Re: A Good Word for Word 6

Subject: Re: A Good Word for Word 6
From: Worthington <debral -at- FALCON -dot- CC -dot- UKANS -dot- EDU>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:50:24 -0500

Like, uh...HOWDY gang,

Looks like "feature bloat" strikes again. Seems to be endemic to most of
the "new and improved" Windoze products.

Too bad we can't forward postings like this to Mr. Bill at Microsoft!

BTW, I am NOT a Mac user. I continue to use my Windows apps...the old,
unimproved versions. When I need to design a page, I use PageMaker 5.0
or QuarkXPress 3.1 (yes, Quark 3.3 is terminally slow on a 486. Don't
waste your time on this one.)


------------------------------ REPLY SEPERATOR -----------------------

On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, John Renish wrote:

> You must have *very* simple formatting. We routinely have major problems
> with documents less than half that long. Besides frequent crashes, we have
> the joy of spooling for over an hour for 12 minutes of printing on an HP
> LJIII, errors in finding bookmarks, dead slow performance on a 486-33,
> inability to save after one small text change (Word sometimes apparently
> makes the computer think the file is infinite in size), out of memory after
> one small text change in a header or footer, loss of style functions, and
> other bad things. I cannot recommend this product for larger projects,
> period. The only really good thing about Word 6.0 under Windows is that it's
> faster than Word 6.0 on a Mac. As for usability, our group intends to keep
> Word with greatly simplified templates as the standard for casual writers,
> but the professionals will be using something more robust.

> John -dot- Renish -at- conner -dot- com
> My statements are my own and do not represent Conner Peripherals, Inc.
> -------------
> Original Text
> >From Richard Davenport <RKDaven -at- AOL -dot- COM>, on 4/26/95 5:08 PM:
> In response to the note:

> >Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 06:54:04 -0700
> >From: Susan Kloster <srk -at- PLAZA -dot- DS -dot- ADP -dot- COM>
> >Subject: Thanks anyway

> >Many thanks to all who responded to my frantic inquiry about Frame vs Word
> 6.
> 0.
> >It's hell working for someone who knows nothing about writing. I'll be in
> training for
> >Word 6.0, much to my dismay. At least we get training right? However, my
> boss
> >was persuaded to purchase one copy of Frame. Does anyone have anything
> good

> >to say about Microsoft word 6.0? I was surprised not to get at least one
> favorable
> >response for Word.
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Susan Kloster srk -at- plaza -dot- ds -dot- adp -dot- com
> >Technical Writer (503) 294-4200 ext 2299
> >ADP Dealer Services
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Microsoft Word 6.0 is a terrific word and document processor. It is also an
> adequate desktop publishing package for projects that are consistently and
> minimally formatted. We produce our software manual (250 pages) on Word. (It
> had been produced in Ventura, but after Ventura was essentially abandoned, I
> wanted to make a change.) With our user manual in Word (and everything else
> too), it is accessible to everyone in the company for proposal and marketing
> efforts. We did make some compromises in the way we used auto-numbering and
> frames, but the results are excellent. The manual has one to two bitmaps
> (screen captures) per page. Chapter sizes we try to limit to 25 pages. We
> output to a Xerox Docutech. I'd be happy to give you more details if you'd
> like.

> Going to Word is a good move. Higher-end desktop publishing packages are
> terrific. But for a wider company audience, they make your documents more
> difficult to access.

> Regards,

> Richard Davenport
> RKDaven -at- aol -dot- com
> Rockville, MD
> 301-963-1710

Previous by Author: JOB HOT LINE
Next by Author: Re: [Long Response] Teaching...
Previous by Thread: Re: A Good Word for Word 6
Next by Thread: Re: A Good Word for Word 6

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads