🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30244@cup.portal.com> spage@cup.portal.com (S spage Page) writes:
>WfW is very close to Macintosh Word (except for its macro language).

Actually, WFW can do a bunch of things that Mac word can't, like
sequence fields, bookmarks and so on. I got really frustrated going
back to word on the mac. So, I guess Micorsoft will come out with
another upgrade, which will hopefully fix the incompatibility
mentioned below.

>Both WfW and Ami Pro can save in RTF (Rich Text Format).

It is the ability to read and write RTF that makes WfW and MacWord
compatible with each other. Unfortunaely, the compatibility does not
go as far as graphics embedded in WfW files.  So, if you use RTF to
convert between WfW and Macword, the resulting on the Mac file has no
graphics.  Microsoft's documentation on the WfW end is very misleading
on this point, as I learnt to my cost.

>my comments, since I only spent a few days perusing Ami Pro and WfW.  I
>decided to stick with (non-Windows) Word 5.0 because WfW under Windows 2.1
>had memory problems with my very complex documents, and recoxDmmended that 
>others in my company use WfW because of its family relationships with Word 
>5.0, and Mac Word.  But I notice that several people rebelled and use Ami Pro
>instead because it's cleaner and easier at first.

I use WFW on a 386 w 4Meg and 9 meg of swapdisk (Win3), and it runs
like a charm. It was uhappy on 286 2.10, as well as 386 2.11, though
less unhappy on 386 2.11. The demo version that MS ships, which I
tried out at a local store, would frequently run out of memory. I
think a lot of this has to do with Word Basic, and I wish that MS had
made wordbasic a seperate module, which was loaded only when required.

kartik

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anant Kartik Mithal					akm@cs.uoregon.edu
Department of Computer Science				akm@oregon.BITNET
University of Oregon