Prev: 100% free dell laptaps offerd by dell and Vodafone companies.
Next: KeyNote v. Powerpoint Questions
From: erilar on 31 Jul 2010 11:49
OK, so I'm trying out this overpriced word processor, Pages, �because
A: it WILL open the older program(AW6) that can open MUCH older�files
and B: there's an iPad app that can, according to the blurbs, display
its documents there. �So far my reaction is: Pages =�ClarisWorks for
dummies. �AppleWorks was already a dumbed-down CW and this is a
dumbed-down AW. �It has all kinds of�fancy "templates" that have to be
modified anyway, and they're the kind of things I was making with less
hassle back when I�was using an EARLY version of ClarisWorks!�
It's missing some of the stuff CW had, such as data base and
draw�programs. �I used the latter for putting things together; I had
better graphics programs. I never really got into using data bases, and
I've never had any use for spread sheet programs, which iWork DOES have,
apparently.�
Pages will save things to PC format�or itself and nothing else. �AW
would save to a variety of formats. �And--sob!--CW let me create my own
macros with buttons�I designed myself for odds and ends of things I did
often. �Even AW would let me have vertical rulers if I jumped through
a�couple hoops, and I can't find that option anywhere in Pages, at least
not so far.�
�I opened a document in Pages that had three columns and it
readjusted them to suit itself. �In AW, I could set varying sizes in the
"section" part of a pull-down menu. �Nothing there in Pages. �Later I
discovered there's "columns" elsewhere, but resetting them will be a
bigger chore, I can see already.

OK, experts: convince me otherwise 8-)

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist


http://www.mosaictelecom.com/~erilarlo
From: Howard S Shubs on 31 Jul 2010 12:31
In article
<drache-41DBF3.10490431072010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.exa
mple.com>,
erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> OK, experts: convince me otherwise 8-)

I can't disagree 'cause I'm not familiar with Pages or CW. And I didn't
care for AW6.

The only reason I'm commenting is that I feel for your position
regarding a graphics program. I really wish SuperPaint had a real
descendent. I have Intaglio, which is nice, but it's no SuperPaint.
<sigh>

--
May all your good dreams and fine wishes come true! - The Wizard
May joy be yours all the days of your life! - Phina
A corollary to the Golden Rule: how a person treats me is exactly how they
want me to treat them. (remember this the next time you are mugged)
From: Erilar on 31 Jul 2010 15:38
Tim Lance <nope(a)nada.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:49:09 -0500, erilar wrote
> (in article
> <drache-41DBF3.10490431072010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-
> delegated.example.com>):

>>
>> OK, experts: convince me otherwise 8-)
>>
>>
>
> EH? I'm just chiming in because I wonder what you think is the
> difference
> between AW & CW, other than incremental versions. If I'm correct it
> just
> shifted names as ownership shifted: AW>CW when Claris formed and then
> split>AW when OS X came about and took CW back.

AW dropped a number of possibilities CW 4 had which I missed badly,
dumbing down the program. So far my impression of Pages is that they've
dumbed it down to a massive degree now.


--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
From: Erilar on 31 Jul 2010 15:38
Howard S Shubs <howard(a)shubs.net> wrote:
> In article
> <drache-41DBF3.10490431072010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.exa
> mple.com>,
> erilar <drache(a)chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> OK, experts: convince me otherwise 8-)
>
> I can't disagree 'cause I'm not familiar with Pages or CW. And I
> didn't
> care for AW6.
Oh, I complained about it regularly 8-)
>
> The only reason I'm commenting is that I feel for your position
> regarding a graphics program. I really wish SuperPaint had a real
> descendent. I have Intaglio, which is nice, but it's no SuperPaint.
> <sigh>
I think some of us fall in love with a particular graphics program more
passionately than pure wordsmiths can understand 8-)



--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
From: David Empson on 31 Jul 2010 18:14
Erilar <drache(a)chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> Tim Lance <nope(a)nada.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:49:09 -0500, erilar wrote
> > (in article
> > <drache-41DBF3.10490431072010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-
> > delegated.example.com>):
>
> >>
> >> OK, experts: convince me otherwise 8-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > EH? I'm just chiming in because I wonder what you think is the
> > difference
> > between AW & CW, other than incremental versions. If I'm correct it
> > just
> > shifted names as ownership shifted: AW>CW when Claris formed and then
> > split>AW when OS X came about and took CW back.
>
> AW dropped a number of possibilities CW 4 had which I missed badly,
> dumbing down the program.

I wasn't aware of ClarisWorks 5 missing any features from ClarisWorks 4,
and AppleWorks 5 was just ClarisWorks 5 renamed (I had all three).

AppleWorks 6 on Mac OS 9 made some changes such as replacing the comms
module with a presentation module. Again, I don't recall any other
"missing features", but I didn't use it as much.

AppleWorks 6 on Mac OS X is definitely missing some features: the macro
facility wasn't ported across from Mac OS 9, and many of the file
import/export formats are missing.

In my opinion, you should be complaining about "AppleWorks 6 on Mac OS
X" in reference to ClarisWorks 4, not just "AppleWorks" in general.

> So far my impression of Pages is that they've dumbed it down to a
> massive degree now.

I stopped using AppleWorks about three years ago and have found Pages to
be a perfectly acceptable word processor with many features AppleWorks
is missing (such as proper page layout tools), and far nicer to use on
Mac OS X than AppleWorks.

I almost never used the draw module in AppleWorks. Pages can do a fair
amount of object-based drawing, and I also have Omnigraffle and Intalio.

I never used the paint module, and there are plenty of alternatives
there (I have Pixelmator and GraphicConverter).

I never used the presentation module, and Keynote has it beat.

The database module is the only part of AppleWorks which I think is
still missing a reasonable replacement. The AppleWorks DB is roughly
equivalent to FileMaker around version 1 or 2, but FileMaker Pro is too
expensive for casual use. Bento is missing major features like printing
labels.

I didn't care about the missing database module for my own use, as I was
using FileMaker Pro long before I was using Mac OS X. For the benefit of
other people, I'd still like to see Bento or some reasonably priced
alternative with sufficient capability to fully replace the AppleWorks
DB and easy enough to use.

--
David Empson
dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: 100% free dell laptaps offerd by dell and Vodafone companies.
Next: KeyNote v. Powerpoint Questions