From: 5916rahmank@vms.csd.mu.edu ( )
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: Re: (Summary)  Word/W4W/WP:  Which is best?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:29:35 GMT
Organization: Department of EECE, Marquette University
Reply-To: 5916rahmank@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsf.csd.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan08.074928.20161@eng.umd.edu>, lindor@eng.umd.edu (Lindor Eric Henrickson) writes:
->>booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) writes:
->>
->>Word for Windows? The people in my department are not technical
->>people, so I am concerned that learning a new interface maybe
->>too much. Has anyone made this switch?
->
->Before you jump on the Word bandwagon, I thought I'd throw in my
->two cents.  Yes, WP has had (is having) a few growing pains
->migrating to the Windows environment, but in my opinion WP is
->definitely the most powerful and **flexible** of the three
->mentioned wordprocessors.  Thus far, I've found that WP5.2 for Win
->seems to be working pretty well (just my opinion though).
->
->An example of WP's flexibility/power: I do a lot of technical
->writing, so I need to do lots of equations and  use lots of special
->characters.  To my knowledge, AmiPro doesn't even have an equation
->editor, and in Word you are more or less forced to pick all equation
->symbols off a palette.  Now, picking symbols/special characters off 
->a "palette" may seem like
->the easiest way to do things at first glance, but I find that
->when you need to do many equations/special characters its generally 
->a pain in the butt!  In  WP, you have the choice of choosing
->symbols/characters from a palette, OR typing in symbols using an
->equation writing language, OR mapping special characters,etc. to the
->keyboard.  Thus, for frequently used characters, you type them in
->using the equation language, or by mapping them to the keyboard
->...much faster than picking things off
->a palette (for me at least), and for less frequently used characters,
->you pick them off the palette.
->
        This is not true. Ami pro 3.0 does have an equation editor. And
        Word for Windows (WfW) equation editor is not limited to the symbols
        and characters on the palette. In fact, one can choose from any set of
        font available under windows. Also if one wish to use a so called
        'equation writing language', there is a set of field codes built-in
        the WfW's, right from version 1.0. However, IMO, the equation editor
        is much easier to use. WfW also has the flexibility that one can
        use a combination of several fonts in a single equation.

        One very important draw back (IMO) of wordperfect (5.?) is that
        even it is a windows app, it can not use some custom fonts that
        other win apps like WfW, Ami pro, excel, ... can use.

>Anyway, this is just one example where I've found that WP is
>much better than Word.  As I said earlier, just my two-cents...
>
>LH
>lindor@eng.umd.edu

        In my humble opinion, the choice of a word processor depends on
        several factors. Most of the popular packages available in the
        market provide with almost all facilities that any compatitive
	package, however, each package has some 'little' thing that may
	not be obvious in another package. For instance, the font support
	of WfW (and many other win apps) is better that WP. My personal
	reason for switching from wp5.1 (dos) to WfW (1.0) was the DDE
	facility between excel and WfW. But by no means I think that WP
	is not a good wordprocessor. As far as wordprocessor is concerned,
	most cases it may be a matter of 'getting used to'. 

	For somebody who is searching for a wordprocessor (i.e., not
	already used to), I strongly recommend WfW. Although it has it's
	weaknesses, I like it very much.

	-Anis.

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps