response 1 of 97:

Oct 5 20:13 UTC 1991

Word for Windows is okay. 
Has some quirks, but it's okay.
Ami Pro is supposedly quite quite good, but I never got around to trying it.

response 3 of 97:

Oct 6 01:33 UTC 1991

        I've used Word since I started using PC's.  I've also used Wordstar
3.3, Wordperfect, Volkswriter, the Leading Edge Word Processor, and looked
at a few others (Amipro 1.0, PC Write, etc).
        I presently use Word for Windows.  I found it was very easy to
migrate from Word for DOS to the Windows version, even though they are not
very much alike.
        Any of the big name word processors has all the features in the
world.  If you've never used a word processor before, you can go to any
software store, plunk down $495, and walk out with a good, feature filled
word processor that will do everything you want it to.  If there are any
differences in the features, they'll only last until the next release of
whatever word processor is deficient in some way.
        Mary, I know you've been using a Mac.  Since I've never used a Mac, I
don't have any idea what word processor is likely to be most familiar to
you.

        Word has always been the graphical leader for DOS word processors.  
You get a prettier screen, you can use your mouse most easily, and everything 
is done by menus.
        Wordperfect is the most popular of the Big Three for business users.
In Wordperfect, every command you use is based on the function keys.  All
40 combinations of Alt, Shift, Control, or no meta key, and the 10
function keys, are used for commands. 
        Wordstar has fallen way, way out of the race.  Wordstar uses control
key combinations.  Wordstar is so far out of touch with the way people use
word processors that it isn't really worth discussing.

        For Windows, there's Word and Amipro, which are established, and most
of the magazine reviews I've seen don't see much of a difference between
the two, and now there's Wordperfect and Wordstar for Windows.  I haven't
read any reviews of these two new entries into the Windows world yet.

response 5 of 97:

Oct 6 02:52 UTC 1991

Word for windows through the U of M comes out to about $100

response 7 of 97:

Oct 6 12:25 UTC 1991

That's a good idea, Mark.  Maybe we can all let Mary use whatever we
have and she can write a review for all of us.  :)

response 9 of 97:

Oct 6 14:07 UTC 1991

I tend to think of my word processing needs as simple - until I
start writing with a stripped down program.  Then I start missing
things like automatic page numbering that will place numbers in
the appropriate corners when the pages will face each other.
Boxing text, easy column setup, and a good macro editor - again,
these seem like extras but when you want 'em you'd like to find
them available.

When I was using the Mac, I was in love with the interface.  But
ever since moving to the PC, I've found Windows an inelegant
substitute.  Now, I know some of this is my fault, because I tend
to run in 1028 X 764 mode, and even with a good video card and a
pretty lively cpu, it tends to slow productivity software way
down.  Much to my surprise though, working with the DOS prompt is
easier than I anticipated, programs tend to crash less often, and
everything clips right along.

I tend to think WordPerfect 5.1 might be a good choice.  I can
purchase it, using a U of M staff discount, for $135, and upgrade
to the Windows version for another $59, essentially having both
versions. Word, although cheaper initially, involves a more
expensive upgrade path to its Windows version. There is no doubt
more to either of these programs than I'll ever need but I
probably won't reach for something that's not there either.  Also,
there is an ongoing project at work, that is running on
WordPerfect, that although I could convert most other formats to
be compatible, WordPerfect would be an instant fit.

Has anyone been disappointed with WordPerfect?  Would anyone want
to purchase my Just Write for Windows for $25.00?

response 11 of 97:

Oct 6 20:31 UTC 1991

Mary, you might want to think about "downsizing" your display to 800x600.
Unless you have a 16" or 19" monitor, I've found that the Windows text
in 1024x768 mode is much too small to read comfortably, and that shuffling
all those extra pixels *does* slow it down.  For most applications, 800x600
is big enough, and I think you'll find the larger text and increased
speed are well worth the loss of a bit of screen real estate.

response 13 of 97:

Oct 7 03:43 UTC 1991

(Blech.  Windowing displays were never meant to be run on such a low-res
screen; you can hardly fit an 80x25 DOS window on such a small screen!
One of the reasons I don't like Windows more is that it doesn't allow
you to make DOS windows bigger than 80x25 -- I'm addicted to 80x43, would
love an even bigger screen, and use 80x25 screens only under protest.)

response 15 of 97:

Oct 9 01:42 UTC 1991

WordPerfect is reasonable, most of the benefits have been cited already,
one that is not mentioned, if you are hooked on Windows type interface,
it supports pull-downs and such these days, and if you don't like that, at
least you can turn the stuff and use the WordPerfect style interface.
                            ^off

You are not likely to be happy with any Windows product if speed bothers
you, the PC does not have dedicated graphic chips, and thus the fastest
are not half rfast enough yet.  The other alternative might be to
investigate some of the newer graphics boards.

response 17 of 97:

Nov 28 04:30 UTC 1991

If you have been a Mac user, I recommend Microsoft Word for Windows.
I had Word for DOS and I thought it was a pretty reasonable program.
Word for MAC is one of the nicest word processors I've ever used.

response 19 of 97:

Dec 19 04:32 UTC 1991

I've just received and installed Word for Windows 2.0 -- as a PC Word 4.0
user, I must say that I really like it.  I can't compare it to 1.0, as this
is my first "winword" version of Word.  I can say that it and all it's
subtasks (MS Graph, Draw, Equate...etc) do require at least Windows in
Standard mode.  I understand that version 1.0 would even run in a non-windows
environment.  2.0 takes between 8 and 15 MB of disk space, depending on 
a "minimal" "custom" or "maximum" configuration.  One thing I like
is (finally) the ability to import/export text and/or graphics in any
form.  That's very important in a company with few standards and fewer
controls on PC hardware/software.

response 21 of 97:

Jan 20 03:50 UTC 1992

Back in #3 jep said Wordstar isn't worth discussing.  Well, I've been
using Wordstar for 10 years, and have gone through many updates of
the program in that time.  The control commands haven't bothered me,
of course, because I know them as well as knowing my name.  However,
the latest versions, 5.5 and 6.0 can use function keys or pull down
menus, so you don't need to know any control character commands (but
they're there is you want them).  I'll admit I don't really know
the other major word processing programs, but Wordstar 6.0 does about
everything imaginable, and more.  I'd like to see a major review
article that compares these programs, feature for feature.  I doubt
if many (any?) match Wordstar.  No, it's not simple, but it's an
awesome program.

response 23 of 97:

Jan 21 07:39 UTC 1992

        Any of the $495 word processors has all the features anyone could
ever find a use for.  I imagine Wordstar is no exception.  Word processors
distinguish themselves these days by their interfaces.  Word for DOS uses
menus; Wordperfect for DOS uses function keys.  The Windows word
processors all use the Windows interface, and don't have that much by which 
to distinguish themselves.  
        In #3 I said that Wordstar is out of touch and therefore not worth
discussing.  I used Wordstar 3.3, and I still use the basic command set in
several public domain, shareware and BBS text editors.  I wouldn't
recommend that anyone learn Wordstar who hasn't been using it since 1985,
though.  It's too difficult to learn, and doesn't have anything to
distinguish it.  All the major word processors can do whatever you want.
Why learn one so obscure, and so unstable?