Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:42 -0500, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Barry Brimer wrote:
>> >> Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior
>> >(and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect.
>> > I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
>> Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually
>> market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for
>> DOS)....
>> I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
>
> It is nearly antique at this point.
>
Why do you call it that? What features are missing (and I haven't looked
at a current copy in 10 years, btw). In general, I don't see *anything* I
couldn't have done with the one from back then.
> Recent OOo has worked extremely well for me; editing complex 200+ page
> documents with refereces, TOCs, & indexes. I've really become a fan of
> OOo starting in the 3.2.x series.
>
I guarantee WP 10-12 years ago could handle all that - most City of
Chicago, and I think federal contracts, used to specify that documents be
in WP format.
Besides, the files were always *much* smaller, and you could always beat
it into submission with <alt><F3>, I think it was, and the way it revealed
formatting... I was amazed that they didn't market that straight for
designing web pages. AND not a single word processor or web page building
I've seen writes them clean: both Word and OO.o write out *crap*, with
font size and font and color and every damn thing on every single line,
rather than only when something changes.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
