🚀 go-pugleaf

>     I have just spent a few hours with Word version 4. From this short exper-
>ience, I can only conclude that I will not use this upgrade, even though I
>paid for it.
>

Having spent a few months iwth the product, I think you're being rash.
However, that's your right.

>*    When the Page Setup... setting for unlimited downloadable fonts (in the
>     Options button dialog) is checked, documents using downloadable fonts show
>     major portions in Courier font.
This isn't a Word problem, it's an Apple System Software problem. Try that
in any application. Fixed in Laserwriter version 6.0.

>*    The "feature" of having menus that are completely reconfigurable is two-
>     edged. Version 3 got lots of complaints, many of which indicated that
>     people were not willing to spend the time to learn to use their tools.
>     However, version 3 was difficult to learn not only because it was powerful
>     and feature-rich, but also because of its human interface. In version 4
>     the human interface problem has not been addressed, it has simply been
>     thrown back at the user to solve as best he may. Word is the only Mac-
>     intosh program to resort to this "solution," or to find it necessary to do
>     so. It is a symptom of greater problems.

I disgree with this. First, I personally don't have a problem with the Word
user interface. It ins't perfect, but it gets the job done. 

With Word 3, people screamed because if they didn't like the user interface,
they were stuck. Microsoft came up with a way to allow people to change it
to fit their needs (which I have on my systems to a good degree) and now you
complain because they allow you to customize the system. This complaint is
very much a two-edged sword. If Microsoft HAD significantly changed the
command and interface structure, they would have been pilloried for giving
up compatibilitiy. This is the best of both worlds -- if you like it the way
it is you don't need to re-learn the WP. If you want to change it, you can
change it. 

People are going to complain about it no matter *what* they do with the
interface -- this seems like the best and most flexible compromise, and one
I think *every* program should consider adopting. Why force people to use
QuickKeys or Tempo to re-arrange their system -- the program should allow
them to do itwithout low-level coercion. 

>Word version 4 is well-known in the industry as having been tested thoroughly.
>The fact that this user has encountered this variety of problems in a short
>time is symptomatic of beta-testing that does not rely on a wide-enough range
>of users.

A good percentage of what you define as problems might be better looked at
as disagreements in design philophies.

>Third, I realize that Chuq has been a beta-test site for Word 4. Sorry Chuq,
>I do not question your capability or depth of experience with desktop publish-
>ing tools. But golly, Chuq, how much did you wring this howling dog out, anyway?

While I'm not yet working with the 'real' version, I'm really happy with
Word 4. I've used it for a number of non-trivial projects since I started
testing it, and it's done exactly what I ask of it. It even works just fine
on a 512ke I have, which is more than I can say for most programs today. And
I happen to really love the menu and key redefinitions. It's really let me
turn this into my word processor. Instead of an image of the desiggner's
word processor.