🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1742@druhi.UUCP>, clive@druhi.UUCP (Clive Steward) writes:
> in article <2809@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, I wrote
> > PageMaker or Full(vapor)Write.  With indexing, columns, and some graphics 
> 
> Just wondering about this (relative) slam on FullWrite.
The actual quote was :
> > Page layout/graphics
> > Good.  Much better than MacWrite (which rates a poor), but still no 
> > PageMaker or Full(vapor)Write.

If you look closely, I say 'FullWrite' is better than 'Word'.  That is
not a 'slam' in my book.  I heard a very strong recommendation from 
another author for FullWrite's design.  However, it is not yet a 
released product.

There is a game some wimps in this industry play.  It goes something like
	My product will be available Real Soon Now, and it's *MUCH*
	better than the product you're selling today.
Maybe the product is finished on time, maybe it's later or never finished.
Maybe it lives up to its advanced billing, maybe it's a dud.  You can't
tell until it's released.

The word 'vaporware' was invented to distinguish between hype and reality.
I'm sure most industry professionals would accept the definition 'an
announced or advertised product that is not yet available for sale.'

Incidentally, Word 3.0 was #1 on the vaporware charts for about three
months, if measured by advance hype in Macworld.  That has no bearing
on its actual value now that it is available.
 
> Their ad in March MacUser (the one with *two* reviews of Word) is
> very, very impressive, at a lower list price.

'Word Tools' also had nice ads.  I hope you didn't buy a copy.

> Let's be fair, boys.

Right.  A fair statement is 'As of March 7, 1987, Microsoft sells a better
word processor than Ann Arbor Softworks, because Ann Arbor doesn't have
one to sell (yet).'
-- 
	Joel West
	{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww	(ihnp4!gould9!joel once I fix news)
	jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu	if you must