4 ms·

> It's a myth that the Windows version of WordPerfect was bad software; I'm not sure where that comes from. Besides that it was slow and never felt like a nati

> It's a myth that the Windows version of WordPerfect was bad software; I'm not sure where that comes from. Besides that it was slow and never felt like a native Windows app, the biggest problem I remember was that it tried to replace the Windows printing subsystem with its own driver system, which was very confusing and caused problems for other Windows programs. It could not even install on Windows NT. That said, Word for Windows 1.0 also had many quirks. When Windows 3 came out, the push buttons in Word did not change to the new 3D style, as they had custom-coded every single control, including standard buttons and text boxes. Amipro (later bought by Lotus) was i.m.o. by far the best early Windows wordprocessor. They, (and not WP) prove that the best software did not win in the market.

hackuser 12y ago
> Besides that it was slow and never felt like a native Windows app I'm not sure what version you used, but by 6.1 it felt lighter and quicker than Word IMHO, and I'm pretty sure it had a standard Windows interface -- at least neither I nor the many users I supported had problems with the UI. > it tried to replace the Windows printing subsystem with its own driver system, which was very confusing and caused problems for other Windows programs. Maybe you are thinking of the initial Windows version. I supported many users and systems who used WP for Windows, and I knew others who did the same, and these were not common user problems that I recall. WP did use its own print drivers or provide those as an option, I think to provide more accurate WYSIWYG. Occasionally WP itself would have problems because it somehow integrated the print driver in WYSIWYG (a good idea if you think about it), but I don't recall other applications having problems.
mschaef 12y ago
> Besides that it was slow and never felt like a native Windows app, the biggest problem I remember was that it tried to replace the Windows printing subsystem with its own driver system, In the DOS-days (before system-wide print drivers), WordPerfect's had a huge advantage in the form of it's printer support. I can see why the organization would have fought against switching to someone else's driver stack. (Not to mention the fact that replicating the format of WordPerfect-driver output with the Windows GDI, and its drivers would be very challenging, I'm sure.)

hackuser 12y ago

> Besides that it was slow and never felt like a native Windows app I'm not sure what version you used, but by 6.1 it felt lighter and quicker than Word IMHO, and I'm pretty sure it had a standard Windows interface -- at least neither I nor the many users I supported had problems with the UI. > it tried to replace the Windows printing subsystem with its own driver system, which was very confusing and caused problems for other Windows programs. Maybe you are thinking of the initial Windows version. I supported many users and systems who used WP for Windows, and I knew others who did the same, and these were not common user problems that I recall. WP did use its own print drivers or provide those as an option, I think to provide more accurate WYSIWYG. Occasionally WP itself would have problems because it somehow integrated the print driver in WYSIWYG (a good idea if you think about it), but I don't recall other applications having problems.

mschaef 12y ago

> Besides that it was slow and never felt like a native Windows app, the biggest problem I remember was that it tried to replace the Windows printing subsystem with its own driver system, In the DOS-days (before system-wide print drivers), WordPerfect's had a huge advantage in the form of it's printer support. I can see why the organization would have fought against switching to someone else's driver stack. (Not to mention the fact that replicating the format of WordPerfect-driver output with the Windows GDI, and its drivers would be very challenging, I'm sure.)