From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 00:20 In article <8sm236hil993b8mps6oqvknms24a33otqk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> FWIW, my personal old favorite was Multiplan. > > > >I had forgotten about that. IIRC didn't it morph into Excel. > > They're really quite different. Multiplan was orphaned once Excel took > off. I stubbornly held on for a number of years, but eventually gave > up. excel first appeared on the mac and blew multiplan away. in fact, i forget which magazine it was, maybe byte or pc world (it was *not* a mac magazine) said that excel was *so* good that you should buy a mac *just* for excel, and coming from a pc oriented magazine, that said a lot.
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 00:21 In article <8lm236hdsfndajg990mvg9ri1978r4hcm2(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:39:52 -0400, in > <4c315766$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > > >"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > >news:040720102018323649%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > >> In article <hui236di9v843di1gqnothhfo3nvjd4pke(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > >> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> > >>> >MS had superior marketing and > >>> >developer support. When sn ISV can purchase a product for less from a > >>> >discount retailer than from the pulisher, do you really think the ISV is > >>> >going to stick with that publisher. > >>> > >>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus. > >> > >> in many ways it was much better than microsoft and was (and still is) > >> popular for legal documents. > > Simply not true. maybe for you but not for others. > >Most law firms I know have switched to the dark side. > > True. WordPerfect let the market get away. more like microsoft steamrolled it. > >>> But the big issue was simply that it didn't keep up, > >>> and Word for Windows killed it. > >> > >> actually, microsoft's predatory business tactics is what killed it. > > Nope, it lost in the market. due to predatory tactics, not features. > >You somehow made my statements look like Navas's. > > > >Notwithstanding that, the original WordPerfect for Windows was poorly > >developed. It had no real functionality on a network. This was just after > >the product was sold to Novel. I went to PC Expo and complained abut the > >bug. the "experts" from Novel said they could not duplicate my finding. With > >their permission I demonstrated two bugs and it took them several hours to > >recover from the "non-existent bugs." Meanwhile, MS was supplying free > >copies of Word to legal secretarial school students and almost anyone, > >especially IT professionals, who asked. > > Yep. Dismal marketing versus excellent marketing. nope.
From: Peter on 5 Jul 2010 08:34 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:amm236tniqg8aphlihcssbacqhbhlnllo9(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:04:16 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus. >> >>Lotus was never intended to be a word processor. > > That statement jarred me, but I think he was thinking about Lotus's > dedicated word processing module. Was it Lotus Notes? At one time I > had "SmartSuite" and I think it had a word processing module. The > spreadsheet module is "Lotus 1-2-3" (which I still use). > You may be right. Possibly one too many beers with my lobster last night. I didn't get involved with SmartSuite. I did use Lotus and Symphony. I just don't remember a word processing module, but I don't doubt that one existed. -- Peter
From: Peter on 5 Jul 2010 08:43 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:8lm236hdsfndajg990mvg9ri1978r4hcm2(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:39:52 -0400, in > <4c315766$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>news:040720102018323649%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>> In article <hui236di9v843di1gqnothhfo3nvjd4pke(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >MS had superior marketing and >>>> >developer support. When sn ISV can purchase a product for less from a >>>> >discount retailer than from the pulisher, do you really think the ISV >>>> >is >>>> >going to stick with that publisher. >>>> >>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus. >>> >>> in many ways it was much better than microsoft and was (and still is) >>> popular for legal documents. > > Simply not true. I am not taking your bait. I have already stat4ed why wordPerfect is superior to Word. I will also add two more reasons: total ease with backward compatibility and Dragon worked well with it, from version 1..OTOH you have not demonstrated anything, except to pontificate "pissing contest" statements. -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 5 Jul 2010 09:16
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:34:42 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:amm236tniqg8aphlihcssbacqhbhlnllo9(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:04:16 -0400, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus. >>> >>>Lotus was never intended to be a word processor. >> >> That statement jarred me, but I think he was thinking about Lotus's >> dedicated word processing module. Was it Lotus Notes? At one time I >> had "SmartSuite" and I think it had a word processing module. The >> spreadsheet module is "Lotus 1-2-3" (which I still use). >> > >You may be right. Possibly one too many beers with my lobster last night. >I didn't get involved with SmartSuite. I did use Lotus and Symphony. I just >don't remember a word processing module, but I don't doubt that one existed. I was wrong about it being "Lotus Notes". It was "Lotus Word Pro" and indeed in the SmartSuite package. I owned SmartSuite, but never tried Word Pro. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |