TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: A bit more about wp programs. From:Richard Sobocinski <"Richard_G_Sobocinski%~WHC207"@CCMAIL.PNL.GOV> Date:Tue, 6 Sep 1994 16:48:00 -0700
Here are my opinions, based on extensive experience with WordPerfect
(DOS versions 4.2 to 6.0b; very little time on 6.0) but no long document
experience, and intensive experience with Word for Windows 6.0a over the
past two months in my current job documenting a voicemail board. I'll
try to direct my comments toward the issues in technical writing.
Summary: Word is easier to use, but WP is more flexible. I cannot
recommend Word for technical writing because of problems with its table
feature.
======================================
I have used WP5.1 for long docs and have been very pleased
with it. The docs I did were highly formated and made use of
auto numbering, tables, cross-references, TOC, lists, and
Master-Sub document codes. The links for cross-refs, lists,
and TOC were carried across 6 sub-documents. When generated
witht the Master it topped out at about 2 MB and did not give
me any problems, although even the WP tech rep told me it
wouldn't work. I agree that MSWord is *not* appropriate for
long tech docs.
