing this is that I
>really liked Word 5.1. However, as long as the complaints I'm mentioning
>(and they're certainly not unique to me) remain unanswered by MicroSoft,
>I'm not buying anything else them.
I have to agree with these sentiments -- I've been using Word for years,
watching it bloat up into a clumsy dinosaur, and I've finally had enough.
It's bad enough that it consumes an amazing amount of RAM and hard
disk space, but now that Microsoft's arrogance is big enough that they
can ignore many of the Apple conventions and guidelines, I can't see
myself upgrading from 5.1 to 6.
Unfortunately, I've got a lot of documents in 5.1 format that I can't
abandon.
Can anyone suggest an alternative that can read MS Word 5.1 files, and can
also handle large files efficiently (I've got a number of 150-200 page
documents)?
I've seen an old version of Word Perfect, and was totally turned off -- a
very weird
PC-ish interface. If it has improved substantially, let me know. I've
also heard good
things about Nisus...are there any significant features from Word that
are missing
in Nisus or WP?
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Z. Myers my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology (215) 204-8848
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
David Gutierrez
re...@medicine.wustl.edu (Thomas Reed) wrote:
> WordPerfect is starting to look better and better, even if
> I do have to retrain everyone in how to use a new word processor.
Apple Guide will help you with this retraining, if your Macs are running
System 7.5. Apple Guide is yet another technology that Microsoft should -
and doesn't - support.
--
David Gutierrez
d...@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu
"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
Lyle Zynda
> [edited for brevity]
> < I've seen an old version of Word Perfect, and was totally turned off -- a
> < very weird
> < PC-ish interface. If it has improved substantially, let me know.
Wordperfect 3.0 is *much* better than previous versions. I was totally
turned off when I tried 2.1 (clunkiest thing I'd ever seen), but 3.0 is
quite elegant, powerful, and intuitive. Give it a try.
As for translating Word 5.1 documents, Wordperfect 3.0 did a pretty good
job when I tried it, though you have to do a fair amount of cleaning up.
For example, graphics and tables weren't placed quite right after
translation, and between-paragraph spacing went to the default (none).
The thought of cleaning up all my documents was one of the factors that
made me stick with Word.
The Maclink translator suite might do a better job of translating.
Lyle Zynda
Jean-Daniel Gousenberg
(Thomas Reed) writes:
>
> (Much VERY valuable stuff skipped)
>
>The bottom line? I believe that Word 6.0 is going to kill MicroSoft's
>standing in the Mac market. I know lots of people in lots of similar
>departments with an installed base of old, low-power Macs and a few
>high-power Quadras or PowerMacs. These people have no more intention of
>upgrading to Word 6.0 than I do, because not everyone in their department
>would be able to run it. As I imagine that most of MicroSoft's income
>from MS Word in the Mac market comes from businesses with a similar
>installed base of machines, it seems to me that MicroSoft has just shot
>itself in the foot.
>
If I had a bent for the numerous "Microsoft conspiracy" theories, couldn't I
suspect Microsoft of doing that (i.e. releasing very fat new versions of Word
and Excel for Macintosh) on purpose?
Their purpose? To "persuade" their "Mac" customers to give up ever upgrading
their Macs (at high costs) and to switch to PC's (admittedly less expensive
than Macs for the same power) instead. In other words, to kill Apple, since at
least 50% of all Macs have been bought to run mainly office automation
applications (i.e., more often than not, Microsoft products).
The benefits for Microsoft?
1) In the desktop market, a quasi-monopoly of operating systems
(sole serious surviving competitor: Unix)
2) In the office automation application market, much less serious competition
from much better products than their own (exeunt those of Apple/Claris and
all Mac-oriented products of other companies)
3) Huge savings in manpower (all their "Mac" people can be fired or reassigned
to other, growing, market-driven tasks).
Disclaimer: all the foregoing is, of course, only the erring ways of a perverse
imagination...
--
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Jean-Daniel Gousenberg |Snail-mail: EPFL
Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne| SIC
Service informatique central | CH-1015 Lausanne
Lausanne, Switzerland |Internet: gouse...@sic.epfl.ch
|Phone: +41 21 693 45 85
|Fax: +41 21 693 55 00
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Paul Meakin
>Anyway, I just wanted to let folks at MicroSoft know why I'm going to be
>recommending to my department that we NOT upgrade to Word 6.0. So, if you
>could pass this on to your boss and whoever else you feel might want to
>see it, I'd appreciate it. The reason that I'm doing this is that I
>really liked Word 5.1. However, as long as the complaints I'm mentioning
So did I.
>(and they're certainly not unique to me) remain unanswered by MicroSoft,
>I'm not buying anything else them.
And neither am I.
>
>My problem with the new Word 6.0 is that, according to everyone I've
>talked to, Word 6.0 doesn't support Apple's wonderful new technologies,
>like Apple Drag and Drop or WorldScript, among other things, while other
>word processors supported these technologies before Word 6.0 came out. I
>refuse to believe that a software giant like MicroSoft couldn't get it
>together quickly enough to get support for these technologies added in
>time for release. That leaves the possibility that MicroSoft simply has
>no plans to support these technologies, and I cannot tolerate that. I
It may be worse than a possibility. I seem to remember reading in MacUser (UK)
recently a statement from a Microsoft spokesperson that they were NOT
going to support OpenDoc in particular, because everyone wants OLE anyway....and I
think it was extended to various other of the recently added features. If anyone is
interested enough, I'll try to find the article; I believe it even directly quoted an individual.
Of course, you should never believe everything you read in the press.....but if the quote *was* correct it's a stupid comment, to be blunt, especially given that Microsoft seems to be the
only one of the major players that is sticking with OLE. Bucking a trend is tough to do, ask IBM
about the mainframe market.
>The bottom line? I believe that Word 6.0 is going to kill MicroSoft's
>standing in the Mac market. I know lots of people in lots of similar
>departments with an installed base of old, low-power Macs and a few
>high-power Quadras or PowerMacs. These people have no more intention of
>upgrading to Word 6.0 than I do, because not everyone in their department
>would be able to run it. As I imagine that most of MicroSoft's income
>from MS Word in the Mac market comes from businesses with a similar
>installed base of machines, it seems to me that MicroSoft has just shot
>itself in the foot.
It looks this way to me too. And from what I can gather, the PC using folks are not
overjoyed about Word 6 either. For me, the performance isn't a major issue, given that
I'm running on an 040 with plenty of disk and RAM, but the apparent lack of
commitment to these system enhancements that Apple has recently added, or will soon
add in the case of OpenDoc, means that Word 6 is of no use at all. In some ways this
is a pity; I've recently seen a demo of it, and it has some nice features.
Paul
Thomas Reed
definitely tell your boss that this is the kind of support we want out of
MicroSoft!)
Anyway, I just wanted to let folks at MicroSoft know why I'm going to be
recommending to my department that we NOT upgrade to Word 6.0. So, if you
could pass this on to your boss and whoever else you feel might want to
see it, I'd appreciate it. The reason that I'm doing this is that I
really liked Word 5.1. However, as long as the complaints I'm mentioning
(and they're certainly not unique to me) remain unanswered by MicroSoft,
I'm not buying anything else them.
My problem with the new Word 6.0 is that, according to everyone I've
talked to, Word 6.0 doesn't support Apple's wonderful new technologies,
like Apple Drag and Drop or WorldScript, among other things, while other
word processors supported these technologies before Word 6.0 came out. I
refuse to believe that a software giant like MicroSoft couldn't get it
together quickly enough to get support for these technologies added in
time for release. That leaves the possibility that MicroSoft simply has
no plans to support these technologies, and I cannot tolerate that. I
will switch to a company that respects the Macintosh. Given MicroSoft's
track record of not following Apple's developer guidelines, along with the
slap in the face of not supporting these technologies, I don't have a
whole lot of faith that they respect the machine sitting on every desk in
my department. WordPerfect is starting to look better and better, even if
I do have to retrain everyone in how to use a new word processor.
The bottom line? I believe that Word 6.0 is going to kill MicroSoft's
standing in the Mac market. I know lots of people in lots of similar
departments with an installed base of old, low-power Macs and a few
high-power Quadras or PowerMacs. These people have no more intention of
upgrading to Word 6.0 than I do, because not everyone in their department
would be able to run it. As I imagine that most of MicroSoft's income
from MS Word in the Mac market comes from businesses with a similar
installed base of machines, it seems to me that MicroSoft has just shot
itself in the foot.
Please remedy this situation! There are people out here (like me) who
have been loyal to Word for years who are nonetheless turning away now. I
have defended MS Word many times against people who judged it poorly
simply because it was a MicroSoft product. I will no longer do so. If
the bigwigs at MicroSoft want to change this situation, I have just one
last thing to say -- have some respect for the Mac!
Martin Persson
< In article <reed-1710940845030001@thomas_mac.wustl.edu> Thomas Reed,
< re...@medicine.wustl.edu writes:
< >Anyway, I just wanted to let folks at MicroSoft know why I'm going to be
< >recommending to my department that we NOT upgrade to Word 6.0. So, if
< you
< >could pass this on to your boss and whoever else you feel might want to
< >see it, I'd appreciate it. The reason that I'm doing this is that I
< >really liked Word 5.1. However, as long as the complaints I'm mentioning
< >(and they're certainly not unique to me) remain unanswered by MicroSoft,
< >I'm not buying anything else them.
<
< I have to agree with these sentiments -- I've been using Word for years,
< watching it bloat up into a clumsy dinosaur, and I've finally had enough.
< It's bad enough that it consumes an amazing amount of RAM and hard
< disk space, but now that Microsoft's arrogance is big enough that they
< can ignore many of the Apple conventions and guidelines, I can't see
< myself upgrading from 5.1 to 6.
I agree there. Having an old Macintosh II with "only" 68020, 15.667 MHz and 8
Mbyte of memory I won't upgrade. it's slow enough as it is.
