Talk:Comparison of word processor programs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27/4/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

OpenOffice cannot write or read RTF

The formats table is incorrect, because OpenOffice can not read or write RTF files ... correctly. Broken support is the same as no support. To test this, try to save a simple ODF doc to RTF and try to open this RTF on Wordpad or Word for example. Or vice-versa (open on OpenOffice one RTF created on Wordpad or Word). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.118.10 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tables/Comparison

This article was in serious need of improvement and progress- I have not bothered to check the facts that are already on the article, I am just going with them (although the requirements that are listed don't seem quite correct):

I think that the following comparison tables should be included:

General Info (creator, first release, latest stable version, cost, license)
Characteristics ( spellcheck, grammar check, image editing, mail merging)
Import File Type Compatibility (.odt, .doc, .abw... list more please)
Export File Type Compatibility (above)
Operating System Compatibility (Windows, Mac OSX, GNU/Linux, BSD, Unix, Open VMS, BeOS/Zeta, MorphOS, eComStation... add more if necessary)

Add more if you think that they are necessary!

update: I added GI and Characteristics. Commence the filling in! Smartalecks 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
another update: added Operating system comparision chart. filled most of it in (some one double check), but as you can see there are still alot of gaps. I hope I got this started tho, it really needed it.Smartalecks 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTML

I think word processors should also include HTML editing because otherwise it's just another text editor and there is already a page for the pursose of comparison of text editors. The purpose of this page is to provide more insight into word processors or very advanced text editors. Here we're talking about more features and advantages that a text editor does not have.--Nadyes 21:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with mentioning HTML editing, but historically it is not a criterion for something being a word processor. Word processors as opposed to text editors predate HTML by a long time. Surely WordStar, MS Word in the 1980s, WordPerfect in the 1980s, as well as batch word processors such as Troff, Scribe, and TeX, were word processors, yet none of them provided HTML editing. Some of them still don't. The distinction between a text editor and a word processor is the finer control of graphical detail that a word processor provides. Word processors often come with other facilities, such as HTML editing and spelling correction, but these are not part of the definition.Bill 22:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any features that are not necessary for word processors to have to be a word processor, or are not shared by every word processor, they should be included. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 02:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Word processor page lists...
  - batch mailing using a form letter template and an address database (also called mail merging)
  - index of keywords and their page numbers
  - table of contents with section titles and their page numbers
  - table of figures with caption titles and their page numbers
  - cross-referencing with section or page numbers
  - footnote numbering
  - spelling checks
  - grammar checks

as common features. But I don't know about grammar checks - AbiWord doesn't have it. Also, keep in mind that this list should not feature historical applications. Import/export file capability should be factored in, as well. Table support and the extent thereof should be added. OS support, obviously. HTML support. Open/closed source. I support auto spell checking as a feature to be included in this table, as Ted does not have it.

This is not a comparison

WTH? This is a list, not a comparison. The article should be renamed or merged. ~~Anonymous User Dude

Judging from both the content and the comments by Nadyes, what it actually is is a presentation of a few peoples' ideas of what a word processor SHOULD be. As such, it might be an acceptable blog post or business proposal, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. I think it should be deleted.Bill 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since there already is the List of word processors. Anybody have time to put it up for deletion? Mütze 18:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was just discussed but defeated. There was, I think, consensus that as it stands the article isn't good, but those opposing deletion were of the view that since there COULD be a good article on this topic, it should not be deleted. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anybody who wants to take the trouble to make it into a good article.Bill 19:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no better tag to the article than "This article is in need of improvement"? I would have suggested something like "This article needs to be written". It is a very promising title but the content is useless. Mlewan 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Please see Comparison of text editors for the standard that needs to be aimed for. Tyrenius 02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defintion of Word Processor

A think the best definition I can think of for a word-processing program is a text editor that is WYSIWYG and geared toward producing documents to be printed. Theshibboleth 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Wrong

This page is so utterly wrong in so many respects that I can't conceive that it was written other than in jest.

First, the "basic criteria" listed are incorrect. WordPerfect was released for DOS in 1982, and it was indisputably a word processor. Wordstar was released for CP/M in 1978, and it was indisputably a word processor. Neither had GUI's, web design capability, graphic-editing capability, Word Art, table creation, chart or graph creation, and even the ease-of-use was arguable.

What both did possess was formatting capability, which is what defined a word processor then, and what defines it now. The distinctions have blurred, but a text editor is still essentially used for producing plain text and a word processor for producing formatted documents. Yes, Microsoft's WordPad *is* a word processor, even if a very basic one.

A word processor released today would fail without including spellcheck, but it would still be a word processor. If this article were named "What Features a Word Processor Must Include to be Successful in the Market Today," I might still quibble over its content, but at least the title would be more accurate. Of course, if that were the subject of the article, then I wouldn't consider it suitable for Wikipedia.

OpenOffice.org Writer Grammar check?

I don't think OOo has a grammar check. it does have spell check though. please verify. --165.230.46.78 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC) http://www.danielnaber.de/languagetool/ was the only one I could find, but it is not native in OOo. 165.230.46.78 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) It does not have a grammar check, just as the article on OOo Writer states. If somebody can show that it indeed has grammar check, then they can change it back to a 'yes'. (And also tell me where you got the grammar check because that's why I got rid of Writer) --165.124.118.23 21:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

file type support

Whether or not different file types are supported should be included e.g., .doc, .odt, .txt., .rtf, etc. --70.111.218.254 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KWord Import/Export

According to the history "Den fjättrade ankan" removed the import/export details about KWord ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_word_processors&diff=91145318&oldid=90504679 ). Why? I reverted it cause it does not make sense to have them for all apps except for KWord.

No, I have not removed anything. There never were any entries for KWord for these. Den fjättrade ankan 11:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Red and green: a subtle point.

This page subtly (and presumably accidentally) slightly violates the NPOV principle. In the "Open Source" column of the"General Information" section, "Is open source" is green, and "Is not open source" is red. The other uses of this color scheme are green = good (feature included), red = bad (feature not present); additionally, that same bias is fairly prevalent in US culture (and, I believe, other English-speaking cultures). Stating outright that "Open Source is better" would violate NPOV. This subtle manner does so as well. I would therefore suggest removing the color for that column. 141.149.210.101 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing and then saw your comment so fixed it. --Chris Pickett 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then [1] reverted my fix for "deleting information". Please discuss here. You can't simply change the colours, {{yes}} and {{no}} are templates. I think it looks better and presents a more NPOV like this. I don't see how my change deleted information; the links to the relevant license are still there, I added links to Proprietary software in several cases, and the column header is accurate; it's not about whether it's open source or not, it's about the license... otherwise, why differentiate between BSD, GPL, etc.? --Chris Pickett 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted his revert, and he immediately reverted me again. I added {{npov}} tag. It would be nice to discuss things before reverting. --Chris Pickett 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a NPOV violation. From the perspective of the end user, having open source code is always good because it means that the user community is free to make improvements to the software and continue supporting it even if the original developer abandons it. As loaded as open source discussions are, I doubt anyone would dispute that knowledge of the source code is valuable -- even if it's not useful to everyone. I think NPOV tag should be eliminated. On the other hand, I don't think "open source" is a very meaningful term. What about eliminating the column and just listing the license under which it is released? --Ari Epstein

Also, far more common than "green = good" and "red = bad" are "green = go" and "red = stop". Open source software is software that offers significantly fewer restrictions on what you can do--go ahead and use it as you like; you're not stopped from doing anything with it. This is a much more natural way of viewing the matter than any alternative that could be contrived where "proprietary = go" and "open source = stop".

Green merely indicates "yes" and red merely indicates "no." See the template talk pages. If you wanted them to mean good/bad, you'd also have to make a value judgement as to whether it was good to have ANY other feature. NPOV tag removed. --Karnesky 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of red linked packages

The recent additions of several programs is great. I hope that stubs for the redlinks can be started. Do people know about RoughDraft? It has been deleted twice for spam. And Evermore Software (creator of Evermore Integrated Office) was deleted after being PRODed. Do these belong in this table? --Karnesky 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AbiWord - PDF

Need some explanation of how AbiWord "partially" supports PDF as the ref link is dead. --Britcom 09:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abiword's PDF export support seems limited to suggesting the use of a third party PDF printer driver on Windows, use Mac's built-in PDF print option, and I'm not sure how it suggests it on Linux - it starts of by saying there are 'a number of options'. Source: [2]. 203.217.94.116 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbiWord - Word export

Abiword's export to Word is limited to using RTF format with a .DOC extension ([3]). Such a capability is covered adequately by the "RTF" column, so a "Yes" in the "Word" column should denote more than just RTF capability. If we give AbiWord a "Yes" to export in Word format, then we would need to give a Yes to every word processor capable of outputting RTF, for it would be quite possible to export from any RTF application, saving it with a .DOC extension and open it in Word. 203.217.94.116 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably replace "Word" with "Word DOC" and/or OOXML-DOCX for clarity. --Karnesky (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XML Import - what does this mean

Need some explanation on what constitutes "XML" import. I'd be inclined to remove that column entirely, as XML isn't a file format and it confuses the issue - does this mean "at least one of the input formats it supports is based on XML"? 203.217.94.116 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:I think it means the ability to import a file with a .xml extension in Windows. But I guess the extension means different types of files to different programs, right? I'd be OK if the column were removed if you think it's inaccurate.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) [banned user][reply]

Merge with List of word processors

After a thorough comparison between the two articles i have noticed that the two articles can be merged with certain modifications helping this article to attain a good standard, I request editors to come forward and comment on this notification. Edeskonline (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TextEdit: PDF export

TextEdit currently has "no" to export in PDF, but like spelling and grammar (which it has listed as "yes"), PDF exporting is provided as part of OS X when going File > Print; shouldn't it therefore be labelled as having the ability to create PDFs? Robert (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Appleworks-6.0-wordproc-mac.png

The image File:Appleworks-6.0-wordproc-mac.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WordPad

WordPad is absent from every comparison table, though it's as much a word processor as OSX's TextEdit (bundled and pretty basic, but often good enough). Furthermore in 7 it gained r/w for both Office Open XML (docx) and Open Document Text (odt) formats. Shouldn't it be added to the 4 comparison tables? Masklinn (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WordPerfect Reveal Codes

Does any other word processor have a feature that compares to Reveal Codes? I haven't used WordPerfect myself for years, but with the push for OpenDocument format and XML, I would expect more word processors to implement such features. I wonder if anyone else feels that a column should be added to indicate that the word processor has or doesn't have a Reveal Codes-like feature. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Docs =

Someone should add this, but I don't have the appropriate expertise.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.67.183 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]