# Where to download WordPerfect Mac?



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Hey does anyone remember where the freeware link to WP mac was? I have word, but also need Word Perfect. 

Thanks,
Morgan Figueiredo


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

Just curious here but what does Word Perfect have that Word (or Pages) does not?


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

The G3 Man said:


> Hey does anyone remember where the freeware link to WP mac was? I have word, but also need Word Perfect.
> 
> Thanks,
> Morgan Figueiredo


You know... some days all it takes is two seconds in google, and this pops up as the top entry. 

WPDOS - WordPerfect for the Macintosh Under OS X

And other than being freeware, wouldn't Star Office be a better freeware alternative?


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

FlaminWiz said:


> Just curious here but what does Word Perfect have that Word (or Pages) does not?


You don't have to steal Word/Pages in order for it to be free maybe?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

FlaminWiz said:


> Just curious here but what does Word Perfect have that Word (or Pages) does not?


Word is made my micrsoft, and Pages isn't free. 

I have NeoOffice and t is great. It handles "blue" file types when needed quite well, no conflicts yet.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

The G3 Man said:


> Hey does anyone remember where the freeware link to WP mac was? I have word, but also need Word Perfect.
> 
> Thanks,
> Morgan Figueiredo


Do you actually require WP or do you simply need something to open up a WP document?

It's going to be very very difficult to find WP, especially since it requires Classic to run, and the Intel Macs, which have now been the main machine for much of the past 3 years can't run Classic. 

I believe that OpenOffice will allow you to open a WP document and save it as a Word document.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

FlaminWiz said:


> Just curious here but what does Word Perfect have that Word (or Pages) does not?


The ability to read and format Word Perfect files, perhaps?

Word Perfect was never that good of a word processor, but it was a word processor - something that Word was an utter failure at accomplishing...


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

FlaminWiz said:


> Just curious here but what does Word Perfect have that Word (or Pages) does not?


Why do people have macs? Because it works better than windows machines.

Why do people use WordPerfect? Because it works better than Word.

Codes. WP has codes. I use WP every day for my work. The only reason I work in Windows is so I can use WP. It formats a document with much greater ease than Word. It does so using codes. Too long to explain what WP codes are. But when I tried to learn Word, I gave up. To me, Word is a total piece of crap, awkward to use, cumbersome, inflexible. I wish I could use WP on my intel mac.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

kastytis said:


> Why do people have macs? Because it works better than windows machines.
> 
> Why do people use WordPerfect? Because it works better than Word.
> 
> Codes. WP has codes. I use WP every day for my work. The only reason I work in Windows is so I can use WP. It formats a document with much greater ease than Word. It does so using codes. Too long to explain what WP codes are. But when I tried to learn Word, I gave up. To me, Word is a total piece of crap, awkward to use, cumbersome, inflexible. I wish I could use WP on my intel mac.


Technically you can using COI (Classic On Intel), kind of a classic emulator. But I find the process of doing so just to run that app to be cumbersome, it makes more sense installing XP onto Vmware fusion and running WP there.

I guess its kinda up there with people wishing they could use Lotus on their computers.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

kastytis said:


> It formats a document with much greater ease than Word. It does so using codes. Too long to explain what WP codes are.


I'd like you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has never used a word processor before and read the sentences that you wrote. 

Word Perfect had to have been one of the worst examples of a software product in history. It's success was the result of great marketing, nothing more. I was a software trainer in the late 90's when WP was at the height of it's popularity. It was an incredibly difficult application to teach to new users.

You said it: "Too long to explain what WP codes are."

I like my Mac for many reasons, but one of the main reasons is that I don't need to know what is going on in the background. It just works. Say what you want about Word and Pages, but they behave the same way. I don't need to know what is going on in the background, they just work.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Codes were a major strength of Word Perfect, getting in and making things right. I also think they had a pretty good ToC, Index and Concordance features that got down to the business without much fuss or muss.

But I think the greatest strength was the fact that one could fire up WP and get down to the business and get things done. I can churn out five or six letters in the time that I would have to spend with Word setting up special Style Sheets. It also had an amazing Help system, and I have never seen anything that can compare to the completeness that WP had in this regard.

