Re: AW5 vs WP 1.1 for 2e

[John <zzzjoki@yahoo.com>]

On May 23, 4:34 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> John wrote:
> > This is ambiguous, but in your opinion ...
>
> > Which is better for a user today? For example: Although I have WP 5.1
> > for DOS, someplace, text transfer should work with AW5,  AW5 is (far?)
> > more popular, both seem pretty responsive to me, but WP 2e screen
> > operates in text WIZIWIG, WP 2e has reveal codes,  the WP gs and WP 2e
> > are compatible while AW5 and AWgs are not (think).
>
> > AW5 is a package with SS and flat file DB nearby.
>
> > I don't know about the Macro capability of AW5 vs WP 1.1. I assume the
> > 1.1 is more of a keystroke recorder thing. Is the Aw5 w/ UltraMacro
> > (?) more full featured (like branching).
>
> > How stable is WP 1.1?
>
> > --------
> > It's fun to see WP working well with the 2e - amazing.
>
> Actually, AW3 plus UltraMacros was much more popular than any of
> the later versions.  They came too late and offered too little for
> the cost to most users who already had fully TimeOut-enhanced AW3.
>
> I've always viewed this as a great example of fragmenting a declining
> (AW) market, which actually accelerates its decline.  After all, if
> you're going to switch, why not switch to something on the upswing?
>
> The introduction of the IIgs into the Apple II market is another
> example of this--"too little, too late".
>
> -michael
>
> NadaNet file server for Apple II computers!
> Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
>
> "The wastebasket is our most important design
> tool--and it's seriously underused."

Thanks Michael.
I didn't know AW3 was more popular than AW5 as I have no sense for 8-
bit Apple history and which systems and software were most used.