🚀 go-pugleaf

In article "Re: Final Writer 5 Features"
dmeyer@tiac.net (David Meyer) wrote: 

> 	Please define "professional". 
> 	FW, like most WYSIWYG WP/DTP packages, becomes a little clumsy when 
> used for larger documents. Particularly when you try to edit the earlier 
> part of a large document. This is somewhat true of any editor with even 
> the most minimal page formating features, like word wrap or page break, 
> but the WYSIWYG programs suffer more and those with a multitude of 
> features suffer even more. Using Sections helps - the program sees 
> multiple, shorter, virtual documents. 

I was not talking of speed but of *features*. FW's speed is 
acceptable to me (on an A4000/040 at least ;). My point was
that FW's features do not meet the requirements for writing
a larger document (let's say a 50-page scientific publication).

 
> <FW6 wish-list snipped>

Fine. Hope to see them implemented before I'll be forced to switch
other platforms. :)


> 	An upgrade fee of DM250? What's a DM worth these days? 

Sorry, if my statements were unclear. I bought the full version
for FW4 for ~250 DM (~160 US $). No update. 
That's the price here in germany.

> 	There are three types of changes from FW4 to FW5. Some are 
> roll-backs to an FW3-style implimentation. Some are the sort of tweaks 
> that we saw many of in FW2-FW4. Some are major enhancements. There are at 
> least as many major enhancements here as there were between FW1 and FW4. 
> IMHO. And don't think for a minute that an enhancement that is not major 
> is not significant. Those roll-backs most assuredly are significant.

(BTW: if changes were not *significant* in any case, why make them? ;)

I agree that the improvement-lists (1->4 vs. 4->5) are comparable in
length and contents. But if you take the improvements as a whole
(1->5) they aren't what *I* expect from an increase by 4 version-
numbers (especially when considering the time that passed since FW1).

I really do not want to make the improvements worse than they are. 
Their judgement simply is a point of view: 
- Comparing to other available word-processor(s) on the amiga, FW5
  still will be the better choice (IMHO).
- Judging the improvements (4->5) alone, they're ok for this version.
- Judging the feature-list to word-processors on other platforms
  (at comparable prices, to be fair), then FW5-features are *years*
  behind the state-of-the-art. 
- Looking at the task-requirements of writing a larger doc
  (containing more than just plain text) will  reveal that there 
  *are* severe limitations if speaking of usability (in terms of 
  the upcoming ISO 9241, Part 10+11). 
  If you ever tried this, you'll know what I mean.


> : Much of the energy and money at Softwood seem to have flown to the 
> : Wind*ws-Port of FW. I really did not want *my* money to go that
> : way when I decided to *buy* your software: I wanted to support
> : one of the remaining sw-companies on the amiga and contribute 
> : to the creation of professional ami-soft.
> 
> 	You have misunderstood the situation with FW'95.

Maybe. Enlighten me... 


> : Even on the PC-Platform I would get a more functional PRG for my 
> : money, e.g St*rWr*ter for OS*2.
> 
> 	I haven't seen the program you mention. Major WPs for the PC are 
> selling for well over US100 - unless bundled in much more expensive 
> packages. FW costs much less. -Upgrades- cost nearly US100. You may say 
> they offer more for the price. I would counter with the observation that 
> most of that "more" consists of features most people would never think of 
> using. 

I agree that FW4/5 contain those features that one needs in 80% of
all cases. But what I am missing is a prg that can handle those 20%
left. On the Amiga, of course. There's no such program available
(if one doesn't want to *program* one's texts in TeX ;).If I had 
the choice, I would simply switch to a different product and wouldn't 
care about FW-features anyway. 

But please, don't tell me that linking the position of graphics to 
those of paragraphs, so that they're moved automatically is a feature 
that's not required. Primarily, I am not asking for additional features 
that would be nice to have, I'm asking for what I think is a *must-have*.
BTW: My I-would-like-to-see-list is *much* longer. ;)

As far as I see it, Softwood already *has* a light version of a word-
processor which offers reduced functionality: FinalCopy. Right?
Since I own an Amiga (~7 years now), I am waiting for a wp for the 
upper end. FinalCopy looked promising, FW1 was a first step to this
direction - but since then, it looks a bit like stagnation to me. 
FW5 again makes some (significant, as you would say) progress, 
but it simply is not enough for supporting professional work.
Maybe this is not the intended goal of FW, but I wish it was.


> 	Let's wait until May 10th before we start our FW6 wish lists. Get 
> FW5 in our hands first before we start pleading for more. Woody & crew 
> were pretty good about the FW5 lists posted here.

I didn't want to blame the creators/programmers for their work. They
have my full respect (since I am quite familiar with the difficulties
of software-development myself, being a student of computer-science ;).
And I am well aware of the fact that Softwood is not Microtheft and
has quite limited resources.

They did a good job on creating FW, but time has passed and the baby 
has to become adult. 

Bye, 
Carsten.

-- 
 _______ ___ ___ ____________________________________________________________
|       /  //  / InterNet  : Carsten.Labinsky@Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.De    |
|      /  //  /  Z-Netz    : Galdor@PaPa.North.De                            |
|___ _/_ //  /   Snail-Mail: Carsten Labinsky, Sachsenstr.94,                |
|\  \\  \/  /                D-26121 Oldenburg, Germany                      |
| \   \    /     Phone     : +49 441 882017                                  |
\__\__/\__/__________________________________________________________________/