Some of the faults included the lamest ASCII Text export that left all kinds of crazy codes in the file, an inconsistent user interface that changed with each version, odd support for graphics (and nothing was worse than WPG formatted graphics which nothing else in the universe used or could create), and an inconsistent way of handling output to printers (especially if a WP file was taken to another machine with a different printer). But if one could handle these difficulties - then it was really a get down to work kind of system.

It's too bad that they have abandoned the world of Mac. However, I do use Nisus Writer, which has the same get down to business kind of work flow - though they have abandoned OSX like so many other developers have.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

I dont think the Mac WordPerfect was updated after 1996.
It works ok in OS 9, , well back in the 90s, but now it wont on Intel and on PPC it needs the Classic environment turned on.
Even then , you can fin some other more modern word processor , because saving in WP format makes it next to impossible to share those documents since I havent known anyone to use it, even on Windows, for 8 years.

Get used to Neo Office/J if you want a free office suite, that will serve you better.

I remember the show codes feature in WP, and cant remember using it much.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> I guess its kinda up there with people wishing they could use Lotus on their computers.


Lotus rules - I retain a legacy machine in part to run Lotus because it remains overall the best spreadsheet ever produced for crunching numbers.

Apple has Numbers, which is a kiddie-style spreadsheet (albeit with some useful functions if one is concerned about pretty output, rather than crunching numbers), but is limited as one needs a pretty new and swank machine to run it - while AppleWorks runs on a greater variety of machines but is abondoned.

Excel is great if one does not want any kind of numeric accuracy - it ranks as the worst spreadsheet of all time when it comes to math. GNU Calc is far better, since they concentrate on the accuracy of the mathematical functions - though it doesn't get down to business like 1-2-3 could.


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

Codes may be too long to explain in a small reply box, but once shown, it's a snap. I use WP professionally, so do many others. Once you know what a code does, and it takes two minutes to get the basics, the "aha" factor kicks in. I need to know what's going on in the background. 

I work in the legal field and WP is used extensively for producing complicated, heavily formatted documents. 

Oh, yes, and I used Windows 98 because it works better than later Windows iterations.

I use my macbook for everything else.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... I dont think the Mac WordPerfect was updated after 1996. ..."

Corel bought WordPerfect (and Quattro Pro; i.e. the Novell PerfectOffice Suite) from Novell in 1996, but Corel had essentially zero Mac experience, and they knew there would be no help with the buyout. Novell had eliminated all but 4 employees in their Mac division, so after first denying they would, Corel then dropped Mac support.

However, when they did, they released what was a quickly rebranded Novell Mac version, 3.5e, as freeware.

There are many who feel the practice should be more common with abandon-ware, but at least Corel did do what most companies would not.

The links to download it slowly disappeared over time, but you can still find it on college servers and other obscure repositories if you are good at digging.

Corel wanted the Novell apps so it could create a suite of software along with Corel Draw to compete with Microsoft Office. They paid about $115 million; Novell had paid $1 Billion for Quattro Pro (from Borland) and WordPerfect (from WordPerfect Corporation) two years earlier.


----------



## mgmitchell (Apr 4, 2008)

Oakbridge said:


> I'd like you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has never used a word processor before and read the sentences that you wrote.
> 
> Word Perfect had to have been one of the worst examples of a software product in history. It's success was the result of great marketing, nothing more. I was a software trainer in the late 90's when WP was at the height of it's popularity. It was an incredibly difficult application to teach to new users.
> 
> ...


Well stated. WP? Was that question a joke? We have WP across the school board on all school computers because it probably came free. It's crap. The tech guys put OpenOffice on so any Word stuff can be brought to school and converted. I also love Pages. But it doesn't convert, so I have to be careful how and when I use it.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> I believe that OpenOffice will allow you to open a WP document ....


I can confirm that OpenOffice will open WP documents.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> Lotus rules - I retain a legacy machine in part to run Lotus because it remains overall the best spreadsheet ever produced for crunching numbers.


I'd be careful how you throw that around.  We intercepted a business case we were told did not exist. It was built using Lotus and NOTHING we had could open the document. Thank you IBM. We even have Quick View plus which is supposed to open pretty much anything you would need. Nope. Word 2007; Nope. Can't recall if I tried Open Office but am pretty sure I did.

I had to download a trial of the suite to export to Word.

The only thing Lotus is good for is personal use. Such as crunching numbers.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I cut my teeth in the newspaper biz memorising long strings of formatting codes for allowing TRS-80s using SuperScriptsit to interface with Varityper machines.

The only thing someone should "need" WordPerfect for is to export their WP documents to some format that has a future. Pay now, or pay much more dearly later.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Among its many fine functions, Dataviz MacLink Pro will zoom through vast amounts of obsolete documents, WordPerfect, various versions of ClarisWorks, etc. and convert them to a standard format like RTF or MS Word. It will even preserve folder structure.

If you must use this old stuff, try:

Deakin Software Library

Be sure to download the second small file - WP isn't very compatible with OS 9 without it.


----------



## reddrag0n (Jul 19, 2006)

I have the latest WordPerfect for OS 9 and the updater for it. Unfortunatly i never found one that ran under X, so i am stuck with the Classic version.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

There was no X WP.
and Neo Office J will NOT open WP files, and I think the folks who worked on Open Office for OSX moved to Neo Office, so Im not even sure if OO OSX has been updated to parity with the windows or Linux version.
But Neo Office is pretty up to date, and can read a wp file, but cannot write to one.
So WP is legacy software, fine if you have to keep the ancient docs in the same format, but foolish to start down that road now.

By the way, WP PC version was virtually free even for 2000-2002 version or later, often bundled for free with PCs, like MS Works


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Download here*

For a WP download go here:

System 7 Today - Productivity Software Guide

If you also want the full legacy hit - Corel Graphics 8 here:

System 7 Today - Multimedia Software Guide

This site is a pretty good repository for System 7 and up apps.

I had discussions on WP some time ago with a retired lawyer. He swore by it and said that his secretaries did not want to use anything else. From what he said the big cut came when they upgraded to Windows and Mac versions and changes their keyboard shortcuts. This meant that the secrtetaries had to re learn. At that point, it opened up the market for them to learn other word processing programs instead.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Ages ago, I had a particular group of clients who were sending me WP-formatted files and recall vividly how much trouble I had getting some of them to open. I quickly gave up on trying to use WP for Mac, which ran on OS 9 or in Classic mode on OS X...the ony thing _that_ thing did reliably was crash.  

My solution of last resort was a little app called MacLink Plus, which apparently is still going strong. It lets you open and convert those pesky WP files so you can work on them using a more contemporary word processor. 

Might be worth having a look.


----------



## makuribu (Oct 26, 2005)

WordPerfect also did a decent job of saving documents in HTML format without a lot of clutter. But that was a long time ago, before CSS and stuff like that.

AbiWord is free, runs in OS X, and opens old WordPerfect documents.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Oakbridge said:


> Do you actually require WP or do you simply need something to open up a WP document?
> 
> It's going to be very very difficult to find WP, especially since it requires Classic to run, and the Intel Macs, which have now been the main machine for much of the past 3 years can't run Classic.
> 
> I believe that OpenOffice will allow you to open a WP document and save it as a Word document.


Thanks for the input but iOnly have G3's (CLASSIC!!!) I need to open a WP doc. 

Thanks,
Morgan Figueiredo


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> It's too bad that they have abandoned the world of Mac. However, I do use Nisus Writer, which has the same get down to business kind of work flow - though they have abandoned OSX like so many other developers have.


What are you talking about? Nisus has a MacOS X version: Nisus Software - Word Processing for Mac OS X


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

hayesk said:


> What are you talking about? Nisus has a MacOS X version: Nisus Software - Word Processing for Mac OS X


What I am talking about is that Nisus no longer supports OSX, it is for Tiger and Leopard only. Too bad they abandoned OSX users (especially after I wasted my money buying it a few years ago). Now it looks like Mellel is one of the only work processors left, and hopefully they will not abandon OSX so quickly, as so many other developers have abandoned it.

This thread does demonstrate the main foible of the user base at EhMAc - that the OP asked a simple question, perhaps as easy as Googling it, or pointing out a site that has the appropriate links to the software.

Instead, it has once again turned into a whole why would you use whatever software, you should use some other crud that half the time, isn't even in the same software category as the original, or that someone should go out and spend mondo dollars to buy some new crazy machine, leaving the original problem intact, that the OP either has a preference for such and such software, or needs such and such to accomplish some task.

No wonder why people do not bother posting, and I don't blame them. All the power to the OP, who wants to acquire a piece of software, for whatever task, that is venerable, and in most respects, vastly superior to the crud that barely passes for "word processing" these days - or whatever...

Same with all of the people that think that just because a piece of software is special Snow Leopard only and only will run in some quad processor Intel garbage that it is OSX, and that everyone should buy their own personal home furnace/failures in computation style machines when really - this entire board exists for Macs - not special Intel Only Snow Leopard only proprietary garbage...

With the way most posters abuse the people that post questions - no wonder why so few venture to ask anything. But then again, with the way Apple has stopped supporting recent machines and recent operating systems, without providing a reasonable upgrade path - it makes garbage like Windoze look more attractive - since there is scads of software available in all categories (even if the OS and the software is garbage).

As for the OP - I would also like to know where to download Word Perfect, if only to update various vintage documents without having to firing up the legacy system and fiddling with transmitting data between it and the Mac...


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> What I am talking about is that Nisus no longer supports OSX, it is for Tiger and Leopard only. Too bad they abandoned OSX users (especially after I wasted my money buying it a few years ago).



Here we go with this **** again. They support the *Current* version of OS X (Leopard is OSX, and they support it). Panther is obsolete, get over it. Maybe we can call up Apple and ask them why iLife, Safari, etc etc etc "no longer supports OSX" by your standards. Want the new iPod touch...? guess you'll be out of luck. 

It's like saying GM abandoned me because they won't upgrade my old car for free to take unleaded gas. OR that Shell abandoned me because they're no longer provided leaded gas. Either move on, or stop speaking false non-sense as 'not supporting OSX'

Just be glad they didn't do what Microsoft has been wanting to do for ages... put a time limit on your purchase (ie: you pay for it in the store, it 'expires' 2 years later, can't use it so either gota renew if they still allow or upgrade to newer version.)


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

So what is so high-tech about an iPod Touch that prevents a USB 2 equipped Mac running Jaguar from at least transferring music files?


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

biovizier said:


> So what is so high-tech about an iPod Touch that prevents a USB 2 equipped Mac running Jaguar from at least transferring music files?


Because of the software requirement, an iPod Touch, iPhone and iPod Nano 4th Gen will only work with iTunes 8, which will only work with OS X 10.4.11+ and above. (Also those three devices I mentioned unlike the old iPods aren't like external drives when you hook em up via USB, but rather they're like little linux servers that talk over a networking port to iTunes).

Guess you could say iPods no longer support OSX by evan's definition. (The iPod Classic requires 10.4.11+ as well, but least with a classic you could use something like yamipod or something)

I guess you could jailbreak them (which again would require the iTunes 8 files to restore the firmware onto the device), then manage to find some kind of SCP/Shell app to transfer files onto the device, provided you can also update the internal database to accurately find the songs and information.


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

Honestly, our school has OpenOffice and Word Perfect (probably because it's free ... but then why won't they get FireFox...) and it is the worst piece of word processor ever. I would rather use TextEdit (Mac) which comes free built-in. Everytime I have to open a .doc file from my USB (in Windows at the school), it automatically opens with OpenOffice (I can't right click on school computers) even though they have Word 2000. 

Free stuff is usually garbage. It's true. Think of finding money on the ground. It's free, but 99% of the time it is pennies.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> It's like saying GM abandoned me because they won't upgrade my old car for free to take unleaded gas. OR that Shell abandoned me because they're no longer provided leaded gas.


That is absolutely absurd - vehicles have not required leaded gas since the early 50's - and a lead additive is available for those with vintage cars. No car manufacturer has even "abandoned" cars in the way you talk about. Parts for all kinds of old GM cars (or whatever manufacturer) available, and those parts that are not available from the OEM are available from many aftermarket companies. If one wanted to, one can keep a Studebaker running, even though the company tanked forty years ago.

As for OSX, it is a sad thing when a three year old OS version no longer has any softwar. So we can talk about all of the advantages that OSX has over Windoze - but every piece of Windoze software will work entirely fine on their six year old XP, and many pieces of software will run on Me, 98, and even 95. Longevity is not something that OSX is very good at these days.

One must add to this the fact that Apple decided to saddle Tiger and Leopard with excessive amounts of bloatware, without even taking the rather simple step of making the installation of this bloatware optional. One is stuck with Spotlight, Dashboard and Widgets - even though something like Spaces would be very useful.

As for Nisus - that was their choice - to abandon their user base, and have their customers leave them for products that will run on practical machines.

As for the iTouch... By the time Apple brought out an iPod that I would consider buying - it no longer would run under OSX (by my definition, a version without all of the bloatware and Konfabulator), which if I wanted to buy an iPod, I'd have to buy a Windoze machine to be able to use it.

But my definition aside - the abuse hurled at the OP is uncalled for. It is a case once again where someone gets thrashed for asking a rather simple question. That is the reason that I stopped asking questions many months ago - because I got tired of the recommendation that I go out and buy $10,000 worth of computers to accomplish some trivial task - rather than just having a discussion about a question with people that have a similar set of circumstances, or have some kind of experiencee with whatever...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kb244 said:


> Because of the software requirement, an iPod Touch, iPhone and iPod Nano 4th Gen will only work with iTunes 8, which will only work with OS X 10.4.11+ and above. (Also those three devices I mentioned unlike the old iPods aren't like external drives when you hook em up via USB, but rather they're like little linux servers that talk over a networking port to iTunes).


So you missed the point of the previous question - what is so high-tech about an iTouch tha one can not download from Jaguar (or whatever)? So the iTouch is a little Linux server - so what? Every Mac built over the past fifteen years (or whatever) has been completely able to connect to a Linux server. If one can log onto the Internet, do ftp, handle CSS, do Flash, handle VPN - why can't someone download some music through a USB cable? Seems to be a rather trivial thing that would perhaps require a set of trivial changes to a core library or the provision of some kind of external utility for handling such a trivial matter.

I do not see anything high-tech about an iTouch that would require the need of running bloatware like iTunes 8, when all they need to do is provide the appropriate software to do it with whatever. And if they don't want to provide software or drivers - then they should make the source or microcode available so that people can write an appriopriate utility for the job.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> So you missed the point of the previous question - what is so high-tech about an iTouch tha one can not download from Jaguar (or whatever)? So the iTouch is a little Linux server - so what? Every Mac built over the past fifteen years (or whatever) has been completely able to connect to a Linux server. If one can log onto the Internet, do ftp, handle CSS, do Flash, handle VPN - why can't someone download some music through a USB cable? Seems to be a rather trivial thing that would perhaps require a set of trivial changes to a core library or the provision of some kind of external utility for handling such a trivial matter.
> 
> I do not see anything high-tech about an iTouch that would require the need of running bloatware like iTunes 8, when all they need to do is provide the appropriate software to do it with whatever. And if they don't want to provide software or drivers - then they should make the source or microcode available so that people can write an appriopriate utility for the job.


Because at some point, that user who is running Jaguar will require some form of support and if Apple supported Jaguar, or Panther, or something prior to Tiger then they would need to spend money to keep support people trained on older operating systems. That raises the costs which is passed along to the consumer. 

Tiger is now over 3 1/2 years old. The price of the operating system upgrade was $150 and before you start to say that you might not have a piece of hardware that supports Tiger, then I would say that you are using hardware that is much much older than 3 1/2 years old. Just how far back would you want a company to go back? Even as a home user, spending $150 every 4-5 years is not that big an investment. Also probably one of the reasons why Windows apps will run on older versions of Windows is that almost all versions of Windows, including Vista have horrible legacy code. That adds to the bloat, and adds to the development costs which again are passed on to the end user. 

Do you keep an automobile 3-4 years without making some kind of investment in it to keep it running?


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> I do not see anything high-tech about an iTouch that would require the need of running bloatware like iTunes 8, when all they need to do is provide the appropriate software to do it with whatever. And if they don't want to provide software or drivers - then they should make the source or microcode available so that people can write an appriopriate utility for the job.



I'd like to see you try to hook one up to a Jag machine, and try to get anything onto it via iTunes, or successfully attempt in finding software (which would have been one written by now) that'll let you transfer to one under jaguar. Let me know when you find it.

Also the absurdity of unleaded gas isn't too far off when you consider treating time in terms of computer/software advancement like comparing dog years to human years.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> As for the OP - I would also like to know where to download Word Perfect, if only to update various vintage documents without having to firing up the legacy system and fiddling with transmitting data between it and the Mac...


 If you were to read the whole discussion you would find two different links where you can download WordPerfect. 

