What is your favorite DOS word processor and why?  When I moved from
the Mac to a clone, I immediately went out a purchased an inexpensive
Windows based program, Just Write, which I've since found to be too
slow for comfort. 

I could get WordPerfect 5.1 for $135, or Word for DOS for $100. 
Are there any others I should be considering?

97 responses total.

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.

What kind of word processing are you going to be doing?  Fancy layout
stuff or just word crunching.  If you plan on doing only word
crunching, let me recommend XyWrite.  It is very fast, can edit
humungous files, and will run on practically any PC configuration.  The
downside is that it can be a pain to learn.  Once you are over the
learning hump, though, it is a very good tool.

I also have, and use Microsoft Word.  I like it, but haven't really
gotten around to using its fancy features, such as importing graphics.
The magazines seem to think that Word for Windows is pretty good and
offers reasonable performance.  With Word for Windows you could take
advantage of all the Windows features like using the Clipboard and
using Windows fonts.

        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.

I dont know about Windows Wordperfect, but DOS Wordperfect 5.1 is pretty good..
of course I dont do any major things, it is a very solid word processor with
alot of features.

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

I like WordPerfect, but then again, I've never been a mouse-and-windows
type of guy.  Mary, being used to the Mac, might be more comfortable in
a GUI environment.  I've never used Ami Pro or WordPerfect/Windows, but
I have used Word for Windows.  I was unimpressed; it seemed to be big,
klunky, and slow.  There were too many top-level menu options and not
enough submenus; I seem to recall that the "File" menu had over 20
choices.

Word processors are the type of personal choice that you really can't make
without trying the different options yourself.  Go into a computer
store, or find a friend with a copy of the software you're interested in,
and try it out for a while.  See if you can borrow a copy to use for a
week or so.  That's really the only way you're going to become familiar
with a program to the point where you can say whether or not you like
it.  The big-name word processors cost enough these days ($300-$500) that
it really sucks to blow a huge chunk of change on one and then find
out, two weeks later, that it's sitting on the shelf because you can't
stand to use the thing.

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.  :)

        If Word for Windows, or any other application you're running, is too
slow on a computer you bought in 1991, you bought the wrong computer.  I
run Word for Windows on a 386/20 w/2 megabytes of RAM; it's fast enough.  
I've run it on a 286/10 w/3 meg and it's fast enough.  Speed in a word
processor on a 386 is irrelevant; the computer provides the speed.

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?

        Wordperfect is just about as different from Word as two programs for
the same purpose can be.  I know it's prejudice on my part; if I'd started
with Wordperfect, or learned both at the same time, I'd have no problems
with Wordperfect.  It does everything anyone could possibly want in a word
processor.  I just find it so unintuitive (despite a really good help
system) that I can't use it.

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.

I run mine in 640x480, and it's fine by me...

(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.)

I'm too lazy to dig up the appropriate drivers, alas.
(Actually, I think Hyundai gave me bad drivers anyway. One hopes they get 
better drivers for their cars)

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.

Yeah, the windows driver-charger-turbo boards are coming out.
Accelerator, that's what I meant.

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.

I'm using WordPerfect 5.1 now and I like it very much.  So much so
that I don't think I'll even take them up on their $65 upgrade to
the new Windows version.  Guess I'm somewhat paranoid it'll slow
the whole thing down and that the graphical screen fonts will be
hard to read like so many other Windows wp programs.

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.

I hope they fixed some of the bugs in 1.0.
Bleagh.
Invisible cursors, screwed margins...

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.

I use WP 5.1, but I would have to agree with Marc, take a good look at
Ami Pro, I had a boss that loved it, and he had been a die hard 
WordStar user before.

        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?

WordPerfect for DOS is a total peice of dog-doo-doo.  Ever try to handle
truely large files?  (Truely large files are anything over 50K for WP). And
how bout that terrific learning curve?  You too can learn WP 5.1 is less than
5 years!  Has anybody ever tried changing a font or size for an entire file?
If you have switched fonts in the middle it won't work!
How bout WP for Windows!  Well, its tolerable if you can get it to run for
more than 5 minutes without a UAE.

For truely nice word processing, go with Word for Windows version 2.0 or
Ami Pro 2.0 or 3.0.  Need to use a DOS word processor? Use Word for DOS. Any
version will do.  Don't mess with WordStar or WordPerfect -- old-tech to the
hilt. Non-intuitive.

WordPerfect is an astounding program... How they sell as many copies as they
do is simply mystifying to me.

