🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug27.221152.2372@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>In article <92240.124636REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
>
>>
>>  Among the dozens of other excellent reasons given, who could love a
>>company that has monopolized the PC world with trash and whose only
>>decent program is Word (for the Macintosh!!!).  Finally, Word for Windows
>>2 is a decent port of Word Mac - but it runs under windows, which is
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Word written originally for DOS, then
>ported to the Mac -- in which case is the Wonders (ahem... Windows) version
>really a port from DOS??  And from what I have heard from people fluent
>in both Word and WordPerfect, WP is the better of the two (I wouldn't know
>firsthand, so don't flame me!  Please!!)
>
>
>-- 
>John Martin                                        johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
>Institute of Neuroscience,   University of Oregon,    Eugene, OR,    97402

You are correct in that DOS was the first platform to receive WORD,
not the Mac. The Mac version was a port from DOS, with the
intentions of developing a word processor down the road to run
under the fledgling Windows 1.0, which I had the unfortunate
experience to evaluate.

Word for Windows 2.0 is a big departure from the DOS version, but
carries many of the same work habits with it. If you are/were
fluent in Word 5.0/5.5, then Word for Windows will be an easy
transition. If you are fluent in WP, then W4W 2.0 will also be
fairly easy, since they have taken great pains to support many of
the keystroke commands and frequently used featured of WP.

As for which of the two is better, that is a flame war for another
thread.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------