However, I of course blame it on the programmers writing dinosaurcode, for
just about 2 years ago, this computer was still rockin' even if it was
barely... ;)
< Unfortunately, I've got a lot of documents in 5.1 format that I can't
< abandon.
< Can anyone suggest an alternative that can read MS Word 5.1 files, and can
< also handle large files efficiently (I've got a number of 150-200 page
< documents)?
< I've seen an old version of Word Perfect, and was totally turned off -- a
< very weird
< PC-ish interface. If it has improved substantially, let me know. I've
< also heard good
< things about Nisus...are there any significant features from Word that
< are missing
< in Nisus or WP?
Why not do as I'm planning to do, keep your "old" 5.1 for backwardscompability
and write all new stuff in something that you like better?
< ------------------------------------------------------------
< Paul Z. Myers my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
< Dept. of Biology (215) 204-8848
< Temple University
< Philadelphia, PA 19122
I met my sweetie through ___|___ Mac II: _____________ Microsoft:
the net and fell in love! _____(")_____ It is slow, |----------==-| When your
Now: How much is the tax () | | | () but it look |_____________| machine is
for importing her here..? " " " impressive. LLLLLLLLLLLLU too fast..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------- I came, I read, I unsubscribed... ----------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- The major drawback of being scizophrenic is that you're never alone... ----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Abguva' urer rkrcg sbe zr naq gung by' qrivy, 666 ba lbh gbb... ;) ------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Sobiloff
ring...@umich.edu (Daniel Mackay Ringrose) wrote:
> I'll second the elegance of the WP 3.0 design. To me this seems to be the
> result of a team at WP being allowed to write a real -Mac- word processor
> instead of trying to port over their Windows version. I prefer it to Word
> 5.1 and the transition was very smooth.
I'll third the recommendation. I've been playing around with 3.1 the past
couple of days and am finally confident recommending it over MS Word, 5.1a
or 6.0. As a matter of fact, I've spec'd it as the standard WP for our
area to replace 5.1a. (The other thing I was waiting for was for EndNote
to finally support v3.x in the native document format; EndNote 2 Plus
takes care of this requirement, also.)
Now, if only we could find a replacement for Excel. Mariner seems to be
able to deal with some of the lightweight stuff, but it's not a complete
solution. Why can't someone resurrect WingZ? *That* was a cool app in its
day...
--
Blake Sobiloff <sobi...@mail.lap.umd.edu> | University of Maryland
Laboratory for Automation Psychology | College Park, MD 20742-4411
Department of Psychology | 301/405-5936 (Voice)
http://www.lap.umd.edu/LAPFolder/People/Sobiloff.html
Daniel Mackay Ringrose
result of a team at WP being allowed to write a real -Mac- word processor
instead of trying to port over their Windows version. I prefer it to Word
5.1 files worked well. A previous poster mentioned a problem with
graphics not being placed properly - this happened to me too, but the fix
was just a matter of fixing the graphic to the page. I have not had the
other problems mentioned with paragraph spacing, perhaps because my Word
documents were formatted with pretty comprehensive style sheets, which WP
does a good job of converting. These were long, book-length chapter, too.
I'm using WP on a 68040 and it is at least as responsive as Word 5. The
program feature set is exactly the same on the Power Mac, just faster, or
so I am told by a colleague. The price of the package ($89) for 3.0, plus
free disk upgrade to 3.1, was less than upgrading to Word 6, especially
since most people will need an additional hard disk for all Word 6's
Windows-clone code and files. The "student" essentials pack also includes
fonts, a separate Random House/Webster dictionary program, a golf game and
a nice dictionary/thesaurus modules for French, German and Spanish. Give
it a try.
Dan Ringrose
University of Michigan, History Program
ring...@umich.edu
Lyle Zynda (lzy...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: In <37u5pp$d...@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu writes:
: > [edited for brevity]
: > < I've seen an old version of Word Perfect, and was totally turned off
: > < -- a
: > < very weird
: > < PC-ish interface. If it has improved substantially, let me know.
: Wordperfect 3.0 is *much* better than previous versions. I was totally
Tim Graves
> Apple Guide will help you with this retraining, if your Macs are running
> System 7.5. Apple Guide is yet another technology that Microsoft should -
> and doesn't - support.
>
> --
> David Gutierrez
> d...@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu
>
> "Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
Actually we do support it in Microsoft Office. The Office Cue Cards use
AppleGuide technology on System 7.5.
I'm certain that future versions of our products will support it as well.
-tim
__________________
The above in no way constitutes an endorsement by my employer...honest!
Shawn Casey
matter.
Unfortunatly, I must agree that Word 6 seems like a dog/pig/elephant but I
would choose Word5.1a over WP3.0 any day of the week. We used WP for quite
a while the department that I support. WP 3.0 finally brought WP into the
realm of Word 5.0 but we have had a lot of trouble with WP3.0 eating
documents.
Every now and then, especially when saving files to a shared disk (server),
WP will have trouble writing the file. It will complete the write but
leave errors in the file. Well, WP generally dies when there is an error
in the file and at best you are only able to get the text from the file. I
have had some luck with inserting the doucment into a new document and
saving the file (no problems) but it just won't seem to load from the
orginal -- header problems, I guess.
Anyway if Word every has a problem with a file (few, if not non-exisitent)
it will put dashes in the file.
Anyway, I wouldn't bother unless they come out with the 4th (we have been
through 3 already, kinda buggy).
Just my thought on the issue..
Shawn
Tim Graves
> >No, this isn't the case. The 'Microsoft' folder is registered in the
> >Registration Database file, so every other app from the new generation
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >should use the same folder. If the Registration Database file is thrown
> >away or corrupted, then yes, you would probably end up with several Microsoft
> >folders running around. No problem, just put all the contents together
> >in one folder, and put it whereever you want.
>
> This smells suspiciously of Windows here....;-)
>
> Michael S. Guzzo msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov
> Email me for the FutureBasic FAQ
Well, we need to have someplace to store all this information...;-)
-tim
Tim Collins
> I don't agree that WP3.0 is a good solution over Word 5 or 6 for that
> matter.
or 3.1 for real yet.... I have got the demo of version 3.0, and Iliked
what I saw...
> Unfortunatly, I must agree that Word 6 seems like a dog/pig/elephant but I
> would choose Word5.1a over WP3.0 any day of the week. We used WP for quite
> a while the department that I support. WP 3.0 finally brought WP into the
> realm of Word 5.0 but we have had a lot of trouble with WP3.0 eating
> documents.
> Every now and then, especially when saving files to a shared disk (server),
> WP will have trouble writing the file. It will complete the write but
> leave errors in the file. Well, WP generally dies when there is an error
> in the file and at best you are only able to get the text from the file. I
> have had some luck with inserting the doucment into a new document and
> saving the file (no problems) but it just won't seem to load from the
> orginal -- header problems, I guess.
I use Word for Windows 2.0 at work (here), and that too has problems:
Every now-and-again, Word (Excel too for that matter), will simply
leave a document in a totally unreadable form. Completely useless.
Not only that, but often trying to read the file in causes a
Unrecoverable Application Error (UAE), followed by a General
Protection Failt (GPF), and Windows is forced into an ugly crash.
> Anyway if Word every has a problem with a file (few, if not non-exisitent)
> it will put dashes in the file.
That's not been my experience under Windows. I don't use Word on the
Mac... so I can't comment.
> Anyway, I wouldn't bother unless they come out with the 4th (we have been
> through 3 already, kinda buggy).
> Just my thought on the issue..
Thanks for sharing them with us.
> Shawn
Tim.
Rick Horowitz
Thomas Reed <re...@medicine.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Please remedy this situation! There are people out here (like me) who
>have been loyal to Word for years who are nonetheless turning away now. I
>have defended MS Word many times against people who judged it poorly
>simply because it was a MicroSoft product. I will no longer do so. If
>the bigwigs at MicroSoft want to change this situation, I have just one
>last thing to say -- have some respect for the Mac!
>
>Thomas Reed Washington University
I, too, have been a loyal user of Word in the past, since my first Mac
512K, and version 1 of Word. I built my business on Word. I defended
Word 5.1a against many people I heard complaining and was (largely)
happy with it. On the other hand, I've always hated MS's high-handed
attitude/method of dealing with the Mac. Though Word has been a good
program for me, it's limited my system in some ways, because it
refuses to adhere to Apple guidelines.
From what I've heard and read about 6.0, I have been looking for a new
upgrade path which bypasses MS. I have friends who own a print shop
who tell me they are doing the same. (Most of the time now, they use
Pagemaker anyway.)
The part that makes me want to cry is hearing that I'm probably going
to have to soon do the same thing about abandoning my Quicken program
for some non-MS product. :(
Rick Horowitz
Tim Smith
>Shawn Casey (ca...@opim.wharton.upenn.edu) wrote:
>> a while the department that I support. WP 3.0 finally brought WP into the
>> realm of Word 5.0 but we have had a lot of trouble with WP3.0 eating
>> documents.
>I use Word for Windows 2.0 at work (here), and that too has problems:
>Every now-and-again, Word (Excel too for that matter), will simply
>leave a document in a totally unreadable form. Completely useless.
I can top that. I was using Word 5.1a to type a final exam. An hour
into the 4 hour exam, it crashed. Fortunately, I save my work every
few minutes, so that was not too serious. I rebooted, and tried to
open the document. It worked! I was happy.
Then I quit, and restarted with no inits (I wanted to have an absolutely
safe environment for finishing the exam). My document was now trashed.
WordPerfect also has problems. I've not managed to get it to crash, but
it does like to go into what appear to be infinite loops now and then.
Usually, these are during file import, but I've also seen it when trying
to change formatting.
I think it's time to switch to TeX or troff for my serious writing.
--Tim Smith
Sean Peisert
(Abbott Schindler) wrote:
> >
> > I know a 25 Mhz '030 is hardly fast any more but the program is not only
> > ridiculously slow, it won't coexist with 7.1 in 4Mb RAM without shutting
> > off features. This may be time for me to move to WP, when I can afford to
> > ...
>
> You owe your experience to Microsoft's "common code", wherein they seek to
> make Macs be x86 environments (and apps look like Windoze).
>
> Check into WP competitive upgrades. I think I've seen them for $89 or so
> mail order. And you're right: WP3.x is a better word processor than Word.
Word 5.1a (for Mac) is an incredibly great Word Processor and I think is
significantly better than WP. I haven't seen 6.0 but with all the
enhancements (including PPC Native Code), I can't imagine why it wouldn't
run even better on my PowerMac 6100/AV.
--
Sean Peisert
spei...@ucsd.edu
Loki the Trickster
spei...@ucsd.edu (Sean Peisert) wrote:
< Word 5.1a (for Mac) is an incredibly great Word Processor and I think is
< significantly better than WP. I haven't seen 6.0 but with all the
< enhancements (including PPC Native Code), I can't imagine why it wouldn't
< run even better on my PowerMac 6100/AV.
Heh. Don't hold yer breath. MACWeek just did a lil test of PPC Word 6 and
found it was still fairly slow; e.g. it didn't show the usual 100% speed
increase over the 68K version, more like 20-40%. On a
slow-as-molasses-on-a-January-morning program like the 68K version, that's
pretty bad. I wouldn't expect it to run any faster than 5.1 under
emulation...
Word 6 is the most useless, bloated, slow, crashy program I've ever
installed, and then removed. Ugh. I know of no other app that takes 3
minutes to launch on a Q610.
---------- \=\
bro...@mizar.usc.edu /=/
I'll take my lumps, and like 'em \=\ /=/
Abbott Schindler
mms...@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Max Schaefer) wrote:
> In article <reed-1710940845030001@thomas_mac.wustl.edu>,
> re...@medicine.wustl.edu (Thomas Reed) wrote:
>
> > I believe that Word 6.0 is going to kill MicroSoft's
> > standing in the Mac market.
>
> It certainly should do. I've been using Word 5.1 on my Duo 210 and Word 6
> on a fast 486 at home, and found the latter made a lot more sense (macros,
> fields, zoomed views, evil OLE etc.) so I got it asap when it came out for
> the Mac.
>
> I know a 25 Mhz '030 is hardly fast any more but the program is not only
> ridiculously slow, it won't coexist with 7.1 in 4Mb RAM without shutting
> off features. This may be time for me to move to WP, when I can afford to
> ...
You owe your experience to Microsoft's "common code", wherein they seek to
make Macs be x86 environments (and apps look like Windoze).
Check into WP competitive upgrades. I think I've seen them for $89 or so
mail order. And you're right: WP3.x is a better word processor than Word.
Abbott (who switched and is happy he did!)
n/a
> In article <mms1000-23...@mac119.nmus.pwf.cam.ac.uk>,
> mms...@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Max Schaefer) wrote:
>
> > In article <reed-1710940845030001@thomas_mac.wustl.edu>,
> > re...@medicine.wustl.edu (Thomas Reed) wrote:
> >
> > > I believe that Word 6.0 is going to kill MicroSoft's
> > > standing in the Mac market.
> >
Speaking of which...I noticed a new ad from WordPerfect up here in Canada
claiming to have become the new number one Mac-wp in terms of sales,
etc....I wonder if the same pattern will eventually arise in the U.S.
Rick Sparrow
<rspa...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
P.S. I installed Word 6 and am generally happy with it, although it is
somewhat slower. I was expecting this, but I was a little annoyed after
seeing Word 6 on a 486. The two are essentially the same now, yet the Mac
version loads and runs much slower than WinWord 6. I think MS should forget
about adding features and concentrate on speed next time.
Paragon Software
Ugh!
If you want stable software, go to NisusWriter. Even if the file was
to become messed up (not likely; I've never had this happen, and I
use it all day, everyday, to write code), you'd be able to recover most
of it because the file type is TEXT, the formatting is held in the
resource fork.
Yes, I work for Nisus Software, and yes I worked on NisusWriter. But
I have to speak up because it saddens me to see people put up with
software that crashes on an hourly basis.
Cheers,
-jOn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%
SoftwareEngineer: jOn mAtOUsEk; Internet: j...@weber.ucsd.edu
%% Bitnet: jmatousek@ucsd
Nisus Software, Inc. AppleLink: nisus.mgmt -or- nisus.tech
107 S. Cedros Ave.
Solana Beach, Ca. 92075 Voice: (619)481-1477
USA FAX: (619)481-6154
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nisus Inet User Group Subscribe Request: list...@syrinx.kgs.ukans.edu
with message: subscribe nisus Your Name
==========================================================================
Mike Scott
Im on a 660av here. It no speed demon but Im not use to waiting
for 2-3 minutes while apps launch. What a piece of junk. Did
Microsoft finish the rest of office and just throw word in there as it
was???? The DOS/Windoze fanatics are gonna use this example to rave now
about how much faster IBM (clones) are. Probably the reason Microsoft did
it with
the number of DOS/Widoze users moving over to the Mac.
Just pissed
--
Any good suggestions for a signature???
Thomas Reed
>I haven't seen 6.0 but with all the
>enhancements (including PPC Native Code), I can't imagine why it wouldn't
>run even better on my PowerMac 6100/AV.
What with all the bug reports I've seen on the 'net, and with the
technologies that MS refused to support in Word 6.0 (like Drag and Drop,
WorldScript, etc.), I think you'd be crazy to upgrade to Word 6.0. You
can get a working program that takes less room AND supports Apple's newest
technologies by buying almost ANY other commercial word processor.
WordPerfect is looking mighty good to me right now.
Oh, and BTW, from what I've heard, Word 6.0 is NOT native.
David H. Gorski
But what if you don't have a PowerMac? On 68030 machines, Word 6.0 is
painfully sloooooooooow.
--
David H. Gorski, M.D.,Ph.D.|"Do you have the time
Dept. of Surgery | To listen to me whine
CWRU School of Medicine | About nothing and everything all at once?"
e-mail: dh...@po.cwru.edu | Green Day, 1994
Sean Peisert
Gorski) wrote:
> >> Check into WP competitive upgrades. I think I've seen them for $89 or so
> >> mail order. And you're right: WP3.x is a better word processor than Word.
> >
> >Word 5.1a (for Mac) is an incredibly great Word Processor and I think is
> >significantly better than WP. I haven't seen 6.0 but with all the
> >enhancements (including PPC Native Code), I can't imagine why it wouldn't
> >run even better on my PowerMac 6100/AV.
>
> But what if you don't have a PowerMac? On 68030 machines, Word 6.0 is
> painfully sloooooooooow.
True, but we can't stand in the way of progress...the Mac world is going
PowerMac. We can't just say "Don't make large and complex software so it
will run on a Mac SE." That software already exists and in non-buggy
form. Word 5.1a is a great program which ran fine on my LC. The question
is, is if you have the PowerMac and a lot of spare RAM, will Word 6 be a
good program?
--
Sean Peisert
spei...@ucsd.edu
"To boldly go..."
Kenneth Kalan
spei...@ucsd.edu (Sean Peisert) wrote:
I recently installed the new MS office for my boss on his mac. I launched
Word 6 to see if it installed correctly and to get a quick look at it.
Once it opened and I saw it's new ruler, I almost puked. It looked like
something right out of a windoze machine. I imediately quit the program
and made sure the old version 5.1a was still there. I will install the
word command module for ver. 5 which allows it to open word 6 documents.
Call me prejusdice, but I did not buy a Mac so that the programs can
regress and look like some lame windoze machine. Perhaps I too need to
look at Word Perfect.
Ken
-------------------------------------------------------- _--
Kenneth Kalan PP ASEL ===_ / |
Northwestern University | ___/[__ ] \___/__ |
Prosthetics Research Laboratory |\__ _|___|_____===/
Rehabilitation Engineering Program | \/
k...@nwu.edu N9YIR o O
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kerr
> Word 5.1a is a great program which ran fine on my LC.
Sho' thing! And Word 4.00e runs even faster on an LC.
Color ToolBar indeed!
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland neo-Luddite
Eric S. Ford
In a previous article, k...@nwu.edu (Kenneth Kalan) says:
>I recently installed the new MS office for my boss on his mac. I launched
>Word 6 to see if it installed correctly and to get a quick look at it.
>Once it opened and I saw it's new ruler, I almost puked. It looked like
>something right out of a windoze machine. I imediately quit the program
>and made sure the old version 5.1a was still there. I will install the
>word command module for ver. 5 which allows it to open word 6 documents.
How much of this dislike for Word 6 is just due to its similar appearance
to the Windows version? I've read some very good critical reviews but
I find this type of complaint nonsensical. Too big, too slow, buggy,
etc. are good comments, if true, but "I hate it cause it looks like
another system" seems a little childish.
--
Eric S. Ford "Time: it's what keeps history from
ag...@yfn.ysu.edu happening all at once." G.Effinger
E.F...@genie.geis.com
Charles Reeves, Jr.
>to the Windows version? I've read some very good critical reviews but
>I find this type of complaint nonsensical. Too big, too slow, buggy,
>etc. are good comments, if true, but "I hate it cause it looks like
>another system" seems a little childish.
>
If that were all there was to these kinds of complaints, I would agree. But
I think the intent of most of these complaints are due to the use of dialog
boxes, etc. that are very non-Mac standard. One of the beauties of the Mac
user interface is that things work the same way from application to
application. It ain't necessarily so in other operating systems that are
attempting to copy the Mac interface.
VAr...@varase.it.luc.edu
>How much of this dislike for Word 6 is just due to its similar appearance
>to the Windows version? I've read some very good critical reviews but
>I find this type of complaint nonsensical. Too big, too slow, buggy,
>etc. are good comments, if true, but "I hate it cause it looks like
>another system" seems a little childish.
My dislike for Word 6 stems from its _glacial_ speed and enormous disk
footprint (26? 27 megs?).
And no, I don't think it looks like a Windows app, except for that silly
PC toolbar that everyone seems to be including nowdays.
The problem is that on a Powerbook 160 (68030 at 25mhz) Word is so glacial
that there are occasions when I think the computer's hung, and am starting
to consider rebooting only to have it "free up". Of course, this involes
doing something onerous - like opening and viewing a one page WFW 6 document
with tables.
Before I learned that the "hang" would eventually resolve itself, I used to
try Option-Command-Esc-ing from Word; this would almost always result in
a system so badly munged that the safest bet was a power-off and back on.
Launching Word takes so long that it's become an asynchronous task; when I
know I'm going to have to use Word (and _have_ is the operative word here),
I'll launch it and go get a cup of coffee or go work on my PC. I refuse to
watch Word grunt and grind its way to usefullness as doing so invariably
makes me angry.
I'm strongly considering going back to 5.1a and shopping around for another
word processor. I have Nissus Compact, Taste, and WriteNow, but all lack
really usable styles (which are just about a requirement for some of my
longer technical docs). Sections are also nice, as are the ability to generate
an index and table of contents, as well as good translation services.
Anyone have any recommendations for a Macintosh word procesor with the above
stuff? I'm willing to forgo the cross-platform conversion stuff if the MacLink
Plus which came with 7.5 is up to doing document translation to and from this
format.
John T. Chapman
(Peter Kerr) wrote:
> Anyone tried Word 6 on a Plus?
Word 6 requires a minimum of a 68020 processor, which excludes the Plus,
Classic, PowerBook 100, Mac Portable & SE. Probably some others that I'm
forgetting, too. (Before you complain too loudly, this is pretty
reasonable, considering that 32-bit QuickDraw has similar requirements and
has been out for years. Heck - that might even be the reason for Word's
requirement.)
However, I wouldn't recommend running Word 6 on anything slower than a
IIci with at least 12M of memory. It is sluggish on a IIci, too.
It runs acceptably on a Centris 610 (20MHz LC040 processor) and fairly
well in emulation on PowerMacs (with a native version reportedly just
shipping).
It is hardly a speed demon, though, and definitely has large resource
requirements (RAM, HD space), but is packed with features.
Oh yeah - if you are running it and are finding it _incredibly_ slow or
prone to crashes, try the following:
* Disable all extensions by booting with Shift and see if the problems persist
* Disable (or live with ;-) antivirus scanning of files as they open (e.g.
MacTools antivirus) These need to scan all resources and code as a
file/application is opened; Word 6 has a ton of code... This will cause a
pretty significant slowdown.
* Reduce the number of fonts in your system. Beware of old versions of
Suitcase, ATM, Adobe Type Reunion, etc. - they will cause problems.
* Check for corrupted fonts. Word caches fonts when loading and will
occasionally hang if it runs into a corrupted font. (Hey - it's a word
processor _and_ a font tester ;-)
* Beware of old versions of Now Utilities; there are known incompatibilities...
Check the Microsoft Word forum on Compuserve; there is a lot of discussion
on these and other issues.
Also, check out the Microsoft WWW Home Page & search the MS Knowledge Base:
Good luck!
--
John T. Chapman jt...@cornell.edu
Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
Cornell University - College of Human Ecology
________________________________________________________________________
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson
Patrick Hoepfner
(Peter Kerr) wrote:
> In article <speisert-061...@speisert.extern.ucsd.edu>,
> spei...@ucsd.edu (Sean Peisert) wrote:
>
> > Word 5.1a is a great program which ran fine on my LC.
> Sho' thing! And Word 4.00e runs even faster on an LC.
> Color ToolBar indeed!
When I read about Word 6.0's RAM and disk requirements I looked at my copy
of Word 5.0 that I run on this LC at work. Apparently the new version
takes 4 times the RAM, and 4 times the disk space. Does this mean that it
has 4 times the features??? Does it runs 4 times faster??? (It should do
*both*, but it does *neither*)
According to a MacWEEK columnist, one of Word 6 features (counting words)
takes 11 times longer (yes that *is* ELEVEN). Do you think it makes sense
for a company to shell out the bucks to buy a brand new machine and scads
of memory to do the same old things a little slower than before? None of
the new features would compel me (let alone my company) to shell out for
the software upgrade, let alone throw out the majority of the machines
they have for no compelling reason. With the way that companies are
holding their purse strings so tight, I can't see many of them upgrading
unless they already had the hardware needed to support it. According to
TidBITS a Quadra or PPC > 60Mhz (i.e. not the PowerMac 6100/60) is needed
to do it justice.
Who knows, if Word 6 had a new *killer* feature, I might get it *and* a
brand new machine. But it would have to be some feature...
NOTE: I haven't tried Word 6 myself and I don't expect to either!
-- Pat --------------------------------------> hoep...@haiti.gsfc.nasa.gov
Peter Kerr
>
> Anyone have any recommendations for a Macintosh word procesor with the above
> stuff? I'm willing to forgo the cross-platform conversion stuff if the MacLink
> Plus which came with 7.5 is up to doing document translation to and from this
> format.
Word 4?
I'm hanging onto mine because I see a collectors market for it in the
future. Hows about a *Classic Word Processors Club* ?
As for translators, I use Claris Works to import foreign files and
re-export as MS Word4. Yeah, kludgy, but you can do this on a MacPlus with
6.0.7.
Anyone tried Word 6 on a Plus?
--
Russell Mast
> "I hate it cause it looks like another system" seems a little childish.
Nonsense. If it really is a complaint about the aesthetics, certainly,
that may be a bit childish. But, the consumer is always right, even on
aesthetics.
More importantly, the 'looks' of a program influence its functionality.
For example, if a piece of software had a very non-standard Open File
dialog box, someone might complain about the "looks" of it, when, in fact,
they have a more difficult time efficiently using it because they have to
learn new standards.
Complaints about non-Mac looks are justified, and generally not simply
aesthetic problems.
-R
John T. Chapman
hoep...@haiti.gsfc.nasa.gov (Patrick Hoepfner) wrote:
> When I read about Word 6.0's RAM and disk requirements I looked at my copy
> of Word 5.0 that I run on this LC at work. Apparently the new version
> takes 4 times the RAM, and 4 times the disk space. Does this mean that it
> has 4 times the features??? Does it runs 4 times faster??? (It should do
> *both*, but it does *neither*)
Maybe not 4 times the features, but Word 6 does have a greatly expanded
feature-set. Many of these have been key points on Word 4 & 5 users' wish
lists:
Macros Forms WordArt Character styles
Callouts Textboxes Cross-references Fields
RegExp Search/Replace AutoCorrect
Plus greaty improved page & document layout, including:
Variable-width columns Multiple page orientations w/in Document
Graphic anchoring Improved table tools
Zoom 'Thumbnail' previews
Also, a number of standard features _are_ faster in Word 6, including
spell checking and Find/Replace. Word count may be slower; I have not had
a chance to compare yet. (Hey - I rarely use the feature...)
Finally, most of the 27M installation is extras. For example, you get
roughly 2.5M of TrueType fonts, 1M of clip art, 2M of tutorials, 3M of
templates, etc. Furthermore, roughly 5M of stuff is now shareable with
other Microsoft products - dictionaries, the thesaurus, hyphenation, the
Equation Editor, MS Graph, etc.
Admittedly, Word 6 does have problems: it is pretty large and is slow on
many machines. Heck - Microsoft has even set up a MacWord 'task force' to
address these user complaints. However, unless you have tried it out for
yourself (and I mean tried it out, including checking for extension
conflicts, etc. that might be impacting performance), I don't think you
should be writing it off as a waste.
Just some thoughts...
Allan Marcus
>Also, a number of standard features _are_ faster in Word 6, including
>spell checking and Find/Replace. Word count may be slower; I have not had
>a chance to compare yet. (Hey - I rarely use the feature...)
Sorry, but I did a test and the spell check in 6.0 is _much_ slower than the
5.1a checker. Microsoft even confirmed that the spell check is a lot slower.
BTW, I ran my test on a PPC with the native version of 6.0 and all
extensions off.
-------------------------------------------------
Allan Marcus
"My opinions are my own, I think..."
AppleLink: Allan.Marcus
CIS: 76666,2113
InterNet: al...@apple.com (not affiliated with Apple Computer)
eWorld or NewtonMail: Allan.M
Day Job email: allan_...@lanl.gov
Day Job Voice: 505-665-1828
-------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Hoover
T. Chapman) wrote:
[- snip-]
>
> Oh yeah - if you are running it and are finding it _incredibly_ slow or
> prone to crashes, try the following:
>
> * Disable all extensions by booting with Shift and see if the problems persist
Cool, so I can't access any of my network or do much of anything else
while running Word 6. Why don't I use a specialized machine and not use a
multifuntion computer? I wonder if I can find an old Videk or Wang
machine? ;-) Should I by a seperate PowerMac and dedicate it to running
Word?
>
> * Disable (or live with ;-) antivirus scanning of files as they open (e.g.
> MacTools antivirus) These need to scan all resources and code as a
> file/application is opened; Word 6 has a ton of code... This will cause a
> pretty significant slowdown.
Oooh! That's safe! -Not
>
> * Reduce the number of fonts in your system. Beware of old versions of
> Suitcase, ATM, Adobe Type Reunion, etc. - they will cause problems.
>
> * Check for corrupted fonts. Word caches fonts when loading and will
> occasionally hang if it runs into a corrupted font. (Hey - it's a word
> processor _and_ a font tester ;-)
>
> * Beware of old versions of Now Utilities; there are known
incompatibilities...
All versions of Now Utilities?
>
> Check the Microsoft Word forum on Compuserve; there is a lot of discussion
> on these and other issues.
>
> Also, check out the Microsoft WWW Home Page & search the MS Knowledge Base:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/
>
> Good luck!
