Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

How Did WordPerfect Go Wrong?

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:54:02 AM PDT

I don't know why, but over the last year readers have several times brought up a topic that is a something of an historic gripe -- actually, in terms of the technology world, one that is ancient history. Why did WordPerfect -- the word processing program beloved by so many in the DOS era -- lose out to Microsoft Word? That has been the subject of some rather hot debate in my discussion boards this year, even when it was considerably off topic.


The basic historic facts of the WordPerfect saga aren't in dispute. Early in the IBM PC era, Satellite Software's WordPerfect 4.X series supplanted WordStar as the most popular word processor, based largely on its macro capabilities, "reveal codes" feature, and the company's reputation for high-quality free support. But WordPerfect was late with its first Windows version, and then the bundling of Word with Microsoft Office on many PCs resulted in WordPerfect's sale - first to Novell, then Corel in 1996 - aimed at producing a competitive office suite. While retaining popularity in some markets, particularly legal circles, WordPerfect now generally gets little attention as a Word competitor compared to free software alternatives.

But there seems to be plenty of dispute about whether WordPerfect simply failed to compete or was a victim of Microsoft monopolistic practices. Some feel that deathblow the Office bundling dealt other productivity applications was just a real smart move on Microsoft's part. "I think Microsoft gets a lot of criticism that they DON'T deserve," wrote one reader. "I remember the days of Lotus 1-2-3 and Harvard Graphics and WordStar and GoldenGate, and life with MS Office is soooooooooo much better and more productive. All those open-source geeks wouldn't be nearly so effective if Microsoft hadn't thoroughly and clearly defined the target -- i.e., the user needs -- for them."

But others think Office allowed inferior Microsoft applications to win out over better products. "In reality, Office was a bit late to the party," wrote another reader. "While Word 2.x was failing to wow customers, Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and others were providing superior products. IMO, WordPerfect is still the superior product because it allows a savvy user to determine exactly where the formatting in a document is being adversely 'helped' by the application and allows deleting those control codes. Those were the leaders of the pack, Microsoft brought up the rear, then used FUD to crush them."

But another reader countered with a chronology of WordPerfect's self-inflicted wounds. "Frankly, WinWord 2.x was a great program, well ahead of its time, especially if you ran it on Windows 3.0/3.0a as opposed to 3.1x. WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows (Q4-1991) was a dismal failure -- totally unstable, not feature-laden, and it even used a DOS-based installation program! WordPerfect 5.2 (Q1-1992) was a massive bug-fix, albeit small & fast. WordPerfect 6.0 (Q4-1993) was another buggy piece of crap, but it showed potential. Only when WordPerfect 6.0a (April, 1994) came out was there something worthwhile on the Windows front. By mid-1994, 2 1/2 years after the first version of WordPerfect for Windows came out, was there something reasonably stable. But by then, the damage was done and MS-Office 4.2/4.3 was available."

Of course, others pointed out Microsoft didn't exactly make it easy for anyone to compete with its Windows applications. "MS Office crushed its competition for one reason and one reason ONLY -- undocumented application programming interfaces," wrote another reader. "WordPerfect ran into problems because they invested big-time in a new graphical product for the operating system Microsoft touted as the future -- OS/2 -- while Microsoft was busily writing a competing product using secret programming interfaces for their real operating system of the future - Windows. Microsoft created and exploited intentionally undocumented Windows capability to ensure that its competitors' products would run like a dog, thus ensuring MS Office was the only viable choice on Windows -- and of course locked users into Windows with monopolistic practices well-documented in the various lawsuits they lost. You are giving the wolf credit for the excellent taste of lamb chops."

There are other explanations, however. "WordPerfect indeed ran into trouble when it did not move quickly into the Windows environment," wrote an anonymous observer from WordPerfect's former neighborhood. "They had plenty of time to respond to it but chose not to for whatever reason they may have had. Their top two owners (49.5% ownership each) had cultural differences from each other that distracted them from paying attention to the future of the product at that time. They parted ways by selling the WordPerfect organization to Novell for about $700 million. WordPerfect's legendary support had begun to decline prior to that sale. By that time, many of their programmers and support people had been fired (some my close friends) and most offices were empty with the lights off. That was well over ten years ago."

One reader even took the position that WordPerfect's support model was a big factor in its undoing. "I remember when the gold-standard for support was WordPerfect Corp. They sold most of their product based on the great and FREE support they provided. They even provided support for people who stole their software. Look what happened to WordPerfect. They found the cost of support exceeded the gains found by providing it for free, and started charging. That was the end of the company since their software was by that time not the superior product."

Or does the real blame lay with IT managers, and their bosses, who couldn't say no to Redmond? "Back when Office 97 had been removed from all of the various computer magazine's recommended lists because it was so buggy, you could buy a server copy of WordPerfect for $1500, which allowed up to 255 users! And WordPerfect was stable and easy to use. When I complained about the decision in the government agency where I worked at the time to switch to Office 97, I was told 'It makes more strategic sense to align ourselves with Microsoft.' So, it makes sense to buy a product that was more expensive, buggier, and harder to use! These management types don't have the sense God gave crabapples. They used to say that nobody was ever fired for buying IBM. Now it's MickeySoft. We definitely need to be using other products -- ANY other products."

How would you write the history of WordPerfect versus Word? Post your comments below or write Ed Foster at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

< The Best of the Bad in 2007 | The Worst Vendor Poll >


Display: Sort:
How Did WordPerfect Go Wrong? | 91 comments (91 topical) | Post A Comment
How WP went wrong[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:16:25 AM PDT

Yes, the first Windows versions were buggy, but I seem to remember WP costing a lot more than any MS programs. Of course, my memory may be foggy on this. The other problem is that to this day, WP for Windows is buggy. And no Mac version. I'd love to have a Mac version, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

[ Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#75)
by maderikapapa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:18:41 AM PDT

風俗不倫出会いエッチ出会い熟女風俗出会いセックス熟女童貞セフレ人妻素人アダルト巨乳アダルトエロおっぱいエッチハメ撮りセックスエロセックス人妻エッチ不倫エッチエロセックスセフレ出会い逆援不倫童貞熟女人妻

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


video converter software[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous User on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:31 AM PDT

FLV to WMV, FLV to AVI MPEG WMV 3GP MP4 iPod converter, Free FLV to WMV converter, FLV to WMV converter video files, How to convert FLV to WMV, Convert WMV to FLV , Convert FLV to WMV MPG MPEG, FLV Video Converter, Video to FLV Converter, YouTube FLV in WMV

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#76)
by maderikapapa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:11:08 PM PDT

アダルトエロ人妻エロSEXセフレセックスアダルトおっぱい不倫熟女風俗セックスアダルト童貞人妻おっぱいセフレ熟女セックス出会い人妻セフレ熟女オナニーおまんこセフレおっぱい人妻熟女エロセックスエロエッチ人妻セックスアダルト巨乳出会いおっぱいおまんこ熟女アダルトエッチエロアダルト人妻セックスエッチアダルトセックスアダルト

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#81)
by maderikapapa on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:03:16 AM PDT

出会いを全国で楽しめる!出会い 北海道では寒い季節を二人っきり 391;温めて出会い 関東で都会でしか味わえない素 973;な愛を出会い 甲信越では気軽なセフレ関係を出会い 北陸では真面目な出会いを出会い 東海では恋探しを出会い出会い 関西では笑いありの大好きな彼 663;を出会い 四国では思いでに残るような恋 859;を出会い 九州では熱い出逢いをどうぞ全 269;での出会いはココで求めよ うエロ画像やエロサイトを無料で 372;紹介!エッチな恋人探しも提供しており人妻との夢のセックスライフが実現アダルトな思いを満たすなら当アダ 523;トサイトで決定!巨乳な女達が男性を弄ぶ出会いなども紹介しておりご近所 908;索機能付きの出会いサイト で柔らかいおっぱいおまんこを思う存分触ってください熟女とのアダルトな一夜などエッチ願望を満たせるエロサイトはココしかないアダルトを無料で楽しみ人妻との不倫セックスなど出会いある毎日をお過ごしくださ 356;

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#83)
by maderikapapa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:52:41 AM PDT

セックス好きな大人達のセックス募集サイトセックスフレンドと遊べるセックスの仕方ノウハウをココでゲ 483;トオナニー好きな女の子達のオナニー写メを無料でゲットオナニー動画やオナニー掲示板でオナニーするオナニー画像を無料DL出会いセレブ女性と遊べる出会い系サイトはココで間違いなしA 281;愛人を求めるセレブ達の愛人募集サイトをご紹介!出張ホストサービスなどもセレブ女性 395;は人気で、男性との時間を 凄く求めております。メル友探しをご近所でやれるセフレ募集サイトなどもあり恋愛気分でエッチを楽しめるセフレ募集掲示板で今すぐエロ写メや新着女 615;を探そう

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#84)
by maderikapapa on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:48:12 PM PDT

無料エッチ動画エッチアダルトDVDエロ動画エロ動画熟女動画熟女無修正画像中出し動画中出し動画盗撮動画盗撮エロ無料アダルト動画無料アダルトエッチ無修正動画無料動画熟女無料動画アダルトビデオ無料動画中出しアダルト無料アダルト無修正動画無料アダルト動画アダルト無料アダルト動画セックスアダルト動画無料アダルト動画盗撮エロい画像で抜ける極上人妻エ 525;サイトをご紹介!人妻のおっぱいやおまんこ画像 418;無料で見れる!おっぱいおまんこの感触をリアル出会い系サイトで体験!逆援で儲かる出会い系人妻熟女達が童貞男性を刈るエロサイトなど 434;ご紹介

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#85)
by maderikapapa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:37 AM PDT

童貞好きなエロい女性達のエロ画像をご紹介セックスしたいご近所でセックスフレンドと過ごせるセフレ系出会いサイトはココで間$ 949;いなしセックス画像なども満載セックスフレンドと逢えるならセフレ交際所で逆援助好きなエッチな奥さん逆援助でSEX体験ができる副業もココ& #12363;らスタート熟女のおまんこは人妻以上風俗でセフレを探すより出会い 995;で決まりアダルトな夜を探して人妻達が出会いを求めておりま 377;エッチな掲示板で素人ホストなども募集中エロい思いを満たせる人妻出会いサイト童貞の初心なしぐさ童貞の真面目さ童貞のエッチは激しいエロいおっぱいやおまんこ童貞さんと童貞を買ってあげる童貞のえっち体験告白や逆援助白書童貞童貞のためのおっぱいサイトセフレ希望の女子高生が出会いを求めて恋愛探し人妻セックス体験談はエッチBBSで書き込んでくださいアダルトSNSではSEX好きな友達や彼女を出会い感覚で楽しめるナンパテクニックなども公開中アダルトサイトで無料動画をゲット童貞には刺激の強いオナニー娘との出会いや熟女との濃厚な愛撫出会い探してみませんか不倫願望の強い巨乳マダム達とセックス講座スワッピングを楽しめる出会いSMマニア的な出会いをお届

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#87)
by maderikapapa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM PDT

逆援北海道 不倫青森 不倫岩手 不倫宮城 不倫秋田 不倫山形 不倫福島 不倫東京 不倫群馬 不倫埼玉 不倫千葉 不倫茨木 不倫神奈川 不倫栃木 不倫山梨 不倫長野 不倫新潟 不倫岐阜 不倫静岡 不倫愛知 不倫三重 不倫富山 不倫石川 不倫福井 不倫滋賀 不倫京都 不倫大阪 不倫兵庫 不倫奈良 不倫和歌山 不倫鳥取 不倫島根 不倫岡山 不倫広島 不倫山口 不倫徳島 不倫香川 不倫愛媛 不倫高知 不倫福岡 不倫佐賀 不倫長崎 不倫熊本 不倫大分 不倫鹿児島 不倫宮崎 不倫沖縄 不倫

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#88)
by Anonymous User on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:48:03 PM PDT

セレブ 北海道セレブ 青森セレブ 岩手セレブ 宮城セレブ 秋田セレブ 山形セレブ 福島セレブ 東京セレブ 群馬セレブ 埼玉セレブ 千葉セレブ 茨木セレブ 神奈川セレブ 栃木セレブ 山梨セレブ 長野セレブ 新潟セレブ 岐阜セレブ 静岡セレブ 愛知セレブ 三重セレブ 富山セレブ 石川セレブ 福井セレブ 滋賀セレブ 京都セレブ 大阪セレブ 兵庫セレブ 奈良セレブ 和歌山セレブ 鳥取セレブ 島根セレブ 岡山セレブ 広島セレブ 山口セレブ 徳島セレブ 香川セレブ 愛媛セレブ 高知セレブ 福岡セレブ 佐賀セレブ 長崎セレブ 熊本セレブ 大分セレブ 鹿児島セレブ 宮崎セレブ 沖縄アダルト出会い

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous User on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM PDT

北海道 セフレ青森 セフレ岩手 セフレ宮城 セフレ秋田 セフレ山形 セフレ福島 セフレ東京 セフレ群馬 セフレ埼玉 セフレ千葉 セフレ茨木 セフレ神奈川 セフレ栃木 セフレ山梨 セフレ長野 セフレ新潟 セフレ岐阜 セフレ静岡 セフレ愛知 セフレ三重 セフレ富山 セフレ石川 セフレ福井 セフレ滋賀 セフレ京都 セフレ大阪 セフレ兵庫 セフレ奈良 セフレ和歌山 セフレ鳥取 セフレ島根 セフレ岡山 セフレ広島 セフレ山口 セフレ徳島 セフレ香川 セフレ愛媛 セフレ高知 セフレ福岡 セフレ佐賀 セフレ長崎 セフレ熊本 セフレ大分 セフレ鹿児島 セフレ宮崎 セフレ沖縄 セフレ

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Still have WordPerfect after 20 years[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:23:03 AM PDT

I've owned or tried every version since 4.1. It did take them too long to get a usable Windows version, and I don't really think the OS/2 side trip was to blame since WordPerfect for OS/2 was abismal as well. IMHO the early Windows versions were hurt because they carried to much DOS code over. Admittedly, the DOS versions were fantistic because of their printer drivers and, secondarily, near-WYSIWYG print preview in WP 5.1. But WP4W 5.1 still used the WP printer driver (Windows drivers could be used, providing a confusing choice), and they still had the DOS print preview as it wasn't normally WYSIWYG! I stuck with it, but the party was over after version 8. The famed version compatibility, that allowed old docs to print under new versions, unchanged, broke after version 8 for me. Problems with a new equation editor and different handling of HTML kept me from ever upgrading. WP8 works fine under XP and now using Parallels on my Mac. But most of my new work is done using Apple's Pages. So much for Word!

[ Reply to This ]


Cross-application info[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:21:52 PM PDT

Office was the only windows based product that let you include pieces of other office app documents. Granted, the implementation sucked in early office products, but you could include excel spreadsheets in word documents, for example. That didn't and doesn't exist with WordPerfect and 1-2-3.

If all products were truly open, you could include parts of any document type inside word documents, PDFs for example. At present, though, this only works as an attachment instead of seeing the actual piece or pieces of the document types not blessed by Microsoft.

Microsoft is the master marketer. They promise the moon, deliver on maybe half the promises (much less than half with Vista), include a healthy load of bloatware and crap, and EULA away any responsibility for users' "misinterpretation" of their promises.

[ Reply to This ]



wp and word[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:41:35 PM PDT

I learned WP early and ran a small publishing business for about a decade relying totally on it. It had great high-end features like kerning. I later learned to use Word for compatibility with other organizations. About 2 years ago I stopped using WordPerfect. WordPerfect always had buggy tagging. But in the end the problem for me was its poor suite integration and the fact that no one out there in the real world could read its native files, so I was always having to convert files to Word. Might as well create them in it.

[ Reply to This ]


WordPerfect is still better![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Enoemos on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:24:22 PM PDT

The last paragraph in the article is a comment I made some time back, and I still agree with every word. I used my own personal copy of WordPerfect for several years after the agency switched to MS Office, and only quit when it became illegal to use personal software.

WordPerfect's menus are set up logically. Word's are not! I still remember the first time a user asked me how to insert a footer. I pulled up the insert menu and couldn't find it. Checking the on line help revealed that it was in the View menu?! Why Mickeysoft decided to put it there, I'll never know, but the rest of the menu system is just as illogically set up, at least compared to WP's menus.

WordPerfect has a margin line which shows instantly where the margins are set, including indents, outdents, etc. Changing a margin is as easy as grabbing the line and putting it where you want.

WordPerfect's advantages over Word are too numerous to list. Personally, I think that WordPerfect made the same mistake that WordStar made when they were on top. They just sat on their backsides and let the world pass by. I guess they figured that since they were on top they didn't have to make improvements. Guess again :-)

[ Reply to This ]



Interesting about WordStar[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:57:42 PM PDT

Just like WordPerfect did a terrible move from DOS to Windows, WordStar did a bad job going from CP/M to DOS. My CP/M WordStar easily outperformed WordStar on the first PC I got. I quickly abandoned WordStar for the speedy PC Write that could still use the WordStar key bindings. WordStar also suffered from declining support, but in 1981 or thereabouts. When I first bought WordStar, for the princely sum of $500 in 1980, a call to support got handled immediately by a developer. When I had trouble with the new SpellStar addon a year or so later they wouldn't allow customers to talk to the developers anymore because they became to successful.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


It's all what you're used to using[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:45:39 AM PDT

It's all what you're used to using, and a lot of personal preference. You're comment about easily changing the margins only shows that you don't know how to go about "...grabbing the line and putting it where you want...". Honestly, it's the same as in WP, the widget just has a different shape.

As a long time user of both WordPerfect and MS Word (I've used both for the past 14.5 years, going all the way back to WP for DOS version 4.something and MS Word for Windows something-or-other) I can attest to the fact that, when treated as standalone products, the two programs generally have comparable features. (Our office does not use any form of suite integration or automation, so I can't attest to any of those features.) The vast majority of cases where people have mentioned "You can't do XYZ in Word/WP" it's simply a case of that person doesn't know where to look for that feature. (As evidenced above by the OP's not knowing how to "....grab the line..." in MS Word. Oh, and the View/Insert menu choice for viewing the footer? Why would I go to the Insert menu if my document already has a footer, and I just want to edit it? In that case, Viewing the footer makes much more sense than Inserting one. 50/50/90, I guess. (And if it already has a footer, you can just double-click the footer to edit it, anyway, so you don't need the menus or need to find the code that contains codes that control the footer.))

In any case, it's a matter of personal preference. I much prefer Word's WYSIWYG environment to WP's Reveal Codes. (Having to sort through literally hundreds of codes at the beginning of extremely complexly formatted pages (especially when some codes are hidden inside other codes and are not immediately visible in the Reveal Codes window!) is needlessly byzantine and unnecessary.) But if you were taught to use WP first, and didn't know where in the menus to look for the option to change what you wanted in MS Word, I can see where you could be lost in MS Word.

As far as where WP went wrong I'd have to point to repeated releases of horribly buggy, essentially non-functional software. The initial WP for Windows release (5.2?) was functional, I suppose. Version 6 was an obvious "Ship it now, we need the cash! We'll fix it later with patches." release. Then the first set of patches didn't really help. The second set of patches finally made it stable enough to actually use, but still buggy. Version 7 wasn't much better. After that, we pretty much only use it when our customers request it. Which is almost never. Word 6.0 was good enough as a page layout program that it completely supplanted WP as our standard program. Word 7 was even better. Word 97 was probably the best of them all, as far as a word processor goes. We used it for better part of 9 years! We've only moved on because we got Office 2003 for free. (Thank you MS for sending us free copies!)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


It's all what you're used to using[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM PDT

Oh, and the View/Insert menu choice for viewing the footer? Why would I go to the View menu if my document needs a footer, and I just want to insert one? In that case, Inserting the footer makes much more sense than Viewing one. Going back to the same place to edit one also makes sense.(And if it already has a footer, you can just SINGLE-click the footer to edit it in WP, anyway, so you don't need the menus or need to find the code that contains codes that control the footer, but you could if you wanted to.) Why would I go to the View menu to add anything to the document?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Footer/header[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM PDT

You don't insert a footer or header in Word because both are already included in the document - they just aren't shown if they don't contain anything. So when you want to add something to a footer or header in word, you edit it. And in order to edit it, if there is nothing in it, you have to view it first. If there is something in the footer or header and you want to edit it, you just click on it. In WP, the header and/or footer don't exist in the document until you add them - hence you start by inserting them. Both are totally logical - unless you always want to do something one way and only one way.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Tomato/Tomahto[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous User on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:27:02 AM PDT

I think you just demonstrated the original post - WP and Word have a lot of features which provide mostly identical functionality, but just a different method for using it.

Reveal Codes is a better example of the "philosophical" difference between the two word processors.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


About that insert footnote[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM PDT

The notion that it would be logical to find Footnotes under "Insert" demonstrates the fundamental difference between WordPerfect and Microsoft Word. Word creates the structure of the document during the creation of a document. The elements of a document are there even without actual text. Two elements of the document are a header and footer. Since the elements already exist, you would need to "View" the footer in order to actually edit the element. Whereas, WordPerfect does not assume the document needs a footer and therefore the user must "Insert" one. Knowing how the two word processors create documents actually helps understand why the menu items are in their locations. Both products logically put their menu items in their proper menu locations - at least with the header/footer.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Printer Support[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 01:50:24 PM PDT

One other comment alluded to this, but I'd like to expand.

Wordperfect under DOS supported just about every printer out there, and if you had one that wasn't supported, it was pretty easy to use their tools to add support.  I should know because I did exactly that for a few printers I came across.

Then came Windows, especially Win95, which pretty well forced every app to use their printing system and blew away this advantage.  Now WP printed just like Word and every other app.

This is certainly not the only reason but it's a major contributor.

[ Reply to This ]



WP and Printers[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:37:52 PM PDT

Printer support is why I became a WordPerfect 4.2 user. Finishing my dissertation and using a strangely hacked OkiData 24 pin printer with an odd BIOS upgrade to allow graphics. Nothing would address it well. Called WP and explained it. Sent them a photocopy of the BIOS calls for the printer. Got a driver back 5 days later. Finished the degree. I was a believer in their support, and still long for the day.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Indeed...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by CowboyinBRLA on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM PDT

Some analysts have posited that the entire reason for pushing Windows (a product on which the margins are fairly slim, at least for OEM versions) was to kill the primary advantage of WordPerfect, which was support for every kind of printer out there. Those of you old enough to remember Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, and hundreds of other less-well-known programs may remember checking software packages to see if they supported "Epson compatibility mode" or some other hybrid work-around to get bare, plain text printouts from yet another DOS application. Users were told, in essence, that you could use DOS and WordPerfect, and be able to use that odd printer with WordPerfect but nothing else... or they could use Windows and Word, and use the odd printer with Word AND Excel and any other application that used the Windows printer drivers. While end-users may have preferred WordPerfect's elegance and simplicity (and many still do), from the cost of supporting multiple applications it became a no-brainer. Even if the Windows driver for the printer only supported 85% of the printer's features, and even if WordPerfect made far better use of the printer, Windows just made sense from the standpoint of providing a printing subsystem built-in to the OS.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


WordPerfect downfall[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by seeRpea on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 07:29:09 PM PDT

I was involved in making recommendations software for a major company back in prehistory , the '90s prior to Windows95. None of the Microsoft products could hold a candle to the top 2 in any category and some of the products were not worthy of being called garbage (Access & Chart come immediately to mind). The spreadsheet program came close, but it wasn't really ready for Windows (actually , Windows was not ready for it)

Then Windows95 came out and more importantly, Microsoft Excel hit its stride in the Windows OS and nothing else in the spreadsheet arena did (Wingz was not a spreadsheet program). Excel became the driving force for Microsoft applications but most still vastly preferred WP over Word. Then came the bundling by Microsoft - Excel for the same price as 1-2-3 with Word thrown in for free. And Microsoft decided to try to match the support provided by WP. For WP, it became a situation of trying to play no limit poker against an opponent with no budget limit - they were doomed to lose, especially when the game changed so that having your own printer driver was a disadvantage no matter how much better it was than the Windows driver.
Office became a major factor due to the bundling at the same cost as standalone apps , that Microsoft could burn cash on support and that Microsoft went after the non-computer people in organizations . There was no way Lotus or WP could have ever competed successfully against that combination over 5 years, no matter what they did. That they both fell for Microsoft's blarney about OS2 and did not do proper Windows transformations for 3 years.

[ Reply to This ]



It was suites, not applications[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:18:04 AM PDT

At the end of the 1980s, the leading office 'productivity' programs were WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and Harvard Graphics. PC-based databases were still ultra lightweight, so they didn't really count. Going into the 1990s and the Windows 3.x era, Microsoft was the first company to provide all the major applications for Windows. Then they bundled their applications into Office. Microsoft's individual applications may not have been clear leaders, but they were either best or close second best in each category. Put 'em all together at a discounted price and throw in the fact that from Office 5 onward they all used VBA for scripting, and the other 'productivity suites' just couldn't compete. That may be due in part to Microsoft Office developers having an unfair advantage in knowing the Windows API details, but it's also due to the feature sets of Microsoft Office applications vs those of their competitors.

[ Reply to This ]


Word Perfect was murdered by Corel[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:34:43 PM PDT

Speaking from experience, our office switched to Word (and the office suite) from WP because WP consumed over 50% of the support time of our help desk and accounted for well over 60% of our incidences. In one somewhat comic issue that I worked WP had trashed a document that would require a lot of work to recreate. I contacted WP tech support and jumped through all of the hoops, but to no avail. The WP tech then asked if I had a copy of MS Word. When I told him that I did he had me open the document in Word then save it in WP format. This fixed the document. We switched to the MS Office suite shortly thereafter.

[ Reply to This ]


What a shame...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:00:34 PM PDT

WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS used to be such an amazing product with such lowly system requirements--PC/XT with 384KB RAM and two 720KB 3.5" floppy drives or one floppy & a hard drive. Even with that setup, it could have 2 documents open simultaneously, had a file manager, could replace 8 VGA colors with fonts (i.e. italic, bold, or underlined), contained a powerful macro language, and had a WYSIWYG equation editor/ graphics preview/ print preview. I had WP5.1 on a 10MHz 8088 with 640KB RAM and VGA, running Bitstream Facelift (a plug-in font package) and Stacker 2.0 printing to a dot matrix printer. Yeah, it was slow--but it was stable...

Unfortunately, WP lost their way in 1991-1993 with their pathetic WP 5.x Windows offerings and their overly buggy WP 6.0x DOS offerings. (WP 6.0 for DOS wasn't stable until 6.0c or even 6.1, 1.5 years after the introduction of "SIX.0" for DOS). To add, Quattro Pro for Windows was light years ahead of Excel in terms of features, but was way more buggy. The writing was on the wall when two such unstable programs were bundled. They never recovered...

Fast forward to today, and it seems Corel, which is now a private company, continues the fine tradition of not listening to its customers... WP & Quattro Pro X3 still don't have Unicode support (available in MS-Office 97, except for MS-Access which had it in Access 2000), there are no Linux or Mac versions, and additional features are mundane and come years after Word/Excel offer them... Frankly, Corel should license "reveal codes" to MS-Word, which I'm guessing is patented and is WP's one remaining strong point, and use the licensing revenue to improve their other products (like Paint Shop Pro and Winzip)...

[ Reply to This ]


WP gone wrong[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:18:58 PM PDT

Part of the problem is, as others have noted, that MicroSoft used unfair competitive tactics to sink not on WordPerfect but also NetScape and others.M$ generally was much better at selling their producs than WP. I had previously used WP (DOS) at my employment. After getting a PC with Window3.0 then upgrading to 3.1, I initially purchased an early version of MS Office because it was the only game in town for Windows. Excel was great; Word was horrible. As soon as WP for windows came out I bought and I endured its bugs and crashes, but it still was much better than Word. I kept using various versions of WP including 8 & 10 until I switched to a Mac in 2005. I'd love to be able to run WP on my Mac; I'm looking for a reasonably priced copy of XP so I can, I still have the WP programs. QuatroPro always seemed to be a good spreadsheet also. Corel seems to be always an "also ran", never really putting out a top notch product and the WP program seems filled with apps of little value such as their own email program. What I'd love to see if for some group to do a WP like version of OpenOffice. Unfortunately almost all the other office-suites imitate the flawed structure of Word.

[ Reply to This ]


WordProcessor Market[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by khobson on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM PDT

I suspect that the marketing to the universities was a factor in WordPerfect's fall in sales.  A person uses software that they know.  Microsoft probably gave the universities the software in the early days, early 90's.

The second factor is marketing to the workplace for the same reason.  If you have to use a software product at work, you will probably want to use it at home as well.  

WordPerfect relies on printer drivers so it has more problems today because the driver designers only design for Microsoft applications.

I also agree that Microsoft had an unfair advantage in that they did not share all of their API methods during the early days of Windows.  

The bottom line is that as long as Microsoft has the lion's share of the operating systems market, their office suite will be in the top sales.  The operating systems market is similar to the VHS or Beta scenario.  It was not that VHS was better than Beta, it was a matter of what most were using.  

As for the free software being better than WordPerfect, I would have to disagree.  For the casual user, programs like OpenOffice are great.  Even NotePad and Winword are great compared to some early word processors.  MSWorks is and was usually bundled for free on new computers so that had an early impact as well.

I think that the free software being referenced is OpenOffice.   The reason it is so popular is that it is much like MSWord.  If OpenOffice could not import or export MSWord files well, it would fall from grace rather quickly.  OpenOffice has mirrored their Suite similar to MSOffice.  This is similar to what QPro did when they mirrored much of L123.  OpenOffice must have some good lawyers to outwit Microsoft's lawyers.

[ Reply to This ]



Do some research...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:26:54 PM PDT

WordPerfect relies on printer drivers so it has more problems today because the driver designers only design for Microsoft applications.
Instead of rehashing the article and other incorrect comments, maybe you should do your own research. WP for Windows could use either the WP print driver or the Windows driver, starting with WP 5.2 for Windows in early 1992. In those days, a document printed using WPWin often looked better using the WP print driver because Windows printer drivers weren't an exact science then. Many 16- and 32-bit print drivers were written in a half-assed way by Microsoft to help speed adoption of Windows. Printer manufacturers hate writing drivers--it's a necessary evil for them. But WP was willing to write & support the driver as long as the printer manufacturer provided the full technical spec on that specific model's language...

WP dropped support for WP printer drivers starting with the 32-bit versions of their products (Corel WordPerfect 7), and only allowed printing using the Windows printer driver. Corel stopped all WP printer driver development around October, 1996 since they were only useful on the 16-bit Windows & DOS versions of WP.

The WP printer driver issue has been moot for well over a decade. The real issue was that WP was way late to the Windows game and they shot themselves in the foot with buggy products that weren't bundled... For example, Corel WordPerfect 7, the first 32-bit version of WP, didn't come out until June, 1996--10 months after the introduction of Windows 95 and Office 95. It was so hacked-together that it couldn't run on Windows NT (until v7.02--aka. Service Pack 2).

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


WordPerfect -- Mystery religion[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:05:56 AM PDT

In the late 1980s, I worked for a company that used WordPerfect. You could always tell a WP company -- all the keyboards had those taped-on cheat sheets that you needed to make the program work. The keyboard commands (can't call them shortcuts) were arcane and awkward. Only the macro commands (programmed one-at-a-time by each user) made the program tolerable. WordPerfect had such a steep learning curve that secretaries who eventually learned it were often untrainable for other programs that didn't have keyboard overlays. WordStar was faster and simpler for professional writers, with it's Ctrl-key shortcuts. But Microsoft killed that program by introducing the 101-key keyboard that put the Ctrl key down where the Caps Lock should be, and vice versa.

[ Reply to This ]


101 Key Keyboards[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#42)
by sconeu on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:22:28 AM PDT

<I>But Microsoft killed that program by introducing the 101-key keyboard that put the Ctrl key down where the Caps Lock should be, and vice versa.</I>

That was IBM.  And those were the famous Model M keyboards, that are beloved by many, including me.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



WP 6 was the end for us[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:40:08 AM PDT

I used WP for years up through 5.5 (I think). It was great because of the templates available and the reveal codes feature -- something that Word still doesn't do. WP 6.0 was the end of WP for our company. For some reason, WP 6 removed some of the document templates, one of which was the main selling point for our use of the product. That, and one of our senior fellows was a Microsoft devotee and got Msoft products adopted as the company standard.

[ Reply to This ]


Great question![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:34:52 AM PDT

I remember using WP's Windows version. It was VERY hard to use. WP thrived in the 4.1, 4.2, and 5.1 days when it was a specialized tool used by legal firms and other document processing applications. It was HARD to use. I remember the template that was almost mandatory, and the often random key combinations. People learned it like they learned to pilot a submarine, there was nothing intuitive about it. The Windows version was extremely difficult. Word was easy. The cream rose. Until Word started kicking WP's rear end in the marketplace, usability didn't get much better. I remember the 6.0 disaster -- bugs so bad they made Word look good, and it was buggy too. WP had to release a 6.1 (or 6.0a? can't remember) patch almost immediately to pacify howling customers. So WP ultimately had no one to blame but themselves. They invested heavily in a WYSIWYG DOS version at a time when Windows was clearly the winner. Reveal codes is unnecessary with style sheets and WYSIWYG document rendering on the screen. No WP user would ever admit that, but the Rest of Us didn't see any need for them. It was great in the DOS days when what you saw was not what you got. The one thing that would save WP now is a Linux version. There used to be one for UNIX, because I used it. But the current owner (Novell? Corel? Who knows anymore?) nixed it. A Linux version would be a migration path -- legal firms were using WP 5.1 well into the 2000s and are probably looking for a way to migrate to something more recent like Ubuntu and still have 100% compatibility with 20-25 years of documents. I still run 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and Windows 8.0 in a Windows 2000 image under VirtualBox.

[ Reply to This ]


Word and Reveal Codes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM PDT

===== Reveal codes is unnecessary with style sheets ===== . William Mossberg of the WSJ likes to go off on Reveal Codes too. Personally I start every Word document by inserting 3 blank lines at the top and when I am done setting them to 1pt height because I have never found any other reliable way of being able to get the the very beginning of a Word document. Stylesheets are OK for those that understand them (5% of Word users in my experience) until they go bad; then it is time to cut the text out to a TXT file and start over. Of course there is "no need" for Reveal Codes to fix problems in Word documents... . sPh

[ Parent | Reply to This ]