Letters

The debate continues, Word versus WordPerfect

I have several comments about the October 1997 article by Dianne Molvig, "1997 Technology Survey." First, the characterization by Leigh Webber of a purported "strategic blunder" made by WordPerfect, which he refers to as the "Great Betrayal," is misleading and misses a very important counterpoint about Microsoft's Word product line. While indeed the macro language in WordPerfect 5.1 to WordPerfect for Windows 6 changed markedly, it had to. Macros in WordPerfect changed very little for many years - from version 4.0 through version 5.1 - essentially from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s. The language had to change to encompass the radically different method, at a minimum, of recording mouse movements versus recording keystrokes. The same transition happened in Microsoft Word. Now WordPerfect has had mostly compatible macros since version 6.0 for Windows through the present version 8, encompassing versions 6.1 and 7 in between. In this day and age of version-to-version incompatibilities and file format changes, that's pretty darned consistent.

And what about the "Great[er] Betrayal" on Microsoft's part, dumping its WordBasic macro language from Word 95, in favor of the completely incompatible VBA macro language rolled out in this year's Word 97? And worse, what about the widely reported and recognized file compatibility fiasco Microsoft created in its blundering with Word 97? Users of the immediately prior Word version couldn't easily save back and forth, not to mention the screw ups with mislabeling file extensions for .DOC and .RTF files. At the same time, the latest WordPerfect 8 product has a default file save format called "WordPerfect 6/7/8," which indicates a three-version file compatibility. If anyone is worthy of Mr. Webber's term, the "Great Betrayal," it would seem to squarely fit the folks from Redmond, Washington.

Mr. Webber also comments that the incompatibility moving from WordPer-fect 5.1 macros to current WordPerfect for Windows macros formats "means that lawyers' enormous investment in automation procedures has been made worthless." That's not entirely true - I've seen firms use elaborate macro-based document assembly systems, created in WordPerfect 5.1, alongside their WordPerfect for Windows products. But of course, the situation would be the same had the firm transitioned from Microsoft Word for DOS to any version of Word for Windows - so the sense that this is solely a WordPerfect failing is not fair. The reality is that the WordPerfect macro language was with us for a long time. And then it changed. And now we've had a mostly version-independent macro language with WordPerfect for Windows since 6.0, and Corel says they are committed to continuing this version independence as long as possible. That's life. And Microsoft has made no such commitments.

Not to pick on Mr. Webber's comments, but he states that "the difference in pain between going from WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS to WordPerfect for Windows versus going from WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS to Microsoft Word for Windows, is very little. It's painful either way." Wrong. A WordPerfect DOS to WordPerfect Windows transition is much less painful because of: 1) the ability to use WordPerfect DOS keystrokes in the Windows version (not possible in Word); 2) the ability to retrieve WordPerfect 5.1 documents consistently without any need for reformatting (good amount of clean-up in Word); 3) the ability to leverage years of WordPerfect training, especially if the WPDOS "keyboard" is selected (start over in Word); and 4) the big one, life without the famous WordPerfect "Reveal Codes" feature is a nightmare for long-time WordPerfect users. If need be, I'd be happy to submit the raft of recent corroborating comments from the busy Internet legal technology email discussion groups on this topic that confirm the reliance and relative importance to users of this feature - for which there is no Word counterpart.

So my experience working with law firms of all sizes nationwide is that there is far less pain in moving from WordPerfect for DOS to its Windows counterparts.

Another interesting point is a rather new trend regarding WordPerfect use in law firms. As I personally expected and predicted would happen as long ago as November 1995 when WordPerfect was put on the block by then-owner Novell and "panic transitions" to Word began in earnest, the process is beginning to reverse itself. On Internet legal tech email lists, firms across the country are talking about how they are returning to WordPerfect. For instance, Ballard, Spahr et al., a 250-plus lawyer firm in Philadelphia with which I am familiar, just selected WordPerfect 8 over Word 97 as its word processor. I don't think that would have happened even six months ago.

Perhaps eventually, reliance upon word processors from one company or another will become moot - and I hope this is true. If and when we can ever find a common, compatible, consistent document format (maybe even unformatted documents) such as an offshoot of SGML with a more human interface, all the better. In the meantime, it seems that at least in the legal market, there is a resurgence of interest in the WordPerfect for Windows system.

That all aside, surveying all of us regarding our technology usage is a worthy endeavor and the State Bar staff, and in particular computer services director Art Saffran, deserve great credit. I hope to see the surveys continue.

Ross L. Kodner
Milwaukee

Wisconsin Lawyer