| |||||||||||||
Importance of LibreOfficeImportance of LibreOfficePosted Feb 11, 2013 12:21 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576)In reply to: Importance of LibreOffice by amosbatto Parent article: LibreOffice 4.0 released
>I first installed Linux in 1999, but I didn't switch to Linux as my full time operating system until 2006 because I couldn't give up WordPerfect.
That doesn't follow - in 1999 WordPerfect was already available for Linux.
(Log in to post comments)
Importance of LibreOffice Posted Feb 11, 2013 16:50 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Yeah, I bought that (used it to write the IPChains Quick Reference). I think it's more correct to say that slower-than-snot, seriously crashy word processor that looked a lot like WordPerfect was available on Linux.
But, it you switched platforms to use it seriously, you'd switch back before the end of your first day. It was that bad.
Importance of LibreOffice Posted Feb 11, 2013 20:37 UTC (Mon) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
My wife did a couple of translations with wp for Linux, but she was always peeved that it was a stupid X11 application, instead of the really nice terminal wp client that was around on other unices.
Because, as you said, it was crashy as hell. Just not as crashy as staroffice was back then, or max-something, or weird like angoss smartware.
Importance of LibreOffice Posted Feb 12, 2013 15:26 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>slower-than-snot, seriously crashy word processor that looked a lot like WordPerfect
Oh dear; well that would explain it alright.
That can't have made a good impression of general application quality on people trying Linux for the first time :(.
Importance of LibreOffice Posted Feb 12, 2013 15:29 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
To be fair,the first gui versions of WordPerfect for Dos and Windows were also very slow, extremely crash-prone and likely to corrupt your data. My wife wrote a book on the first Windows version of WordPerfect and used 5.1 for DOS for that.
Importance of LibreOffice Posted Feb 13, 2013 18:53 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Having used them (WP5.0 for SCO, WP5.1 for DOS, WP6.0 and WP6.1 for Windows, and supported WP5.1 and WP5.2 for Windows) my feeling was that ALL of them were rock solid ... UNLESS
You made the mistake of letting MS sabotage them. 5.1 and 5.2 for Windows were fine. Just a bit clunky, and I never had any desire to change from 5.1 for DOS.
6.0Win was great provided you ran it on Windows 3.1. Problem is, we were just introducing networking at the time, and MS slipped a bomb into the TCP/IP stack that killed it. It took 6.1 to fix all the "bugs" MS introduced.
And then, of course, MS sabotaged that with Office 95. If you installed 6.1 on top of Office 95 everything was fine. If, however, you installed Office over 95, well, ... the only way I ever found to fix the mess and get WP working again was "format c:".
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||