>
> --
> John T. Chapman jt...@cornell.edu
> Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
> Cornell University - College of Human Ecology
> ________________________________________________________________________
> "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
> We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson
--
Jeffrey J. Hoover voice- 408.526.5157
MacDude - ECS fax- 408.526.4575
Cisco Systems, Inc. email- j...@cisco.com
-BEAT CAL-
Jim Conner
From: John T. Chapman, jt...@cornell.edu
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 1994 17:55:23 -0500
In article <jtc1-09119...@132.236.42.176> John T. Chapman,
jt...@cornell.edu writes:
>In article <p.kerr-1011...@130.216.90.127>,
p.k...@auckland.ac.nz
>(Peter Kerr) wrote:
>
>> Anyone tried Word 6 on a Plus?
>
[numerous shortcomings of Word 6 deleted]
I heard recently that the "standard" word processor at Cornell is
MicroSoft Word. I was recently in a position in which a professor
insisted that our group install Word, primarily because _he_ was using it
and didn't want to deal with translation problems.
Word 6 has proven itself to be painfully slow and a memory hog (both RAM
and hard disk space). These days, when I'm asked to recommend a
full-featured word processor, I point to WordPerfect or FrameMaker. For
simpler work, I suggest either WriteNow or ClarisWorks. IMHO, MicroSoft
Word has too many shortcomings (memory, lack of speed, nonstandard
interface, incompatibilities, etc.) to be worth using.
>Check the Microsoft Word forum on Compuserve; there is a lot of
discussion
>on these and other issues.
'These issues' being incompatibilities and so on. I'm sure this forum is
very lively!
>Good luck!
Yes, you'll need that and a lot of patience to use Word.
Jim Conner
jc...@cornell.edu
Rick Zeman
Ve> From: VAr...@VArase.IT.LUC.Edu Organization: LUMC Computer Center
Ve> Date: 9 Nov 1994 15:59:23 GMT
Ve>
Ve> In <39p6i4$h...@news.ysu.edu>, ag...@yfn.ysu.edu (Eric S. Ford) writes:
Ve>
> How much of this dislike for Word 6 is just due to its similar
> appearance to the Windows version? I've read some very good critical
> reviews but I find this type of complaint nonsensical. Too big, too
> slow, buggy, etc. are good comments, if true, but "I hate it cause it
> looks like another system" seems a little childish.
>
Ve> My dislike for Word 6 stems from its _glacial_ speed and enormous disk
Ve> footprint (26? 27 megs?).
Ve>
Ve> And no, I don't think it looks like a Windows app, except for that
Ve> silly PC toolbar that everyone seems to be including nowdays.
Ve>
Ve> The problem is that on a Powerbook 160 (68030 at 25mhz) Word is so
Ve> glacial that there are occasions when I think the computer's hung, and
Ve> am starting to consider rebooting only to have it "free up". Of
Ve> course, this involes doing something onerous - like opening and
Ve> viewing a one page WFW 6 document with tables.
Ve>
Ve> Before I learned that the "hang" would eventually resolve itself, I
Ve> used to try Option-Command-Esc-ing from Word; this would almost always
Ve> result in a system so badly munged that the safest bet was a power-off
Ve> and back on.
Ve>
Ve> Launching Word takes so long that it's become an asynchronous task;
Ve> when I know I'm going to have to use Word (and _have_ is the operative
Ve> word here), I'll launch it and go get a cup of coffee or go work on my
Ve> PC. I refuse to watch Word grunt and grind its way to usefullness as
Ve> doing so invariably makes me angry.
Ve>
Ve> I'm strongly considering going back to 5.1a and shopping around for
Ve> another word processor. I have Nissus Compact, Taste, and WriteNow,
Ve> but all lack really usable styles (which are just about a requirement
Ve> for some of my longer technical docs). Sections are also nice, as are
Ve> the ability to generate an index and table of contents, as well as
Ve> good translation services.
MacWrite Pro has superb styles, implemented like Word 5.x's but more
useable, and all of the other features you want EXCEPT indexing.
___________________________________________________________________________
Rick Zeman Romance is dead. It was acquired in a hostile
rze...@his.com takeover by Hallmark and Disney, homogenized,
Fidonet: 1:109/716.943 and sold off piece by piece....
Will Rogers never met Bill Clinton
John T. Chapman
(Jeffrey J. Hoover) wrote:
> Cool, so I can't access any of my network or do much of anything else
> while running Word 6. Why don't I use a specialized machine and not use a
> multifuntion computer? I wonder if I can find an old Videk or Wang
> machine? ;-) Should I by a seperate PowerMac and dedicate it to running
> Word?
That's not what I said. To test for a conflict, you need to reboot without
extensions at least once and see if it is indeed a problem with an
extension or control panel. If Word 6 is still as slow as before, then you
needn't worry about any of your extensions. If it does speed up, there is
probably an extension conflict. Note that extensions will generally slow
down your system a bit; this is normal; you should be seeing a
(relatively) dramatic speedup if there is a conflict.
If you identify that there is a conflict, you can then try to isolate it
by slowly adding the extensions back into your system folder. I would
strongly recommend using an extension manager, such as share/freeware
Symbionts, Extension Manager, etc. or commercial Conflict Catcher II or
Now Startup Manager. Note that extension conflicts happen all the time and
Word is hardly the only offender. Usually such conflicts are easily
resolved; most developers will have a fix available fairly quickly.
[Regarding anti-virus file scanning:]
> Oooh! That's safe! -Not
A number of anti-viral programs simply check for and block viral activity.
Many will even look for 'virus-like' behavior. These are generally
sufficient for most users and should cause minimal slowdowns. However,
some programs (e.g. MacTools Antivirus) offer a mode by which _every_ file
is scanned for virus code when opened. This will often cause large
slowdowns, especially when booting and launching large programs. Word is
one of these large programs; it has a ton of code resources that would
need to be scanned. PageMaker and Canvas are also large programs and
experience similar slowdowns. Turning off this 'scan files' feature of
antivirals has minimal impact on antivirus security (as such programs will
still identify and block viral activity), especially if you do occasional
antivirus scans of your disks/files anyway. If you really feel you need
this extra level of protection, you will see a reasonably significant
speed hit; Word will be one of the programs more greatly affected.
> All versions of Now Utilities?
Actually, Microsoft and Now Software has identified some bugs in even the
latest release of Now Utilities(5.0) that will cause some problems with
Word (and probably some other programs). I believe the affected pieces are
NowMenus, SuperBoomerang and possibly NowSave. Now is working on a fix.
There are larger, more widespread problems with earlier versions; 3.x has
a number of conflicts and should not be used. 4.x has fewer, but make sure
you patch to the final release of 4.x (4.0.2?); that will solve most
conflicts.
Peter Kerr
<jc...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >Good luck!
>
> Yes, you'll need that and a lot of patience to use Word.
>
You don't need much luck or patience to run Word4.
What's hacking people off is having to stock up on both those commodities
just to run Word6
Thomas Reed
rm...@babies.bsd.uchicago.edu (Russell Mast) wrote:
>In article <39p6i4$h...@news.ysu.edu>, ag...@yfn.ysu.edu (Eric S. Ford) wrote:
>
>> "I hate it cause it looks like another system" seems a little childish.
>
>More importantly, the 'looks' of a program influence its functionality.
Take MS FoxPro 2.5 -- littered throughout the program, there are check
boxes that actually do things. This is quite against any Mac standards
I've ever seen. When you check a check box, that should be all you're
doing (well, it's okay if some items dim in response). In FoxPro,
checking a check box sometimes just does that, and sometimes it opens a
new dialog in which you enter more data. It would almost be better if
EVERY check box opened a new dialog! A little consistency would be
awfully nice!
Klaus
jt...@cornell.edu (John T. Chapman) writes:
|> There are larger, more widespread problems with earlier versions;
|> 3.x has a number of conflicts and should not be used. 4.x has fewer,
|> but make sure you patch to the final release of 4.x (4.0.2?); that
|> will solve most conflicts.
Is the patcher for this available anywhere on the net?
-Klaus (heil...@math.berkeley.edu)
Peter Kerr
(Klaus) wrote:
> In article <jtc1-11119...@132.236.42.176>
> jt...@cornell.edu (John T. Chapman) writes:
> |> but make sure you patch to the final release of 4.x (4.0.2?);
>
> Is the patcher for this available anywhere on the net?
>
MS didn't issue any patches in this part of the world.
You had to send your disk to them to be issued with the new version.
Latest I heard of was 4.00e although MS in New Zealand don't even know
about that, and there has been mention of a 4.00h
Marc Lefranc
Following this thread, I find myself quite happy to have switched
recently to TeX+Emacs+AucTeX !!
--
________________________________________________________________________
| Marc Lefranc, Laboratoire de Spectroscopie Hertzienne (URA CNRS 249) |
| Bat P5, UFR de Physique |
| Universite des Sciences et Technologies de Lille |
| F-59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq CEDEX (FRANCE) |
| e-mail: lef...@lsh.univ-lille1.fr ; FAX : (+33) 20 33 70 20 |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Mark M Mehl
In <jtc1-09119...@132.236.42.176> jt...@cornell.edu (John T. Chapman) writes:
>Maybe not 4 times the features, but Word 6 does have a greatly expanded
>feature-set. Many of these have been key points on Word 4 & 5 users' wish
>lists:
> Macros Forms WordArt Character styles
> Callouts Textboxes Cross-references Fields
> RegExp Search/Replace AutoCorrect
>Plus greaty improved page & document layout, including:
> Variable-width columns Multiple page orientations w/in Document
> Graphic anchoring Improved table tools
> Zoom 'Thumbnail' previews
I think the real point is that WordPerfect has had most of these
features for over a year and runs much faster than Word. Also,
WordPerfect has been native for nearly a year.
In addition, WordPerfect is very interested in supporting OpenDoc.
On the other hand, Microsoft loves OLE too much to give it up for
OpenDoc. So as Aldus, WordPerfect, IBM, and HP move into OpenDoc,
people doing the Microsoft thing with OLE will be left in the cold.
