From: hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Endnote and Cricketgraph
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:22:10 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct8.045246.8067@news.columbia.edu>, jsl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres) writes:
> 
> Can anyone comment on EndNote or on Cricketgraph for the PC?
> 
> Or can anyone suggest alternatives?
> 
> /S

Can't speak for EndNote, but CricketGraph for the PC is cringe-making (if you've
been used to the Mac version, that is).  It is an order of magnitude poorer
than the Mac version, as if the designers had learned nothing from users'
experiences with CG.

WYSIWYG has been dodgy with CG Mac, and is worse with CG PC.

We initially bought 6 copies of the PC version since we'd been told that it was
everything that the Mac version had been and more.  This turned out to be such
hogwash that we sent back five of the copies, and we've kept the sixth in case
any staff member needs to be reminded how bad it is!

You would expect, for example, that the outputs from either platform would be
interchangeable - they aren't.  A CG Mac file can't be imported into the PC
version (one of the reasons we wanted the packages was because we liked CG Mac
but mostly we have PCs; we'd thought - wrongly - that we could create graphs
on the PC or the Mac and swap them around).  The layout of graphs under the PC
version is ghastly (y axis values are about ten times further away from the axis
than under the Mac, and it looks daft).  The window size causes problems too
(dragging an object to a point outside the current window doesn't cause the
window to scroll underneath - you have to drop the object, reposition the
window, and pick up the object again).  There is a long list of gripes (and
there is a list for the Mac version too, only different).

Harvard Graphics is, alas, much better, with Microsoft Chart coming in a poor
third (but better in some respects than CG PC).  It pains me to see what could
have been an excellent product crippled in such a self-destructive manner.

(As an aside, I found Windows to be a bitter disappointment - I'd expected MS
to trounce the Apple GUI and produce a real world-beater.  You'd think they'd
have learned a trick or two since the Mac first appeared some seven years ago.
Most Windows applications I've seen haven't borne comparison with their Mac
counterparts; for example, the Windows bars seem to intrude too much into
the work area, the colour is drab and dingy, and it would appear that SVGA is
necessary to approach the quality of even the low-end Macs.)

The versions of CG we have compared are (Windows) V1.3 and (Mac) V1.3.2 - things
may have improved since those, but I'm not counting on it.
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Peter G. Q. Brooks HSR4@UK.AC.OX.VAX | The boy stood on the burning deck   |
| Health Services Research Unit        | Whence all but he had fled.         |
| Dept of Public Health & Primary Care | Twit.                               |
| University of Oxford                 | Spike Milligan, Goon and Musician   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+