I have to admit that your rant about how Tiger and Leopard aren't really OS X takes first prize for bizarre posts. Congrats.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

The G3 Man said:


> Hey does anyone remember where the freeware link to WP mac was? I have word, but also need Word Perfect.
> 
> Thanks,
> Morgan Figueiredo


It was for OS 9 only as I recall,
Also I think that Corel had something to do with it.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

dolawren said:


> It was for OS 9 only as I recall,
> Also I think that Corel had something to do with it.


Wasn't there another program acquired along side WP when Corel bought em?


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

FlaminWiz said:


> Honestly, our school has OpenOffice and Word Perfect (probably because it's free ... but then why won't they get FireFox...) and it is the worst piece of word processor ever. I would rather use TextEdit (Mac) which comes free built-in. Everytime I have to open a .doc file from my USB (in Windows at the school), it automatically opens with OpenOffice (I can't right click on school computers) even though they have Word 2000.
> 
> Free stuff is usually garbage. It's true. Think of finding money on the ground. It's free, but 99% of the time it is pennies.


Ah... teachers... sorry, but you folks with the great pension plan aren't exactly the brightest or most articulate bunch around, surprisingly. In my line of work, I deal with teachers from time to time. Invariably, some of the "thickest", intellectually speaking, professionals. Then no surprise you think so poorly of Wordperfect.

But then blame your purchasing department for what came with your computers, and not the software that was inappropriate for your classroom. 

My snide comments aside, perhaps using WP at your level in the classroom is akin to trying to operate a power auger when all you need, or are able to use, is a simple, manual post-hole digger. You need some instruction with a power auger and with WP, otherwise both will seem crappy when used improperly. The simpler the better is a good rule of thumb. But when you need to do some power word processing and not much of that needed in the normal classroom I presume -- Wordperfect was the best. Still works for those of us who are troglodytes or Luddites, speaking cyber-wise.

And this thread has gone astray. I, too, wish WP were available for the Mac. But I think the irony of this whole discussion is missed by some. Here we are talking about a piece of software that was used by a small group of folk who deal with words, live by words, make our living with words. It was the best thing there was. (Still is, leaving aside all comments about its future obsolescence). It was a piece of technology/software that had -- still does -- fanatical devotees, who swore by it, but whose position was usurped by an inferior product -- Word -- only by great marketing and Windows and Bill Gates.

Hmm... kinda sounds like a Mac thing... or maybe Betamax v. VHS.

Long live obsolescent software that works! Long live the trogs! Long live the teacher who actually bothers to learn! Long live the impertinence of the anachronist!


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

Gerbill said:


> I have to admit that your rant about how Tiger and Leopard aren't really OS X takes first prize for bizarre posts. Congrats.


You know what he reminds me of though... those photographers who bitch even 40 years later that Canon abandoned all the professional shooters who owned FD cameras and glass prior to the 80s before Canon dropped the FD format and went with the EF autofocus system we use today. (yes some people still bitch about that)


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

There is a link that still works for WP 3.5e here,
It's in a thread, I'm not giving a direct link because I don't want this link killed.

This would appear to be the last link left on the web.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

kastytis said:


> Hmm... kinda sounds like a Mac thing... or maybe Betamax v. VHS.


Oh please, you haven't seen anything til you see a vim vs emacs fight.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

You know if the original source code of WP had been released for public use, someone would have made a *nix port of it long ago, which would have eventually found it's way back to OSX and compiled on that platform.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

kb244 said:


> You know if the original source code of WP had been released for public use, someone would have made a *nix port of it long ago, which would have eventually found it's way back to OSX and compiled on that platform.


I don't know why no one has compiled it.
Perhaps it's because it is defunct.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

dolawren said:


> I don't know why no one has compiled it.
> Perhaps it's because it is defunct.


I don't think anyone has compiled it because they didn't have the actual source, just a free version. 

IF someone had the source in the open community, some may be tempted to improve upon the original design and make their own iterations over the years. 

But we all know why WP didn't survive... it wasn't market viable.


----------



## biovizier (Dec 21, 2005)

> But we all know why WP didn't survive...


Do we?



> it wasn't market viable.


Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. But would it have mattered?

https://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/031708-ms-antitrust-high-court-novell.html


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

IMHO, Word is the best, even for the simplest of things. If you want EXTRA simple, go use TextEdit (Mac), or better yet, go buy yourself a typewriter (like in the old days ... don't know terminology which is clearly evident).

Software has developed so unless you're some 64 year-old-cook who denies the advancement of technology (for whatever reason ... he's a cuckoo head remember), you're probably using something a bit complex but has an easy interface such as *tum tum tummm* Word or Pages. 
Lol-weird post ...


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

FlaminWiz said:


> IMHO, Word is the best, even for the simplest of things. If you want EXTRA simple, go use TextEdit (Mac), or better yet, go buy yourself a typewriter (like in the old days ... don't know terminology which is clearly evident).
> 
> Software has developed so unless you're some 64 year-old-cook who denies the advancement of technology (for whatever reason ... he's a cuckoo head remember), you're probably using something a bit complex but has an easy interface such as *tum tum tummm* Word or Pages.
> Lol-weird post ...


I went with iWork 08 because word was too slow at just simply opening on my mac, and caused font coruption at times. For pure text editing I prefer TextWrangler (ie: coding). Text Edit to my experience won't open word documents accurately.


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

I use Pages mainly since it is pretty good. Also, if I find a feature missing, I'll just go into Word and use it. Word is a bit slow a the beginning but I'm kind of used to it from my old PC which always loaded Word slowly. Besides, I don't mind opening Word for assignments but I do if there is a file from the internet though, if I Google-ed it, I'll just view the HTML version first to see if its any good. 

I use TextEdit for notes like for journal entries for school and stuff like that. Simple stuff.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

FlaminWiz said:


> I use Pages mainly since it is pretty good. Also, if I find a feature missing, I'll just go into Word and use it. Word is a bit slow a the beginning but I'm kind of used to it from my old PC which always loaded Word slowly. Besides, I don't mind opening Word for assignments but I do if there is a file from the internet though, if I Google-ed it, I'll just view the HTML version first to see if its any good.
> 
> I use TextEdit for notes like for journal entries for school and stuff like that. Simple stuff.


It got really annoying when Word took over the file associations of all my documents, much like waiting forever to see a PDF loading in Acrobat when I just wanted the damn thing to load in preview by default. 

The only office tool that I wish iWorks was more like, was excel. I used to be a heavy access database user years ago. (back when I did a lot of Visual Basic and Visual C++ programming).


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

FlaminWiz said:


> IMHO, Word is the best, even for the simplest of things. If you want EXTRA simple, go use TextEdit (Mac), or better yet, go buy yourself a typewriter (like in the old days ... don't know terminology which is clearly evident).
> 
> Software has developed so unless you're some 64 year-old-cook who denies the advancement of technology (for whatever reason ... he's a cuckoo head remember), you're probably using something a bit complex but has an easy interface such as *tum tum tummm* Word or Pages.
> Lol-weird post ...


"Your Honour, I rest my case re: illiteracy and lack of clarity of thought in the teaching profession."


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

kastytis said:


> "Your Honour, I rest my case re: illiteracy and lack of clarity of thought in the teaching profession."


*Zing*


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

kb244 said:


> You know if the original source code of WP had been released for public use, someone would have made a *nix port of it long ago, which would have eventually found it's way back to OSX and compiled on that platform.


There used to be UNIX versions of WP, and even a NeXTStep version. That version has the most hope of making it to MacOS X, however, it's not open source, and who knows if Corel still has the source code.

WP 3 was a decent word processor in its day; certainly far better than MS's abomination, Word 6. WP was much faster, more stable, and supported all of the MacOS technologies of the day. It even supported QuickDraw GX and PowerTalk! I'll bet most members here don't even remember PowerTalk.

I have to admit though, I'm not a fan of codes. If I liked codes, I'd use TeX.


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

If you want a free word processor, try Google Docs. It's free and gives you an e-mail with constantly increasing storage space which is a pretty neat feature.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

FlaminWiz said:


> If you want a free word processor, try Google Docs. It's free and gives you an e-mail with constantly increasing storage space which is a pretty neat feature.


In response to that microsoft is releasing office in an online fashion for free in a similar manner. Though both iterations are very child-like compared to an actual word processor.


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

kb244 said:


> In response to that microsoft is releasing office in an online fashion for free in a similar manner. Though both iterations are very child-like compared to an actual word processor.


It's simple word processing. It works. I can say that much.

Hope to try out this from Microsoft's. Although I don't see the purpose of it because wouldn't that reduce the sales of Office. Don't know enough about it though.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Gerbill said:


> I have to admit that your rant about how Tiger and Leopard aren't really OS X takes first prize for bizarre posts. Congrats.


I think he has it stored as a macro, he certainly brings out that particular tinfoil hat often enough ...


----------



## 9780 (Sep 14, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I think he has it stored as a macro, he certainly brings out that particular tinfoil hat often enough ...


Let me just say, as I post this from Mozilla 1.3 under OS9 on a PowerBook 3400c that still works perfectly, I'm really saddened that every developper out there has stopped developping for the Mac...

Patrix.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

patrix said:


> Let me just say, as I post this from Mozilla 1.3 under OS9 on a PowerBook 3400c that still works perfectly, I'm really saddened that every developper out there has stopped developping for the Mac...
> 
> Patrix.


Why stop there? You could be running System 1 on a Mac 128K. Now, that would be a _real_ Mac!


----------



## 9780 (Sep 14, 2006)

Gerbill said:


> Why stop there? You could be running System 1 on a Mac 128K. Now, that would be a _real_ Mac!


If only I hadn't had a gun pointed to my head forcing me to upgrade, you can bet I'd still be running that!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

patrix said:


> Let me just say, as I post this from Mozilla 1.3 under OS9 on a PowerBook 3400c that still works perfectly, I'm really saddened that every developper out there has stopped developping for the Mac...
> 
> Patrix.


Especially when the equivalent software is available for some rather ancient Windoze systems - some as old as Windoze 95 -while unavailable for recent OSX releases, like Panther...


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

patrix said:


> If only I hadn't had a gun pointed to my head forcing me to upgrade, you can bet I'd still be running that!


That's how Apple makes money. (someone already said this but forgot who) if Apple supported older versions of OS X, that would cost money which mean the Macs would cost more.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

patrix said:


> Let me just say, as I post this from Mozilla 1.3 under OS9 on a PowerBook 3400c that still works perfectly, I'm really saddened that every developper out there has stopped developping for the Mac...
> 
> Patrix.


You know... that would work, but Mozzilla 1.3 wouldn't load much sites correctly now days, almost everyone has moved onto the newer W3C standards, and other various technology, that browsing around on that while perfectly stable would be painful. 

I bet it'll be worse than what Safari 2 does.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Especially when the equivalent software is available for some rather ancient Windoze systems - some as old as Windoze 95 -while unavailable for recent OSX releases, like Panther...


Why haven't you gone out and bought a PC then....

So great on backward compatibility, they must be a superior system without problems.


----------



## 9780 (Sep 14, 2006)

kb244 said:


> You know... that would work, but Mozzilla 1.3 wouldn't load much sites correctly now days, almost everyone has moved onto the newer W3C standards, and other various technology, that browsing around on that while perfectly stable would be painful.
> 
> I bet it'll be worse than what Safari 2 does.



Even though I was for real browsing in Moz1.3 on a PB3400c, I'm sure you can't have missed the sarcasm and me poking fun at Evan (who also seems to have taken me seriously, unsurprisingly enough!)

Patrix.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

patrix said:


> Even though I was for real browsing in Moz1.3 on a PB3400c, I'm sure you can't have missed the sarcasm and me poking fun at Evan (who also seems to have taken me seriously, unsurprisingly enough!)
> 
> Patrix.


 If one person was being serious, its probably after to assume there must be another bitter mac-curmudgeon in the mist along side him.


----------



## jrethorst (Jun 2, 2009)

> Why do people use WordPerfect? Because it works better than Word.
> 
> Codes. WP has codes. I use WP every day for my work. The only reason I work in Windows is so I can use WP. It formats a document with much greater ease than Word. It does so using codes. Too long to explain what WP codes are. But when I tried to learn Word, I gave up. To me, Word is a total piece of crap, awkward to use, cumbersome, inflexible. I wish I could use WP on my intel mac.
> Technically you can using COI (Classic On Intel), kind of a classic emulator. But I find the process of doing so just to run that app to be cumbersome, it makes more sense installing XP onto Vmware fusion and running WP there.


WordPerfect Mac runs better than ever on Intel and Leopard, using either of the free emulators SheepShaver or Basilisk. Complete installs, and support from the 5,000 member WP Mac group are at wordperfectmac


----------



## jrethorst (Jun 2, 2009)

kastytis said:


> I wish I could use WP on my intel mac.


You can, on any OS including the current Lion, and it runs very well. See wordperfectmac : WPMac.

John R.


----------

