Re: WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux - Deluxe

Gary Campbell wrote:
> I also bought the WordPerfect Deluxe package back in 2000.  When the package 
> turned out to be too flaky under SUSE, I bought Corel distribution and 
> reloaded.  Still very flaky.  How Corel folk ever got through marketing demos 
> is beyond me.
>
> Open Office from the earliest versions opened all and still can open my old 
> WordPerfect files created under Micro$oft and three distros of Linux.
>
> Gary Campbell
>   
Seems like the problem here is that the original poster bought hook, 
line and sinker into a historical product feature that delivers exactly 
nothing in TODAY's real world.  If you are able to generate a document 
identical to one that uses "display codes", what exact benefit does the 
feature provide?  I certainly outdate the reveal codes feature and do 
not need it explained to me - it was beneficial at the time.   Today the 
issues addressed by reveal codes have been rendered moot, as people have 
come to trust the alignment of screen versus print fonts, congruent 
print preview - printed document and consistency between rendering a 
document across multiple printers, screens and outputs.  Reveal codes 
was a text-based method to fine tune a document for output exactly how 
the user wanted it - I've been able to achieve the same result for years 
now without the feature.  It was absolutely necessary on fixed pitch 
printers and fixed line leading technology like daisy wheel line 
printers and band printers - but I bet few readers remember them.

WordPerfect started to suck the moment they went to WYSIWYG on version 
6.0 on DOS.  It never really approached the product it was under DOS 
after that point (and the subsequent market decline confirmed it).  
WordPerfect 4.2 on DOS was it's apogee as a product - it was a text 
manipulation program with no pretenses of WYSIWYG, and it was peerless 
(at the time) as a editor - blindingly fast, with precise control of 
output as people used "reveal codes" to allow them to control the output 
visualized in their heads.  The rendering quality needed on graphical 
displays at the time was not as good as the author's visualization of 
the output.

The real answer here is to gently tell the original poster to "get over 
it" and learn to use today's tools as well as the tools he used twenty 
years ago.   Investment in time learning editors is the single best 
thing people can do to make themselves more productive and valuable.  I 
remember getting schooled on editors watching Dave Skoll on EMACS.  Best 
lesson I ever learned.  You have to use the right tool for the right job.

--
Bill




-- 
OCLUG general discussion list
[email protected]
http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/oclug