--
/\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some)
<><> Internet: me...@IAstate.edu
\/ Preferred UUCP: uunet!iastate.edu!mehl
Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
Michael Weiss
> I recently installed the new MS office for my boss on his mac. I launched
> Word 6 to see if it installed correctly and to get a quick look at it.
> Once it opened and I saw it's new ruler, I almost puked. It looked like
> something right out of a windoze machine.
Ya know, you're about the dozenth person who has written an article making
this claim. I must confess, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What
defines a Windows look versus a Mac look? Particularly in the ruler, since
that's the visual feature to which you referred.
I'm interested so I can have a better understanding of this particular issue.
Michael
------
Everything stated in this message is to be considered my own opinion,
and not an official representation of Microsoft Corporation or any other
Microsoft employees. Actual mileage may vary. Price does not include tax,
title, and license. Some assembly required. Each sold separately.
Batteries not included. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
If conditions persist, contact a physician. Keep out of reach of children.
Avoid prolonged exposure to direct sunlight. Keep in a cool dark place.
Lee Fyock
Weiss) wrote:
> In article <kgk-071194...@kgkmac.repoc.nwu.edu> k...@nwu.edu wrote:
> > I recently installed the new MS office for my boss on his mac. I launched
> > Word 6 to see if it installed correctly and to get a quick look at it.
> > Once it opened and I saw it's new ruler, I almost puked. It looked like
> > something right out of a windoze machine.
>
> Ya know, you're about the dozenth person who has written an article making
> this claim. I must confess, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What
> defines a Windows look versus a Mac look? Particularly in the ruler, since
> that's the visual feature to which you referred.
Many people (myself included) have posted specific examples of where Word
does not follow the Mac Human Interface Guidelines. A few particular
examples are the non-standard button fonts, menu buttons, the "floating"
Find window, and the Open and Save dialogs.
> I'm interested so I can have a better understanding of this particular issue.
Ask Tom Saxton. He should have a large list by now. :-)
I'd be glad to discuss this further with you via e-mail.
Have fun!
Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Fyock "I think I would remain
fy...@mathworks.com perfectly still."
Sean Peisert
Marcus) wrote:
> Sorry, but I did a test and the spell check in 6.0 is _much_ slower than the
> 5.1a checker. Microsoft even confirmed that the spell check is a lot slower.
>
> BTW, I ran my test on a PPC with the native version of 6.0 and all
> extensions off.
How did you do that? The native version isn't out until December.
Loren Engrav
> In article <kgk-071194...@kgkmac.repoc.nwu.edu> k...@nwu.edu wrote:
> > I recently installed the new MS office for my boss on his mac. I launched
> > Word 6 to see if it installed correctly and to get a quick look at it.
> > Once it opened and I saw it's new ruler, I almost puked. It looked like
> > something right out of a windoze machine.
>
> Ya know, you're about the dozenth person who has written an article making
> this claim. I must confess, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What
> defines a Windows look versus a Mac look? Particularly in the ruler, since
> that's the visual feature to which you referred.
>
> I'm interested so I can have a better understanding of this particular issue.
>
> Michael
I too have wondered what makes the Word 6 screen so ugly and so objectionable.
So I fired up Applelink, Canvas, Compact Pro, DeltaGraph Pro, Disk Copy,
EndNote Plus, Excel, Fetch, Filemaker, FirstClass Client, FreeHand,
Informed Designer, KaleidaGraph, MacWrite Pro, NewsWatcher, Now
Up-to-Date, PageMaker, Persuasion, QuickMail, Norton Utilities, SPSS,
StatView and actually looked at the screens, which I rarely do.
I am no graphics artist and did not do well in art in grade school.
Nevertheless, when looking at single objects on the screen I could not
really see much difference. A button in DeltaGraph looks much like a
button in Word. Still there is a difference.
It seems to me that the difference is mass, volume, amount. Word 6 comes
up with tons of stuff on the screen. The user is bombarded with objects
in 3D and color, lots of which he/she cannot identify, at least to start.
The user may even be intimidated which will not lead to anything
positive. I did not see any objects actually blinking or spinning or
twisting or rotating which I suppose would be even worse.
So I concluded that the whole is worse than the sum of the parts. So I
stripped my Word 6 screen down and it is now "looks like a Mac".
Why not have the default screen be rather empty and clean and tidy? And
let the user clutter it up with buttons in 3D and color and the like? Let
the user convert it to Windough if he so chooses? At his/her own rate. I
realize that he/she can remove things. But by then the first impression
is formed and cannot be unformed. Even worse, it may be published on the
net for everyone else to read and adopt as a first impression even before
looking at Word 6.
This got too long. Sorry. Bye.
Thomas Reed
>Ya know, you're about the dozenth person who has written an article making
>this claim. I must confess, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What
>defines a Windows look versus a Mac look? Particularly in the ruler, since
>that's the visual feature to which you referred.
I agree with you in a way -- a ruler or toolbar is certainly not a Mac
standard, so what should a ruler look like?
However, I think that most people who are justifiably annoyed (and there
are a lot of them) are annoyed because of the many ways in which Microsoft
ignores Mac technology. The lack of support for Drag 'n' Drop &
WorldScript in Word 6.0, for example -- I know that WordPerfect 3.1
supports Drag 'n' Drop, dunno about WorldScript. Also, I don't know if
Word 6.0 supports AppleScript or not, but WordPerfect does. Plus,
Microsoft has expressed definite anti-OpenDoc sentiments, and refuses to
support OpenDoc in OLE, while OpenDoc will support OLE when it comes out.
Such disrespect for Macintosh technology is what will really kill
Microsoft in the Mac market. I have yet to talk to a Mac LAN manager who
is upgrading to Word 6.0 on his or her network. Nearly everyone I know is
switching to WordPerfect.
Jack W. Howarth
len...@u.washington.edu (Loren Engrav) writes:
> It seems to me that the difference is mass, volume, amount. Word 6 comes
> up with tons of stuff on the screen. The user is bombarded with objects
> in 3D and color, lots of which he/she cannot identify, at least to start.
> The user may even be intimidated which will not lead to anything
> positive. I did not see any objects actually blinking or spinning or
> twisting or rotating which I suppose would be even worse.
If you look back a few years to the older interface guidelines, you
will
find that Apple recommended very spartan use of color. Their research
indicated that users quickly became confused when presented with too
much
color on the screen. The current movement is toward adding 3-D color
shading
to the interface because it makes the programs look more 'sexy'.
However,
once you get down to using the program everyday, all that extra color
may
actually distract the user. I find WordPerfect has straddled the issue
rather well with a restrained use of color without being bland.
Jack W. Howarth, Ph.D. Univ. of Texas Medical School
Research Fellow P.O. Box 20708
Department of Biochemistry Houston, Texas 77225
Lane Dunlop
re...@medicine.wustl.edu (Thomas Reed) wrote:
I have yet to talk to a Mac LAN manager who
> is upgrading to Word 6.0 on his or her network. Nearly everyone I know is
> switching to WordPerfect.
>
> -Thomas
>
at our office of 20 macs, we will be sticking with Word 5.1a for now. W6
is too big in both hard disk space and RAM requirements to use in our
office. all other problems aside, the memory requirements sink the program
for us. same with excel, although i am testing it further to see if it is
worth it. Before switching to WP 3.1, i want to see what happens at
Novell. i don't want to feel like an amiga user. abandoned. left out in
the cold with hardware and nothing left to show for it. but i'm over it
now, really. it has been many years. therapy has done wonders.
--
Lane
la...@wimsey.com
Katherine Weber Brown
>In article <reed-1511941158260001@thomas_mac.wustl.edu>,
>re...@medicine.wustl.edu (Thomas Reed) wrote:
> I have yet to talk to a Mac LAN manager who
>> is upgrading to Word 6.0 on his or her network. Nearly everyone I know is
>> switching to WordPerfect.
>>
>> -Thomas
>>
>at our office of 20 macs, we will be sticking with Word 5.1a for now. W6
>is too big in both hard disk space and RAM requirements to use in our
>office. all other problems aside, the memory requirements sink the program
>for us. same with excel, although i am testing it further to see if it is
>worth it.
[...deletia]
Ditto for our site of 1000 Macs and 250 PCs. Sorry, Microsoft, but you blew
it. I have just finished my recommendation paper against upgrading, and
have opened a project to evaluate WP. Even with all our investment in time
and training, I will not be blackmailed into installing a bad product just
for the sake of consistently being a MS site.
Kate Weber Brown
The Bank of Bermuda
kwb...@panix.com
David Gutierrez
(Lane Dunlop) wrote:
> Before switching to WP 3.1, i want to see what happens at
> Novell. i don't want to feel like an amiga user. abandoned. left out in
> the cold with hardware and nothing left to show for it.
We had a demonstration of WordPerfect 3.1 at our user group today. The
rumor that Novell was dumping their Mac products came up. The response
from the Novell guy was that it was completely untrue and he believed it
had been started by one of their competitors. Earlier this week, he was at
some Novell conference at which the vice president for applications told
the Novell/WordPerfect employees that there was no truth to the rumor. His
comment was something like, "Why get rid of a winner?"
In addition, Novell should be coming out with a new Mac product in about a
month. I'd better not say any more about it, as I don't want to get my
Novell rep in trouble.
--
David Gutierrez
d...@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu
"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
D. A. Scocca
Marc Lefranc <lef...@lsh.univ-lille1.fr> wrote:
>Following this thread, I find myself quite happy to have switched
>recently to TeX+Emacs+AucTeX !!
And I think that I've finally decided that my dissertation will
probably go best in Textures, rather than Word or WP.
D.
--
* The Minstrel in the Gallery "Heteroskedastic" *
* D. A. Scocca sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu *
* "My love does not, cannot _make_ her happy. My love can only *
* release in her the capacity to be happy." --J. Barnes *
Mike Cohen
>We had a demonstration of WordPerfect 3.1 at our user group today. The
>rumor that Novell was dumping their Mac products came up. The response
>from the Novell guy was that it was completely untrue and he believed it
>had been started by one of their competitors. Earlier this week, he was at
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder who that could possibly be? Hmmm... what software company released
a Mac word processor that really blew chow?
>some Novell conference at which the vice president for applications told
>the Novell/WordPerfect employees that there was no truth to the rumor. His
>comment was something like, "Why get rid of a winner?"
>In addition, Novell should be coming out with a new Mac product in about a
>month. I'd better not say any more about it, as I don't want to get my
>Novell rep in trouble.
>--
>David Gutierrez
>d...@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu
>"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
--
Mike Cohen - is...@netcom.com
NewtonMail, eWorld: MikeC / ALink: D6734 / AOL: MikeC20
Home Page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/isis/home.html
PUSH THE BUTTON, FRANK... OR SOMEONE?
Lyle Zynda
len...@u.washington.edu (Loren Engrav) wrote:
> In article <Cz9or...@microsoft.com>, mwe...@microsoft.com (Michael
> Weiss) wrote:
>
> > What defines a Windows look versus a Mac look? Particularly in the ruler,
> > since that's the visual feature to which you referred.
> >
> > Michael
>
>
> It seems to me that the difference is mass, volume, amount. Word 6 comes
> up with tons of stuff on the screen. The user is bombarded with objects
> in 3D and color, lots of which he/she cannot identify, at least to start.
[stuff omitted]
I think that's what people are after. To be a bit more specific:
(1) Word 6.0, like Windows, uses lots of 3d greyscale, and generally in a
way that gives such items a "heavy, thick" look. Typical Mac programs, by
contrast, have flat, white dialog boxes, buttons, check boxes, etc. That
gives them a "lighter" look. The Mac's few 3d elements, like the title
bars of windows, are used for highlights only and generally have a lighter
appearance.
(2) Windows typically has a color scheme consisting of mostly bright,
saturated, primary colors, often with an emphasis on blue. (Think of the
default color scheme in Windows.) People see Word 6.0's buttons as
belonging more in the Windows category, since they have bright, saturated
colors (Windows) rather than a more subdued palette of understated shades
(Mac). Mac color schemes generally use saturated colors for highlights
only.
WordPerfect 3.0's button bar is a good example of a more "Mac-like" color
scheme, since it uses relatively subdued colors. As a result,
WordPerfect's button bar appears less clunky-looking than Word's (many)
toolbars, despite the fact that WordPerfect's buttons are just as large as
Word's and are 3d greyscale to boot.
(3) Also worth mentioning is the fact that the font Word substitutes in
its dialog boxes for the default Mac system font (Chicago) looks
suspiciously similar to the Windows system font.
Personally, I like some 3d greyscale (e.g., I use Greg's Buttons), but I
think that Word's designers went a bit overboard in that regard. Anyway,
judging from System 7.5 (e.g., the inclusion of some awfully garish
Desktop Patterns, the new "thick" greyscale look of the Scrapbook and
Apple Guide, and the Launcher window), it looks like the Mac OS will look
more like Windows in the future, for better or worse.
Lyle Zynda
Caltech
Richard E. Flower
> In article <jjh-101194...@jhoover-ppc.cisco.com>, j...@cisco.com
> (Jeffrey J. Hoover) wrote:
>> Cool, so I can't access any of my network or do much of anything else
>> while running Word 6. Why don't I use a specialized machine and not use a
>> multifuntion computer? I wonder if I can find an old Videk or Wang
>> machine? ;-) Should I by a seperate PowerMac and dedicate it to running
>> Word?
> That's not what I said. To test for a conflict, you need to reboot without
> extensions at least once and see if it is indeed a problem with an
> extension or control panel. If Word 6 is still as slow as before, then you
[ Stuff Deleted ]
Well.. We recently upgraded from 5.1a to Word 6.0 (actually MS Office 4.2?)
and I installed the RAM Doubler that came as a package deal only to find out
that the brainiacs over at MicroSloth didn't bother testing their own s/w
with RAM Doubler! It seems that the MS Office Manager control panel has a
conflict with RAM Doubler that will cause all kinds of nice things (ie. auto-
matic power down of your Mac, corruption of disk data (mostly in the b-tree
catalogs, etc..). Oh yeah, this was tested with vanilla System 7.5 on a Quadra
with 24M of ram (seeing that Word & Excel and another large app such as eXodus
eat up ALL my RAM!).. Oh well.. enuf babling!
-- Rick
--
+----------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|Will everyone please boycott the Evil Empire?!| flo...@donald.sp.TRW.COM |
|You may ask -- who is the Evil Empire?? | or |
|Well, that's Easy! It's MicroSoft of Course | flo...@sdvax2.sp.TRW.COM |
|The Company that Inhales it's Competition.... | |
+----------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
Dan Peterka
>>at our office of 20 macs, we will be sticking with Word 5.1a for now. W6
>>is too big in both hard disk space and RAM requirements to use in our
>>office. all other problems aside, the memory requirements sink the program
>>for us. same with excel, although i am testing it further to see if it is
>>worth it.
>
>it. I have just finished my recommendation paper against upgrading, and
As manager of our network, I don't get to make the upgrade/don't
upgrade decision, but I am recommending against it. Problem is, what
do you intend to do about new Macs purchased for your networks? Can't
buy 5.1 anymore.
In a mixed environment, where you've got PCs running current releases
of Word, Excel and Powerpoint adequately, how do you convince
satisfied PC users not to upgrade to a product which is reasonable for
them? How do you handle outside users who give your users files with
from latest versions?
I think that these are the kinds of concerns that are going to pound a
huge nail in the Mac's coffin as the larger IS groups decide that
giving up on the Mac is an easier decision than giving up on MS
software. I'm not usually prone to conspiracy theories, but one could
fit the facts to this one.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Dan Peterka Maxwell Laboratories, Inc. (619) 587-8338
d...@scubed.com S-Cubed Division FAX 755-0474
Information Systems 3398 Carmel Mountain Rd.
Manager San Diego, CA 92121
Loren Engrav
Sir:
After reading the below. What about it? Can Word for the Mac have fewer
default buttons, less "heavy" 3D gray stuff, fewer colors of a "subdued
palette of understated shades", and Chicago. Or would it cost too much
money and development time?
Does MSFT have an aesthetics person(s) who considers how screens look? It
is certainly not necessarily true that someone good at developing code is
also good at judging screen appearance. Or would that cost too much money
and development time?
Thanks for your comments.
=============================================
In article <lzynda-1811...@131.215.8.98>, lzy...@cco.caltech.edu
Paul Silverman
Peterka) wrote:
> As manager of our network, I don't get to make the upgrade/don't
> upgrade decision, but I am recommending against it. Problem is, what
> do you intend to do about new Macs purchased for your networks? Can't
> buy 5.1 anymore.
I am in that position, about to purchase a number of new Macs-- some
PowerPC's and a few Quadra 630's. My current thinking is that I'm going
to equip them with ClarisWorks 3.0, especially as my users tend to stick
with the very simple, and I am advised that this version has a full
complement of really good Mac and PC file format filters.
Paul Silverman
way...@netcom.com
--
Paul Silverman
way...@netcom.com
Earl Misanchuk
...
> As manager of our network, I don't get to make the upgrade/don't
> upgrade decision, but I am recommending against it. Problem is, what
> do you intend to do about new Macs purchased for your networks? Can't
> buy 5.1 anymore.
We're facing a similar problem. On the basis of comments in this thread,
and my own (very brief--it didn't take long) look at a copy of MS Office,
I've decided our 70-odd Macs will not upgrade. For the first time in nine
years of using Microsoft word processors, I am seriously considering a
change. We have a huge investment in MS documents, all of which would have
to be converted (and I already know that WP doesn't do them as cleanly and
completely as we would like--they're generally complexly-formatted
documents), but I think the investment in time to convert will, in the
long run, be less than the wasted time and frustration associated with
upgrading to Word 6. (If Word runs so slowly on my PM 810080AV, I can't
imagine what it will run like on our other machines, many of which as
IIsi's. Yes, we might get PM boards for the IIsi's, but wouldn't it be
cheaper to just switch word processors?). And given the different file
structure, moving between Word 5.1 and Word 6 will probably not be _much_
easier than moving between 5.1 and WP 3.1.
Furthermore, I suspect that learning a "new" word processor like WP will
take less time and effort for most of our people than learning Word's
completely re-designed interface. Even though I'm one of those weird users
who actually _reads_ manuals, I was completely frustrated by Office's
"Quick Results" manual, which I expect would be the one most of our users
would refer to: the Windows screen dumps, and the lengthy passages I would
be halfway through reading before I realized that they didn't pertain to
Macs, were very disruptive. I can't imagine many converts would look
kindly at them.
But we do add a few users from time to time. We're speculating that buying
a copy of Word 6.0 but actually _using_ a duplicate copy of 5.1 would
satisfy Microsoft's licensing concerns if push ever came to shove. At
least you would _think_ they wouldn't have the chutzpah to take someone to
court over it. Can you imagine the publicity surrounding a court case in
which a software company was suing a user organization because it paid the
fee for a newer product but chose to use an older version because the
newer one was so inferior???? ;-)
Christine A Zurawski
David H. Gorski (dh...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
: In a previous article, spei...@ucsd.edu (Sean Peisert) says:
: >In article <abbott-2410...@abbott-slip.usa.net>, abb...@usa.net
: >(Abbott Schindler) wrote:
: >
: >
: >Word 5.1a (for Mac) is an incredibly great Word Processor and I think is
: >significantly better than WP. I haven't seen 6.0 but with all the
: >enhancements (including PPC Native Code), I can't imagine why it wouldn't
: >run even better on my PowerMac 6100/AV.
