|> Yes, I read that. It's quite good, but like all magazine reviews, it's
|> pretty "favourable". You know "it's a great program" even though it may
|> be crap. I'd like to get the more honest opinions of users, if I could.
I used StarOffice 4, but not Applixware. it was a good, solid program--at
least for my needs (I use the word processor more than anything else).
Haven't tried 5 yet.
As for magazine reviews, it depends on the magazine. I've found Linux
Journal's reviews to be the least `professional' and slick of the computer
magazines I read, and sometimes it seems like the reviewers are afraid to
admit that a piece of software for Linux might be terrible.
In the Mac magazines I have seen them completely pan software, sometimes
from major companies. They do try to temper it with `the idea was good' or
`there are good points, but the major flaws render it unusable' :)
|> That said, I think I'll try Applixware. I have Star-Office 3, and my
|> main dislikes are that it's big and slow, and that the filters don't
|> work very well (as an example, I made a file with a .gif in it and
|> exported as Word 6. The reference to the .gif was an URL, which crashed
|> MS-Word. Couldn't get Star-writer to save it just as a filename that DOS
|> would understand.)
If you're only on v3, this may be a problem that's been fixed in later
versions. The `big and slow', though, has probably just been made worse
-( my PC is a pII with 64MB of RAM so I can't really judge. Even Microsoft
applications run pretty speedily on this machine ;) (then again, if you
REALLY want slow, buy from Adobe and Macromedia... *grumbles*)
Alexis
-*- Alexis Rosoff -*- ICQ# 6689686 -*- http://www.li.net/~alexis
Random fortune:
Tact in audacity is knowing how far you can go without going too far.
-- Jean Cocteau
