Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!gatech!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!dorourke
From: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite -- I'm sorry, but...
Message-ID: <3043@polyslo.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jun 88 23:18:42 GMT
References: <8013@drutx.ATT.COM> <55035@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 54

In article <55035@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>My position:  I think FullWrite has a way to go before it challenges Word as 
>>powerful balanced document tool.

  There are somethings FWP makes very easy.  You need to use it a little
longer and then you'll start to appreciate it.  You also mentions that you
have only used FWP for a weekend.
  Well I think is says a lot that you were able to figure out how to do most
of the stuff in FWP in a weekend.  It took me about 2-3 weeks before I could
start to complain about Word 3.0.  Not because it's a more powerful product
but because it's a more frustratring product.
  Tell me how to do a page break in word. {I know how to do it, but I had
to look it up in the documentation}, now figure out how to do a page break in
FWP.  This is a very simple example of where Word fails a user interface test
and FWP excel's {stealing from the MacWrite Model of WP}.

>I would say it this way. FullWrite has a way to go before it becomes what 
>it's potential shows that it should be.

  I agree, I can't wait for FWP 2.0.  Should be hot!!!

  There are some thing's in FWP that are better than Word.

  The User Interface is wonderful.  Word 4.0 better have a major Overhaul of
it's User Interface if it's going to win my vote back from FWP.

  Also using FWP like you would use Word is not the way to go about it.  ONe
of the wonderful things about the Macintosh is it's ability to present the
user with information in different manners.  This encouages different models
of operation.  Using FWP like Word is like using a Macintosh like you would
a DOS machine.  It takes a different mental model, and after discovering the
ground rules of the model it is then more powerful than any other computer.
FWP is a similar product.  It is so generalized in so many areas that you can
make it do most anything once you "get the religion" about how it works.

  There are several things good about Word, but none of them would make me 
give up FWP.

  But it is very NICE  to be able to argue about Word processors for the
Macintosh after all these years.  And you have to admit that we're all arguing
about how to improve two very powerful products to begin with.  This is almost
as bad as complaining that we only have 1 or 2 megs of RAM to play with, gosh
dad this really sucks!!

  BTW:  Has anyone noticed that the MS-Dos/OS 2 world has suddenly become
much quieter, or is it just me.




-- 
David M. O'Rourke

Disclaimer: I don't represent the school.  All opinions are mine!