[NTLUG:Discuss] Office forms

[Randall Gibson]

	Well, I have tried about all Office packages, and Word processors that I can, and none seem to support Forms and most dont have any of the features like text boxes and drop down menu's. I could not try Wordperfect (Office) 2K because there is, as far as I can tell, a free download for it. Same with ApplixWare. I am not going to pay for them if I am not sure they will do as I need. I have no problem with paying for software, even in Linux, but not throwing it to the wind :) 
	Just thought I would give you all a update because I personally like to hear back on the resolution of things posted to the lists, especially if I was one of the people that have tried to help out :) Thanks for all the input with my problem. Hopefully a soon planed major upgrade of system will be done, fixing my speed problems :)


On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:53:14 Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:22:30 CST, the world broke into rejoicing as
> greenglow484 at juno.com  said:
> > I concur with James Skidmore's idea today, to try WordPerfect for Linux. 
> 
> The latest version, which uses WINE internally to emulate Win32, is
> reportedly not as fast as the earlier port of WP 8, done by Gallium
> Software to run natively on UNIX.
> 
> > I'm not able to comment intelligently on other, established Linux text
> > editors there might be for your use; some of the older, established Linux
> > tools.  Maybe someone else can comment on that further.  Also, I don't
> > have much experience with Klyx.  Have you tried it?  My overall
> > impression was, somewhat abbreviated like Abiword, but still a fine word
> > processor/ editing / composition program.
> 
> While I agree that the functionality of AbiWord is a bit "abbreviated,"
> KLyx should be _quite_ powerful; it has the document processing engine
> of LaTeX and TeX sitting underneath.
> 
> > I've only briefly tried ApplixWare on Linux; it did seem to be more slim
> > than StarOfc.  I definitely believe WordPerfect -- either V. 8, or,
> > probably, their V. 2000 (or V. 9; it goes by both monikers; I own the
> > Linux version 8, but not 9/2000) -- definitely_feels_, to me, like less
> > of a resource hog than Star Ofc.  (That's also definitely true in the
> > Windoze side of my machine; WordPerfect 2000 for Windoze does seem
> > slimmer/ more efficient than StarOfc 6.2, although StarOfc. 6.2 also runs
> > a little better than 6.1 did.)
> 
> ApplixWare is _quite_ a lot more efficient than StarOffice, and has a
> document format underneath that, while not "official standardized,"
> is text-based, so that you can look at the documents using a text
> editor.  I haven't tried out the new GTK-based version of ApplixWare,
> so I don't know if that change helps or hinders.
> --
> aa454 at freenet.carleton.ca - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
> "Objects keep things tidy, but don't accelerate growth: inheritance
> does." -- James A. Crippen (after Alan Perlis)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>