Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:42 -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us 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