4 ms·

>Word 97 Is there a FOSS program with a comparable user experience?

by prvc 6y ago

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Not that I have seen. I'm way into FOSS, but I'm compromising on this because nothing even comes close. It was made at a time when Microsoft cared a lot about user experience, poured millions of dollars into user studies, design, and ensuring that every pixel was perfect, every function was keyboard-accessible, and every workflow was smooth. And it shows. Trying to use e.g. LibreOffice or Google Docs, after that, it's like comparing a science fair project made by a kid who just wanted to pass with a C versus an A+ student whose project was also made by their parents, who also happen to be scientists.
- cout 6y ago
  Even comparing recent versions of Word to the older ones is facepalm-inducing. I still don't understand what the designer was thinking with the ribbon. Compare to the DOS days where every major program (wordperfect, lotus 1-2-3, etc) had a function key template. It was annoying to learn at first, but easily discoverable, and eventually you get muscle memory. Modern apps have lost that, in many ways.
marcodiego 6y ago
Abiword.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Abiword is decent. I open it, and I start typing right away, no dialogs. The startup time is rather fast. However, saving does not provide me with a default filename, so there is friction there. In the status bar, the indicator text runs right up to the border edge, nobody took the time to ensure vertical and horizontal spacing matches up. The menubar does not provide keyboard accelerators until after I press the Alt key -- too late in terms of discoverability. The cursor actually disappears when I use the arrow keys to move around. It's not even blinking, it's just GONE, until I stop using the arrow keys, then reappears after a delay. The spell-checker finds an spelling mistake in both "Abiword" and "abiword". Using only the keyboard, I cannot figure out how to change the font size, except by going through the Format->Font menu. The Font dialog has invisible or nearly-invisible focus rectangles on most controls. I just installed it to write this comment, and I found all this stuff in the first five or so minutes of using it. It's a nice little word processor, and I'd use it in a pinch, but it's no Word 97.
  - boogies 6y ago
    I think some of these things can be fixed in Abiword and other apps with GTK configuration. Eg.: > The menubar does not provide keyboard accelerators until after I press the Alt key -- too late in terms of discoverability. I think this is a GTK theme setting that you can override https://askubuntu.com/questions/329668/always-show-keyboard-shortcuts-in-gnome-take-effect-without-a-restart https://askubuntu.com/questions/329668/always-show-keyboard-...
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      thanks
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      Thank you. So far, I think that only addresses the menu accelerators issue, and none of the others I listed. I think the fact that it is off by default in the first places illustrates my point quite well. And so does the fact that I have to seek out separate configuration for the toolkit. Not only that, but on the very page you linked, people are complaining that even the setting does not work reliably. I know that when I tried to adjust it in the past for other apps it did not work for me. Perhaps I just needed to reboot? :)
- klodolph 6y ago
  No. I've used Abiword a bit, but it has been a few years, and Abiword doesn't really come close to the Microsoft Word experience back in the day. People generally have their favorite MS Word version that they like before it "went downhill", and mine is Word 5.1a for Macintosh. This is the last version of Microsoft Word that was specifically designed as a Macintosh application, rather than a cross-platform application with a Mac port. Microsoft's turned out some very high-quality Mac applications in the 1990s and 2000s. Another notable one is Internet Explorer 5, which is unrelated to the infamous Internet Explorer 5 for Windows (the one with poor standards compliance), other than the fact that the products are made by the same company, have the same name, and have the same version number.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    I have a G4 Mac in my test pool, ans IE5 for Mac OS X is one of the best browsers ever made. IE5 is also the most ported IE ever, it was ported to close to 10 different platforms.
    - bombcar 6y ago
      I suspect porting had something to do with the quality; software that is actually _ported_ (as opposed to Java or Electron write-once-run-everywhere) often ends up better for the exercise.
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        That's a great point, I haven't thought about that much. It's like you're re-raking the code with every port, essentially doing a partial rewrite and refactor, with all the benefits that come with that. IE5 is one of the most solid browsers I know.
      - klodolph 6y ago
        Internet Explorer wasn't ported to Mac, though. Instead, a new piece of software with the same name was created. This is not some kind of nitpick or technicality; they were really quite different.

>Word 97 Is there a FOSS program with a comparable user experience?

by prvc 6y ago

>Word 97 Is there a FOSS program with a comparable user experience?

Not that I have seen. I'm way into FOSS, but I'm compromising on this because nothing even comes close. It was made at a time when Microsoft cared a lot about user experience, poured millions of dollars into user studies, design, and ensuring that every pixel was perfect, every function was keyboard-accessible, and every workflow was smooth. And it shows. Trying to use e.g. LibreOffice or Google Docs, after that, it's like comparing a science fair project made by a kid who just wanted to pass with a C versus an A+ student whose project was also made by their parents, who also happen to be scientists.

cout 6y ago
Even comparing recent versions of Word to the older ones is facepalm-inducing. I still don't understand what the designer was thinking with the ribbon. Compare to the DOS days where every major program (wordperfect, lotus 1-2-3, etc) had a function key template. It was annoying to learn at first, but easily discoverable, and eventually you get muscle memory. Modern apps have lost that, in many ways.

marcodiego 6y ago

Abiword.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Abiword is decent. I open it, and I start typing right away, no dialogs. The startup time is rather fast. However, saving does not provide me with a default filename, so there is friction there. In the status bar, the indicator text runs right up to the border edge, nobody took the time to ensure vertical and horizontal spacing matches up. The menubar does not provide keyboard accelerators until after I press the Alt key -- too late in terms of discoverability. The cursor actually disappears when I use the arrow keys to move around. It's not even blinking, it's just GONE, until I stop using the arrow keys, then reappears after a delay. The spell-checker finds an spelling mistake in both "Abiword" and "abiword". Using only the keyboard, I cannot figure out how to change the font size, except by going through the Format->Font menu. The Font dialog has invisible or nearly-invisible focus rectangles on most controls. I just installed it to write this comment, and I found all this stuff in the first five or so minutes of using it. It's a nice little word processor, and I'd use it in a pinch, but it's no Word 97.
- boogies 6y ago
  I think some of these things can be fixed in Abiword and other apps with GTK configuration. Eg.: > The menubar does not provide keyboard accelerators until after I press the Alt key -- too late in terms of discoverability. I think this is a GTK theme setting that you can override https://askubuntu.com/questions/329668/always-show-keyboard-shortcuts-in-gnome-take-effect-without-a-restart https://askubuntu.com/questions/329668/always-show-keyboard-...
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    thanks
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    Thank you. So far, I think that only addresses the menu accelerators issue, and none of the others I listed. I think the fact that it is off by default in the first places illustrates my point quite well. And so does the fact that I have to seek out separate configuration for the toolkit. Not only that, but on the very page you linked, people are complaining that even the setting does not work reliably. I know that when I tried to adjust it in the past for other apps it did not work for me. Perhaps I just needed to reboot? :)
klodolph 6y ago
No. I've used Abiword a bit, but it has been a few years, and Abiword doesn't really come close to the Microsoft Word experience back in the day. People generally have their favorite MS Word version that they like before it "went downhill", and mine is Word 5.1a for Macintosh. This is the last version of Microsoft Word that was specifically designed as a Macintosh application, rather than a cross-platform application with a Mac port. Microsoft's turned out some very high-quality Mac applications in the 1990s and 2000s. Another notable one is Internet Explorer 5, which is unrelated to the infamous Internet Explorer 5 for Windows (the one with poor standards compliance), other than the fact that the products are made by the same company, have the same name, and have the same version number.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I have a G4 Mac in my test pool, ans IE5 for Mac OS X is one of the best browsers ever made. IE5 is also the most ported IE ever, it was ported to close to 10 different platforms.
  - bombcar 6y ago
    I suspect porting had something to do with the quality; software that is actually _ported_ (as opposed to Java or Electron write-once-run-everywhere) often ends up better for the exercise.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      That's a great point, I haven't thought about that much. It's like you're re-raking the code with every port, essentially doing a partial rewrite and refactor, with all the benefits that come with that. IE5 is one of the most solid browsers I know.
    - klodolph 6y ago
      Internet Explorer wasn't ported to Mac, though. Instead, a new piece of software with the same name was created. This is not some kind of nitpick or technicality; they were really quite different.