: But what if you don't have a PowerMac? On 68030 machines, Word 6.0 is
: painfully sloooooooooow.
i just installed the power mac upgrade for 6.0 and it is even slower that
the non-native program (which i happen to think isn't as bad as everyone
says) it is pathetic to think that i have considered puting the old
version back!
chris zurawski
czu...@emory.edu
Sean Peisert
(Paul Silverman) wrote:
> I am in that position, about to purchase a number of new Macs-- some
> PowerPC's and a few Quadra 630's. My current thinking is that I'm going
> to equip them with ClarisWorks 3.0, especially as my users tend to stick
> with the very simple, and I am advised that this version has a full
> complement of really good Mac and PC file format filters.
I don't see why you would want to resort Clarisworks v3.0 UNLESS your
users are using very simple (as yours are), espiecially since they're on
PowerMacs. In which case, one might wonder why they're using PowerMacs in
the first place. Anyhow, if you're on a PowerMac, you can use Word 6
(native) and run just fine, I would assume.
Jean-Daniel Gousenberg
> (...)
>
> I think that these are the kinds of concerns that are going to pound a
> huge nail in the Mac's coffin as the larger IS groups decide that
> giving up on the Mac is an easier decision than giving up on MS
> software. I'm not usually prone to conspiracy theories, but one could
> fit the facts to this one.
I agree, and could even add:
If I had a bent for "Microsoft conspiracy" theories, couldn't I suspect
Microsoft of doing that (i.e. releasing HUGE versions of Word and Excel
for Mac) on purpose?
Their purpose? To "persuade" their "Mac" customers to give up ever
upgrading their Macs (at high costs) and to switch to PC's (admittedly
less expensive than Macs for the same power) instead. In other words, to
KILL APPLE, since at least 50% of all Macs have been bought to run mainly
office automation applications (i.e., more often than not, Microsoft
products).
The benefits for Microsoft?
1) In the desktop market, a quasi-monopoly of operating systems
(sole serious surviving competitor: Unix)
2) In the office automation application market, much less serious competition
from much better products than their own (exeunt those of Apple/Claris,
those of other Mac-oriented companies, and many of these companies
themselves)
3) Huge savings in manpower (all their "Mac" people can be fired or reassigned
to other, growing, market-driven tasks)
4) And, as an enjoyable (for Microsoft!) side effect, much less irksome
comparisons between Microsoft and competing products...
Disclaimer: all the foregoing is, of course, only the erring ways of a
perverse imagination ;-)
--
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Jean-Daniel Gousenberg |Snail-mail: EPFL
Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne| SIC
Service informatique central | CH-1015 Lausanne
Lausanne, Switzerland |Internet: gouse...@sic.epfl.ch
|Phone: +41 21 693 45 85
|Fax: +41 21 693 55 00
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Jean-Daniel Gousenberg
> (...)
> I think that these are the kinds of concerns that are going to pound a
> huge nail in the Mac's coffin as the larger IS groups decide that
> giving up on the Mac is an easier decision than giving up on MS
> software. I'm not usually prone to conspiracy theories, but one could
> fit the facts to this one.
I agree, and could even add:
Sean Peisert
wrote:
> From article <3ar2vf$4...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, by
czu...@unix.cc.emory.edu (Christine A Zurawski):
> > i just installed the power mac upgrade for 6.0 and it is even slower that
> > the non-native program (which i happen to think isn't as bad as everyone
> > says) it is pathetic to think that i have considered puting the old
> > version back!
> Is this the experience of other people who have installed the native
> Word 6 after having used the non-native version? This seems incredible.
Sounds like the only reason for this happening is because the native
version takes more memory and is therefore kicking over to virtual memory,
which is inherently very slow.
John T. Chapman
(Christine A Zurawski) wrote:
> i just installed the power mac upgrade for 6.0 and it is even slower that
> the non-native program (which i happen to think isn't as bad as everyone
> says) it is pathetic to think that i have considered puting the old
> version back!
Huh? I got the PowerMac version several days ago and have found it to be a
lot faster than emulated 6.0 in all but perhaps the startup time. (Even
that, I've found to be quite acceptable at under 45 seconds...)
I'd check a few things:
* Extension conflicts. These can always cause problems.
* Memory. I wouldn't recommend running native Word on a PowerMac with 8M
Ram; in the least, you will definitely want to turn on VM (to the minimum
setting) in such a situation. Native Word wants something like 6M minimum
unless VM is turned on. Turning VM on drops memory requirements by
something like 3.5M.
(Note that this is standard with PPC Native apps, due to way the native
code is paged to memory. W/out VM, _all_ native code must be loaded at
program launch. Word has a pretty big 'hit' because it is a large program
and has quite a bit of native code...)
* A munged installation. I found that even following Microsoft's native
upgrade instructions to the letter may not install the native version
properly over the emulated version of 6.0. I found that my Word Settings
(6) file had been corrupted; deleting it seemed to fix all problems. (In
my case, Grammar seemed to not be installed, even though the Word Setup
program thought it was...)
* A munged system or disk. Check with a good disk tools program such as
Norton or MacTools or at least Disk First Aid. Also, try doing a clean
install of the System.
* If it is _just_ loading time that is slow, MS has admitted that the
native version may load a bit more slowly. Also, the number of fonts you
have can greatly affect launch times. I have over 60 fonts (all TrueType)
and have no problems loading either the native or emulated versions of
Word 6 on my PowerMac in under 45 seconds. This is only slightly slower
than loading on my Centris 610 at work (a little over 25 seconds for 60+
fonts).
Good luck!
--
John T. Chapman jt...@cornell.edu
Office of Computing and Statistical Consulting
Cornell University - College of Human Ecology
________________________________________________________________________
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
- Anonymous
Paul DuBois
> the non-native program (which i happen to think isn't as bad as everyone
> says) it is pathetic to think that i have considered puting the old
> version back!
!!!
Is this the experience of other people who have installed the native
Word 6 after having used the non-native version? This seems incredible.
--
Paul DuBois
dub...@primate.wisc.edu
shu...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> a lot faster than emulated 6.0 in all but perhaps the startup time.
> (Even that, I've found to be quite acceptable at under 45 seconds...)
45 second startup time for a program??? Huh?
Quite acceptable? Hmmmm
On a PowerMac??? Yucch =;-p
Are you nuts? I wouldn't wait 45 seconds for that hog of an app to slog
its way through to consciousness. I can get ClarisWorks running a whole
lot faster. (But then again, your needs are probably different from
mine, so who am I to suggest waiting nearly a minute is unacceptable ;-) ).
Idunno. It just seems Word is a real pituitary mutant. Just my
inflation-devalued two-cents worth.
Rick Povich
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick Povich University of Pittsburgh
Media Producer Audiovisual Department
SHU...@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU (814) 269-7103 Johnstown, Pa. 15904
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
< It's not whether you screw up, >
< but how you recover that counts! >
< Squid Factor: 18.99 1976 R[T]90/6 DoD#032653 >
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Lyle Zynda
Earl.Mi...@USask.Ca (Earl Misanchuk) wrote:
[edited]
> And given the different file
> structure, moving between Word 5.1 and Word 6 will probably not be _much_
> easier than moving between 5.1 and WP 3.1.
FWIW, Word 6 seamlessly imported all my 5.1 documents, even those with
complex formatting. Wordperfect, on the other hand, very often required
some cleaning-up after importing Word files (though 3.1 is better than 3.0
in that regard). My advice: get *one* copy of WP 3.1 and try converting
a large variety of your Word documents before you switch.
> Furthermore, I suspect that learning a "new" word processor like WP will
> take less time and effort for most of our people than learning Word's
> completely re-designed interface.
Especially since WP 3.1 (unlike Word 6) makes good use of Apple Guide
(assuming you have System 7.5 installed).
Lyle Zynda
Caltech
Jim Conner
jt...@cornell.edu writes:
>In article <3ar2vf$4...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, czu...@unix.cc.emory.edu
>(Christine A Zurawski) wrote:
>
that
>> the non-native program (which i happen to think isn't as bad as
everyone
>> says) it is pathetic to think that i have considered puting the old
>> version back!
>
a
>lot faster than emulated 6.0 in all but perhaps the startup time. (Even
>that, I've found to be quite acceptable at under 45 seconds...)
WordPerfect 3.1 loads (and allows a user to begin doing useful work) in
less than 15 seconds.
>I'd check a few things:
>
>* Extension conflicts. These can always cause problems.
These 'extension conflicts' are often brought to light only after Word 6
is installed. Perhaps the finger should be pointed at Word 6 instead?
>* Memory. I wouldn't recommend running native Word on a PowerMac with 8M
>Ram; in the least, you will definitely want to turn on VM (to the minimum
>setting) in such a situation. Native Word wants something like 6M minimum
>unless VM is turned on. Turning VM on drops memory requirements by
>something like 3.5M.
IMHO, these memory requirements are outrageous. And suppose I don't want
to use VM? I can run the system software with minimal extensions, Word
6, and little else with 8 Mb of RAM. Sorry, I can't live with that.
>* A munged installation. I found that even following Microsoft's native
>upgrade instructions to the letter may not install the native version
>properly over the emulated version of 6.0. I found that my Word Settings
>(6) file had been corrupted; deleting it seemed to fix all problems. (In
>my case, Grammar seemed to not be installed, even though the Word Setup
>program thought it was...)
Incidents like this can only serve to steer users away from Word 6 and
other Microsoft products. MS can't even get the installation right?
Somehow, I'm not surprised...
>* A munged system or disk. Check with a good disk tools program such as
>Norton or MacTools or at least Disk First Aid. Also, try doing a clean
>install of the System.
The above is offered as a remedy for poor performance of the native
version of Word 6. The day that I have to do a clean install of system
software, just to get a Microsoft product to function, will be the same
day that I trash the Microsoft product.
>* If it is _just_ loading time that is slow, MS has admitted that the
>native version may load a bit more slowly.
Is an analogy with a new car purchase useful at this point? If your
favorite auto manufacturer released a 'new and improved model' that had
lower gas mileage, slower performance, and took up more room in your
garage, would you buy it or keep last year's model?
Jim Conner
jc...@cornell.edu