On 27 Dec 97, 09:07am, Phil Heberer wrote to David Chessler
on the subject of "Re: WP/WORD":
>     Figuring out which version works with which is exactly the 
>     frustrating point I was trying to make.  I'm a Federal 
>     employee, and we have versions from Office 3.0 still being utilized, 
>     as well as every version since. The same can be said for WP, as many 
>     offices are still using WPWin 5.2 as well. Still, I've had far LESS 
>     problems with WordPerfect in finding common formats than I have with 
>     Word97.
That is also my experience, although dropping from WP 8.0 to 5.1
in a file with paragraph numbering results in putting an "outline
on" code that I have to find and delete. I guess there are other
incompatibilities. We had a problem with tables in a large
document. It was crashing 7.0 regularly--you could work on only a
page at a time, then save, because it would crash again. I had it
sent to me to load into 8.0, and had the same problem, at about
the same place. So I saved it in 5.1 and then reimported it. That
worked. 5.1 supported all the codes we were actually using, and
the saving got rid of the bad code.
Thank goodness for the internet. I'm in Maryland and my
collaborator was in Michigan--say 700 miles apart--and we
transfered large files in minutes.
>     to me WP is easier to figure out new options than Word is. I don't 
>     know if the On-line Help files are better organized or what, but I 
>     can generally get the job done faster than trying to figure out the 
>     same options in Word.
Could be. I haven't used 7.0 or 8.0 very much, and I have
scarcely used Word at all. I continue to use 5.1 and expect to do
so until I have to do things that can't be done in 5.1. One thing
is importing new fonts. I don't use a lot of fonts, but if that
were to change, I would change, because working the ptr.exe
program in WP 5.1 to move and construct fonts is a major pain
(and I have a printed copy of the manual for that program).
 DC>> What is left is about 12.5 inches. In other words, you have to
 DC>> get a 17 inch monitor for Win95 applications to have THE SAME
 DC>> screen size as DOS. So much for Billy G. and his electric
 DC>> operating system.
>     *I* don't like screen clutter either, and prefer keyboard hotkeys to
>     mouse commands as well for faster productivity. Now that I'm at
>     tri-focal age, a 21" monitor is a Godsend! 
And if you were using the DOS version, it would be the equivalent
of a 23 inch monitor under windows. :-)
--
  ___   __      chessler@mix.cpcug.org
   d_)--/d      chessler@capaccess.org
... E-mail:        1:109/1111     david.chessler@mix.cpcug.org
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 42524
 * Silver Xpress V4.4P
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/25
---------------
** A related thread FOLLOWS this message.

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 163 WORD PERFECT  Ref: EG^K1838 Date: 12/31/97
From: STEVE SHATTUCK                                        Time: 04:30pm
\/To: DAVID CHESSLER                                      (Read 3 times)
Subj: R: Re: WP/WORD

When David enlightened Phil Heberer about Re: WP/WORD

DC>Actually, that's backward. If you have Word97 and save the file
DC>in Word95 format, it would save it in Revisable Form Text (RFT)
DC>instead, which Word95 couldn't read.

And ACTUALLY (to paraphrase the sender), this is WRONG.  Word 95 reads 
RTF (note the R stands for RICH not REVISABLE)files flawlessly.  The 
problem is the RTF isn't RICH enough.  Lots of formatting was lost in 
the translation (not uncommon for any document translation).  Microsoft 
recovered very nicely with a fix.

 __
(__
___)teve     shattuck@execpc.com     via Windows 95


CMPQwk 1.42 #329
... Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.

---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LAST Message In Thread <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 163 WORD PERFECT  Ref: F1100000 Date: 12/31/97
From: DAVID CHESSLER                                        Time: 09:59am
\/To: STEVE HAYES                                         (Read 3 times)
Subj: Re: WP/WORD

On 29 Dec 97, 09:56am, Steve Hayes wrote to David Chessler
on the subject of "Re: WP/WORD":
 DC>> get a 17 inch monitor for Win95 applications to have THE SAME
 DC>> screen size as DOS. So much for Billy G. and his electric
 DC>> operating system.
>     Both of them are his.
Actually, DOS is Seattle Computing's re-write of Digital
Research's CP/M
>     Or rather Win95 is a shell for his operating system, and he is 
>     starting to insist that people use the shell as well as the 
>     operating system. 
This is less true with each iteration of Windows. NT contains no
DOS code (the Kernel resembles Unix and was written by
programmers who had formerly worked for DEC). There is still a
DOS kernel under Win95, but it is much less than previously.
But anyhow, this misses my point, that it is Win95 that forces
you to get a 2" larger monitor to have the same useful screen
size as DOS.
--
  ___   __      chessler@mix.cpcug.org
   d_)--/d      chessler@capaccess.org
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 42523
 * Silver Xpress V4.4P
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/25
---------------