They sell so many copies because there are thousands, if not millions,
of people out there who ALREADY know how to use it, and would have to
be retrained if something else were to be bought.

Of course, no DOS or Windows word-processor can ever beat LaTeX for
flexibility, functionality, and once you get your mind out of the
WYSIAYG (What You See Is All You Get) track, ease of use.

  WYSIWYG is nice, if you have an interface powerful enough to put what you
want on the screen.... Hence, all the use of the Mac as a graphic artist's
computer (or corporate executive computerphobe's computer, or actually,
anyone's computer... even I find them nice in some ways, and I'm comfortable
with Unix.... better than DOS, at anyrate)... :)

(WYSIAYG -- cute acronym.  How do you pronounce it -- wissy-egg?)

 re #25:  I'll admit that I'm not a really proficient LaTeX user, but
I'd argue with your contention about LaTeX's flexibility.  While it's
true that it does most things fairly well, there are some things that
come up missing every now and then that aren't easy to work around..

You are supposed to use TeX for those cases.  Usually it involves modifying
some of the library macros to implement the new environ.

This constitutes writing a new system such as LaTeX is, and certainly is
not done on the fly.  Using TeX, you could typeset the Classifieds section
of a newspaper.  Writing the macros should take longer than expected.

However, once you are within the environment for which the TeX macros were
designed for, it is beats any WYSIAYG system I ran accross, and very
flexible if you want to do something like serial letters, labels,
automatically generated documents (including catalogs).  All this at superior
typesetting quality.

  There are some things that TeX, LaTeX, or whatever, just aren't suited
for.  As you point out, they're really great for documents that follow a 
pre-determined style or that match the intended use for a Macro package 
well but TeX was designed to be a typesettinlanguage used to generate
papers with text and charts.  For anything that requires complicated page
layout, a high-end WYSIWYG DTP program is generally a significantly better
choice.

Only if the complicated page layout thing isn't something that has to be
done repeatedly, or different layouts each time.  I even ran across a
resume package.

  I guess I wasn't completely clear.  TeX (LaTex, fooTeX, whatever..)
are very handy for things that fit within a very well defined format
since you can either use a pre-determined style or define one of your
own.  For one-shots or things that change frequently it's not always
such a good choice.

  Holy subject-verb agreement, Batman!  Make that "TeX-like formatters"
instead of just "TeX" in the first line above..

re # 32: now I agree :)

Ok, Tex and variants are really-cool super-programs, but what about the rest
of us?  Most people just want *reasonable* output, not truely-spectacular-to-
the-micron output.

For you Mac people out there, there ARE a number of other graphical
environments just as competent at doing WYSIWYG as the coveted Mac interface.
Windows 3.x, OSF, Motif, NeXT, Pink, ...  The Mac no longer has a corner on
the GUI market.  Take an objective look sometime and you'll find that that
familiar interface somewhat outdated in comparison.  And yes, I've seen and
used System 7.

Sure, I started out with WYSIWYG programs, and when the overhead became
unacceptable, I switched.  It is nice to start with.

  Re: 35
      The Mac may be outdated in some things, but it's still very nice to use.
And a lot more powerful in most ways than Windows anyway!!!!!!  I haven't
seen OSF or Pink, but I do agree that the NeXT is more powerful (and cheaper,
and runs Unix :) ), but I'd still prefer a nice Mac over a silly IBM clone...

More powerful?  NOT!  It might be more responsive in some ways, but I can
guarantee that the Windows groundwork is much more sophisticated and
intelligent than System 7.  Windows programs coming out in the next year or
so will BEGIN to tap some of the power. OLE (Object Linking & Embedding) will
simply REVOLUTIONIZE the way software works together. Example: no longer will
a word processor have to understand graphics or spreadsheet formats because
OLE will permit the application that created that file to actually do the
editing/printing/etc for that portion of the document.  All seamless,
available to developers NOW.  The mac has no provisions for Dynamic Link Libs.
these are critical to writing big applications for integrated systems.

And, Win32 will completely replace the DOS baggage we have to carry around;
available this fall, probably early next year.

   The Mac DOES have something similar to a DLL - it's not called that, but
it's the same idea....  I don't have all the tech specs on System 7, but I
suspect that it's as powerful or more as Win31.... Who wants to use Windows,
anyway, though?  OS/2 runs Windows, AND DOS, AND OS/2 stuff.... PLUS it's
Object Oriented, has decent threading, etc.....

  Do you really think that IBMs will ever escape from DOS?

"Who will ever need more than 640k of memory?"
                        -Bill Gates, 1981

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss