From: nospam on
In article <8sm236hil993b8mps6oqvknms24a33otqk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> FWIW, my personal old favorite was Multiplan.
> >
> >I had forgotten about that. IIRC didn't it morph into Excel.
>
> They're really quite different. Multiplan was orphaned once Excel took
> off. I stubbornly held on for a number of years, but eventually gave
> up.

excel first appeared on the mac and blew multiplan away.

in fact, i forget which magazine it was, maybe byte or pc world (it was
*not* a mac magazine) said that excel was *so* good that you should buy
a mac *just* for excel, and coming from a pc oriented magazine, that
said a lot.
From: nospam on
In article <8lm236hdsfndajg990mvg9ri1978r4hcm2(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:39:52 -0400, in
> <4c315766$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
> >"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:040720102018323649%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
> >> In article <hui236di9v843di1gqnothhfo3nvjd4pke(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
> >> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >MS had superior marketing and
> >>> >developer support. When sn ISV can purchase a product for less from a
> >>> >discount retailer than from the pulisher, do you really think the ISV is
> >>> >going to stick with that publisher.
> >>>
> >>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus.
> >>
> >> in many ways it was much better than microsoft and was (and still is)
> >> popular for legal documents.
>
> Simply not true.

maybe for you but not for others.

> >Most law firms I know have switched to the dark side.
>
> True. WordPerfect let the market get away.

more like microsoft steamrolled it.

> >>> But the big issue was simply that it didn't keep up,
> >>> and Word for Windows killed it.
> >>
> >> actually, microsoft's predatory business tactics is what killed it.
>
> Nope, it lost in the market.

due to predatory tactics, not features.

> >You somehow made my statements look like Navas's.
> >
> >Notwithstanding that, the original WordPerfect for Windows was poorly
> >developed. It had no real functionality on a network. This was just after
> >the product was sold to Novel. I went to PC Expo and complained abut the
> >bug. the "experts" from Novel said they could not duplicate my finding. With
> >their permission I demonstrated two bugs and it took them several hours to
> >recover from the "non-existent bugs." Meanwhile, MS was supplying free
> >copies of Word to legal secretarial school students and almost anyone,
> >especially IT professionals, who asked.
>
> Yep. Dismal marketing versus excellent marketing.

nope.
From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:amm236tniqg8aphlihcssbacqhbhlnllo9(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:04:16 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus.
>>
>>Lotus was never intended to be a word processor.
>
> That statement jarred me, but I think he was thinking about Lotus's
> dedicated word processing module. Was it Lotus Notes? At one time I
> had "SmartSuite" and I think it had a word processing module. The
> spreadsheet module is "Lotus 1-2-3" (which I still use).
>

You may be right. Possibly one too many beers with my lobster last night.
I didn't get involved with SmartSuite. I did use Lotus and Symphony. I just
don't remember a word processing module, but I don't doubt that one existed.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8lm236hdsfndajg990mvg9ri1978r4hcm2(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:39:52 -0400, in
> <4c315766$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:040720102018323649%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>>> In article <hui236di9v843di1gqnothhfo3nvjd4pke(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >MS had superior marketing and
>>>> >developer support. When sn ISV can purchase a product for less from a
>>>> >discount retailer than from the pulisher, do you really think the ISV
>>>> >is
>>>> >going to stick with that publisher.
>>>>
>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus.
>>>
>>> in many ways it was much better than microsoft and was (and still is)
>>> popular for legal documents.
>
> Simply not true.

I am not taking your bait. I have already stat4ed why wordPerfect is
superior to Word. I will also add two more reasons: total ease with
backward compatibility and Dragon worked well with it, from version 1..OTOH
you have not demonstrated anything, except to pontificate "pissing contest"
statements.


--
Peter

From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:34:42 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:amm236tniqg8aphlihcssbacqhbhlnllo9(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:04:16 -0400, "Peter"
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus.
>>>
>>>Lotus was never intended to be a word processor.
>>
>> That statement jarred me, but I think he was thinking about Lotus's
>> dedicated word processing module. Was it Lotus Notes? At one time I
>> had "SmartSuite" and I think it had a word processing module. The
>> spreadsheet module is "Lotus 1-2-3" (which I still use).
>>
>
>You may be right. Possibly one too many beers with my lobster last night.
>I didn't get involved with SmartSuite. I did use Lotus and Symphony. I just
>don't remember a word processing module, but I don't doubt that one existed.

I was wrong about it being "Lotus Notes". It was "Lotus Word Pro" and
indeed in the SmartSuite package. I owned SmartSuite, but never tried
Word Pro.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida