PDA

View Full Version : Pages 3 Features?


MacRumors
Jul 10, 2006, 09:48 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Alongside the introduction of 'Charts' (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060709121223.shtml), ThinkSecret is reporting (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0607pages3.html) that Apple will be introducing a number of new features into the next version of Pages.

Pages is Apple's word processing application which comes bundled in iWork (http://guides.macrumors.com/iWork). Pages 3 is expected to debut in January 2007 with the release of iWork '07. New features include two new modes called "Word Processing" and "Layout" to better cater to different users needs.

A number of convenient features catered to writers and typists will also be wrapped into Pages 3, including a thesaurus and integration with Spotlight, Wikipedia, and Google. Apple is also said to be looking to build a robust grammar checking engine for Pages that could find its way into other Apple and Cocoa applications.

gkhaldi
Jul 10, 2006, 09:51 AM
Finally some really good news. I finally can get rid of Mickeysoft. ;) :D

Olé !!

iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 10, 2006, 09:53 AM
As a frequent user of Pages 2, I would like more toolbars and less of the 'inspector' stuff, which to me is not as convenient.

Jerry Spoon
Jul 10, 2006, 09:55 AM
This could get me to finally start using Pages. Right now, MS Word is just something I'm a lot more used to and Pages doesn't give me a reason to switch. I'm not one for newsletters and other graphically oriented word processing.
I can see myself switching though, b/c I'm definitely a keynote user now and can't remember the last time I touched PowerPoint.
We've got awhile to wait though.

WildCowboy
Jul 10, 2006, 09:57 AM
I've been holding off on moving to iWork, but it sounds (if true) like the '07 version might just be enough to push me over the edge and at least try to use it for a majority of my work. I'll likely still need the power of Excel for some of my work if Charts is as predicted, but iWork may finally be coming of age!

slackersonly
Jul 10, 2006, 10:03 AM
all of this is very positive to a recent switcher like myself.
i am trying to tranisiton everything to mac and i am open to going with iWork IF it can truely be a replacement to MS Oriface for me.
i am a mid level user. really i am a consumer user who has put in the time and effort to learn some of the more powerful features.
i hope that apple will begin to verify some of this info so i can confirm whether i wanna jump on the iWork7 bandwagon right away. :)

ITASOR
Jul 10, 2006, 10:04 AM
As a frequent user of Pages 2, I would like more toolbars and less of the 'inspector' stuff, which to me is not as convenient.

Really? I love the whole Inspector idea and the side toolbar in Word type thing.

~Shard~
Jul 10, 2006, 10:08 AM
Nice to see the suite maturing like this. Pages 3 along with Charts will definitely make iWork 07 an improvement over the '06 version and a lot more solid of a suite in general.

MacSA
Jul 10, 2006, 10:10 AM
Lets hope it doesnt end up costing as much as MS Office....:eek:

CommodityFetish
Jul 10, 2006, 10:18 AM
This is good news. Not sure if it will be able to convert me away from Mellel, which has been a fabulous word processor for me for what I need...

www.redlers.com

But glad to see the progress for Apple.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jul 10, 2006, 10:22 AM
If they add the "word processing mode", then that simultaneously renforces my gripes with it (see other threads), then negates them.

It's an extra step in setting up a document, but I like the thought of it from a productivity standpoint. As long as there's no Clippy.

heisetax
Jul 10, 2006, 10:34 AM
Lets hope it doesnt end up costing as much as MS Office....:eek:


At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough.

Apple would used to calculate the Real Total Cost of Ownership for Macs. They would include after purchase service & support costs. We need to do the same for iWork. iWork is not a simple $79 program useless you wait for the version you want, purchase it & then add no updates that have a purchase price. If you want a slimmed down program purchase now, but have few features to give few benefits. If you want a more complete program just wait for the 5th or 6th upgrade. But this way you have no program to use for another 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years. Anything else requires multiplying the $79 by by a 2, 4, 5 or even larger number to get the true cost of iWork.

Bill the TaxMan

Felix_the_Mac
Jul 10, 2006, 10:35 AM
I hope they build in support for ODF and stop giving support to MS Open XML.

Collin973
Jul 10, 2006, 10:38 AM
Good to see. I can't wait to buy it in 07. Knowing this was going to be released stopped me from getting Iwork 06...

QCassidy352
Jul 10, 2006, 10:43 AM
great news. I'd love to use iwork instead of office which is slow and crashy, but pages just doesn't cut it for me right now. What I'd really love is for pages to have a "notebook" kind of view like word does because that's much more convenient for taking notes in class.

iMikeT
Jul 10, 2006, 10:45 AM
Well that does it! I'll officially be done using MS Office come Janurary 2007.

Actually, since I discovered AppleWorks, my use of Office drastically decreased. I've been looking forward to taking iWork for a test drive but now with this news, I think I'll take it for a spin anyway and wait for iWork 07.

Is it just me or does Office seem to be more intuitive than it really should be?

backupdrummer
Jul 10, 2006, 10:49 AM
For me to upgrade iWork it will need to have some pretty killer features. I do like a different view for Pages as the alway layout view can be very annoying when you just want something simple.

One of my biggest gripes with Pages is when you select Blank page it still populates it with fields like header that drives me crazy.

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2006, 10:54 AM
Hmm, modal software. This used to be a very undesirable characteristic, a violation of the Mac interface guidelines. I don't see the problem with the way Pages handles layouts and word processing now. It sounds like Apple may be caving into the critics who want Pages to be more like Word. I hope not.

MajorTom
Jul 10, 2006, 11:01 AM
I think pages is a great app and these new features are most welcome IMO.

bluebomberman
Jul 10, 2006, 11:09 AM
A number of convenient features catered to writers and typists will also be wrapped into Pages 3, including a thesaurus and integration with Spotlight, Wikipedia, and Google. Apple is also said to be looking to build a robust grammar checking engine for Pages that could find its way into other Apple and Cocoa applications.

I'm going to a MFA writing program in the fall; would love to see how this turns out. I use Word exclusively but can't shake the feeling that there's a better way to do things.

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2006, 11:15 AM
I'm going to a MFA writing program in the fall; would love to see how this turns out. I use Word exclusively but can't shake the feeling that there's a better way to do things.

There already is. ;)

bigandy
Jul 10, 2006, 11:55 AM
aaah yes, a wordprocessing mode.

just what it needs! at last! :)

Demoman
Jul 10, 2006, 12:15 PM
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough.

Apple would used to calculate the Real Total Cost of Ownership for Macs. They would include after purchase service & support costs. We need to do the same for iWork. iWork is not a simple $79 program useless you wait for the version you want, purchase it & then add no updates that have a purchase price. If you want a slimmed down program purchase now, but have few features to give few benefits. If you want a more complete program just wait for the 5th or 6th upgrade. But this way you have no program to use for another 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years. Anything else requires multiplying the $79 by by a 2, 4, 5 or even larger number to get the true cost of iWork.

Bill the TaxMan

I use pages exclusively as do all of the workers who are testing Apple at my business. After a short learning curve, everyone likes it and it is more than capable right now. You are really coming off as an Apple ball-buster. All I read from you is negative Apple. Are you collecting your checks from Redmond???

Westside guy
Jul 10, 2006, 12:17 PM
Ha ha... when I glanced at the RSS feed I thought it said "Page 3 Features?". I thought: "Why the heck would MacRumors add a 'Page 3'? Much of the 'Page 1' stuff never comes to pass, and they've got 'Page 2' for the even less substantiated stuff..."

:p

iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 10, 2006, 12:22 PM
Really? I love the whole Inspector idea and the side toolbar in Word type thing.

Well, I guess these kinds of things are preferential. Perhaps I'm more used to Micro$oft Office toolbars.

Anyhow, I find myself using Pages more often. I'll just tell my boss to buy a Mac Mini if he wants to read my documents. :D

If Apple does come out with a spreadsheet, it better be more usable than what one can get currently on Pages. One major omission is that one cannot create a graph directly from a table (you have to 'cut and paste').

bluebomberman
Jul 10, 2006, 12:28 PM
I'm going to a MFA writing program in the fall; would love to see how this turns out. I use Word exclusively but can't shake the feeling that there's a better way to do things.

There already is. ;)

Not for what I'm doing. Pages strikes me as something for newsletters, not writing well-researched articles and novels.

WildCowboy
Jul 10, 2006, 12:29 PM
Ha ha... when I glanced at the RSS feed I thought it said "Page 3 Features?". I thought: "Why the heck would MacRumors add a 'Page 3'? Much of the 'Page 1' stuff never comes to pass, and they've got 'Page 2' for the even less substantiated stuff..."

Clearly you haven't had a look at Page 3 (http://www.macrumors.com/page3/)... ;)

wmmk
Jul 10, 2006, 12:29 PM
if charts can do basic formulas (using mostly only simple arithmetic), pages has a word processing mode, grammar check, and integrates with a thesaurus, wikipeida, spotlight, and google, office is immediately deleted from my system:D
one problem:
will eductional institutions really want the wikipedia integration? my school is certainly not big on wikipedia. if apple could strike a deal with MacKiev, World Book software could come with iWork and be integrated with pages and the whole suite in general.

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2006, 12:33 PM
Not for what I'm doing. Pages strikes me as something for newsletters, not writing well-researched articles and novels.

Maybe that's the way it strikes you, but this isn't the way it strikes those of us who've been using Pages since it came out.

But all of my work is poorly-researched, so maybe that's why I like it.

:rolleyes:

randyharris
Jul 10, 2006, 12:36 PM
Well, I guess these kinds of things are preferential. Perhaps I'm more used to Micro$oft Office toolbars.

Anyhow, I find myself using Pages more often. I'll just tell my boss to buy a Mac Mini if he wants to read my documents. :D

If Apple does come out with a spreadsheet, it better be more usable than what one can get currently on Pages. One major omission is that one cannot create a graph directly from a table (you have to 'cut and paste').

I'm with KookAid, I find that the Inspector is far more time consuming than a well laid out Icon Bar with drop boxes. Maybe it's because I've been using Microsoft Office forever. But I have given Pages a serious try and I find that I really like it, except for it's lacking AutoCorrection and Inspector.

Randy

erlendscott
Jul 10, 2006, 12:46 PM
I'm still on iWork 05, couldn't really see the need to update it every year so I'm waiting until iWork 07.

I agree that there is loads of potential in Pages, and found it very usable once I got used to it. I would also like to see a standard 'word processing mode' as using the templates as the main focus of the application doesn't work awfully well for regular word processing.

I also prefer the sidebar palette in Word as you can easily drop down multiple sections rather than having to have open 2 or more inspector panes.

These would be welcome additions and would definitely make me more likely to upgrade in the new year.

aegisdesign
Jul 10, 2006, 12:52 PM
great news. I'd love to use iwork instead of office which is slow and crashy, but pages just doesn't cut it for me right now. What I'd really love is for pages to have a "notebook" kind of view like word does because that's much more convenient for taking notes in class.

Er, see that TextEdit icon in your dockbar - try that.

aegisdesign
Jul 10, 2006, 12:54 PM
I'm with KookAid, I find that the Inspector is far more time consuming than a well laid out Icon Bar with drop boxes. Maybe it's because I've been using Microsoft Office forever. But I have given Pages a serious try and I find that I really like it, except for it's lacking AutoCorrection and Inspector.

Toolbars and drop down menus are the things Microsoft have DROPPED from Office 2007.

aegisdesign
Jul 10, 2006, 01:08 PM
I use pages exclusively as do all of the workers who are testing Apple at my business. After a short learning curve, everyone likes it and it is more than capable right now. You are really coming off as an Apple ball-buster. All I read from you is negative Apple. Are you collecting your checks from Redmond???

Yep. That's what I get too. People who actually take the time to use Pages and explore it's features, leaving their Microsoft Word prejudices behind, enjoy using it.

I find it amazing that someone would argue that Apple updating it's software every year is a bad thing as opposed to Microsoft's upgrade every 3-4 years. Come on, we're at v2 for Pages as opposed to v12 for Word. You've got to expect a v2 product has a little growing room yet.

Badradio
Jul 10, 2006, 01:15 PM
I checked out Pages last year, but the lack of a thesaurus was a deal-breaker. The added wikipedia and google support is just a bonus for me - I'll be ordering this the day it's released.
bluebomberman - I'm working on a novel right now, and I've found that less is definitely more. All I need are a thesaurus, spellchecker, page numbering and find-and-replace. Anything else is just a distraction, but everyone has their own work style - that's just mine.

Westside guy
Jul 10, 2006, 01:24 PM
Clearly you haven't had a look at Page 3 (http://www.macrumors.com/page3/)... ;)

He he he... oops.

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2006, 01:26 PM
1. Pages 2 does have an auto-correct feature. It's in preferences.

2. All Cocoa applications have a thesaurus. Hold down cmd-control-d and point to the word -- the dictionary definition pops up, which can be changed to a thesaurus by dropping the tab at the bottom.

bluebomberman
Jul 10, 2006, 01:31 PM
Maybe that's the way it strikes you, but this isn't the way it strikes those of us who've been using Pages since it came out.

But all of my work is poorly-researched, so maybe that's why I like it.

:rolleyes:

A bit harsh, aren't you? They're supposedly integrating better search features into the next version of Pages precisely to improve the researching component of writing. So it's not like I'm the only one who thinks that Pages needs more to better compare to Word. As it stands, I'll give Pages a shot if I need to do something fancier than writing for MFA workshops.

Plus, I save a couple of bucks.

Super Dave
Jul 10, 2006, 01:37 PM
WYSIWYG Font Menu!

David:cool:

odedia
Jul 10, 2006, 01:46 PM
Maybe they'll even offer ground-breaking features like bi-directional text editing :rolleyes:

Seriously, if Apple wants to compete in the word processing field, they need to start addressing people around the world, not just those who they consider guranteed target audience.

jacg
Jul 10, 2006, 01:51 PM
How about if inspector sections could be 'torn off' and moved or docked below like in photoshop? There are certainly 2 or 3 sections that I would like open all the time.

I can't stand Office's toolbars. The first thing I did was make my own custom box of tools that sits above the formatting palette on the side.

With wide displays, vertical space is the most valuable.

APPLENEWBIE
Jul 10, 2006, 02:47 PM
As someone who uses MS word as the default word processor... a 'word processing' mode in Pages sounds dandy... some of use just don't have the time or inclination (energy) to learn pages which is so very different (not worse) than word....

Eraserhead
Jul 10, 2006, 02:52 PM
will eductional institutions really want the wikipedia integration? my school is certainly not big on wikipedia. if apple could strike a deal with MacKiev, World Book software could come with iWork and be integrated with pages and the whole suite in general.

Mine already provides links to Wikipedia from it's math's pages. It's a pretty reputable University too (top 10 in the UK), it's a great idea especially as wikipedia has a lot more articles than any other encyclopaedia. Britannica for example has only 100 000 articles (compared to wikipedia's 1.2 million)

EDIT

I have to admit wikipedia got me through my exercise sheets for first year maths, the articles seemed pretty well targeted to it!

840quadra
Jul 10, 2006, 02:54 PM
I think I need to start wearing glasses!

I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.

I will now pay closer attention!

WildCowboy
Jul 10, 2006, 02:58 PM
I think I need to start wearing glasses!

I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.

I will now pay closer attention!

You and Westside_guy should get together...see post #24 in this thread. Then go see post #27.

Bern
Jul 10, 2006, 03:00 PM
Not for what I'm doing. Pages strikes me as something for newsletters, not writing well-researched articles and novels.

Not true :rolleyes:

I used Pages to do a college term paper which was over 40 pages long. My lecturer commented it was the best presented he had seen for years.

Perhaps the issue people are having with Pages is that it looks too easy compared to Word and that confuses them. You really do need to use Pages as a Word replacement to appreciate how good is actually is.

iWork '07 will be great.

bluebomberman
Jul 10, 2006, 03:11 PM
Not true :rolleyes:
I used Pages to do a college term paper which was over 40 pages long. My lecturer commented it was the best presented he had seen for years.


But how much of that is Pages? Not trying to knock you down, but my last short story was 27 pages, double spaced, and used a 12 pt. Times New Roman font. There's not much room for pizazz there. I don't see how Pages as it exists right now could have helped.

840quadra
Jul 10, 2006, 03:15 PM
You and Westside_guy should get together...see post #24 in this thread. Then go see post #27.

#24 HAHAHA !

I was aware of the link in post #27, that's why I thought it was an unveiling of the tricky little macrumors feature.

randyharris
Jul 10, 2006, 04:06 PM
Toolbars and drop down menus are the things Microsoft have DROPPED from Office 2007.

The pictures I've seen of Windows Office 2007 most certainly still has icon bars, it's just redesigned to be grouped more than a scatter approach.

And just because MSFT is changing it, doesn't mean that it will be more efficient. (It may be, but I haven't tried it yet.) I have heard a few pundits harp on the new setup saying in efforts to make things more simple they dumbed it down too much for a power user.

Randy

randyharris
Jul 10, 2006, 04:08 PM
1. Pages 2 does have an auto-correct feature. It's in preferences.

A major functional snafu is that you can't add auto-correction data from the GUI of Pages, you have to go into the preferences. In Word you are able to right click on your red squiggly word, and you can set a default auto correct right there from the Contextual menu. NeoOffice has the same function. This is sorely lacking from Pages.

Randy

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2006, 04:09 PM
A bit harsh, aren't you? They're supposedly integrating better search features into the next version of Pages precisely to improve the researching component of writing. So it's not like I'm the only one who thinks that Pages needs more to better compare to Word. As it stands, I'll give Pages a shot if I need to do something fancier than writing for MFA workshops.

Plus, I save a couple of bucks.

Pages isn't Word. It doesn't try to be Word. For those of us who use Pages every day, this is actually a good thing.

As for being harsh, it seems like every time a thread on subject gets started, someone says Pages is only really suitable for newsletters, and not for "serious" writing. I find that most of the people who say this haven't gotten much past the template selection window. They see all those newsletter and flier templates and assume that this all Pages is good for. They've probably never created a template of their own and so are missing one of Pages' most powerful features.

Also, it almost never fails in these threads that someone says they'd be using Pages today if it only had certain features that it already has. I don't know that it's being "harsh" to correct the record, but if that's what it is, then I guess that's what I am...

SeaFox
Jul 10, 2006, 04:57 PM
Dammit. I misread this article title as "Page 3 features" as in the Page 3 of Macrumors we had for April Fools.

:D

bluebomberman
Jul 10, 2006, 05:00 PM
As for being harsh, it seems like every time a thread on subject gets started, someone says Pages is only really suitable for newsletters, and not for "serious" writing. I find that most of the people who say this haven't gotten much past the template selection window. They see all those newsletter and flier templates and assume that this all Pages is good for. They've probably never created a template of their own and so are missing one of Pages' most powerful features.

Part of the problem is the way they market it. There was such an emphasis on templates and graphic-intensive stuff when it was first demoed in MacWorld 2005 that it's hard to think it can be a good word processor. My first thought was how it looked 100x better than Microsoft Publisher.

Again, I think this latest rumor shows that Apple will address some of the perceptions (or misperceptions, depending on who you ask) by allowing people to dive into word processing mode and adding better search and research functions. It just might make me a convert.

WildCowboy
Jul 10, 2006, 05:02 PM
Dammit. I misread this article title as "Page 3 features" as in the Page 3 of Macrumors we had for April Fools.

You're not alone...you're the third one in this thread to mention it.

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2006, 05:45 PM
Part of the problem is the way they market it. There was such an emphasis on templates and graphic-intensive stuff when it was first demoed in MacWorld 2005 that it's hard to think it can be a good word processor. My first thought was how it looked 100x better than Microsoft Publisher.

Again, I think this latest rumor shows that Apple will address some of the perceptions (or misperceptions, depending on who you ask) by allowing people to dive into word processing mode and adding better search and research functions. It just might make me a convert.

I entirely agree with you on these points. Apple is barely marketing iWork at all, let alone in a way which would help people understand its value. At MW last January I made a point of mentioning the Mac owner confusion over what Pages does to one of the reps on the floor who was demonstrating the new version. He also happened to be on the Pages programming team. (Which game me an opportunity to show him a bug I'd found. :))

He seemed surprised to be hearing what I was telling him, and I wasn't entirely sure he believed me in the end, but perhaps this rumor reflects some understanding on Apple's part that they're not getting the message out about these applications, particularly Pages. Maybe they'll get serious about marketing in version 3.

One other thing, I think Apple ought to be bundling iWork with most if not all of their systems, and not necessarily because we like to get free booty. The more Mac owners used iWork, the more who would see the value in forking out for the upgrades. This is exactly how Apple already markets iLife, so why they're not doing this for iWork is just plain mystifying.

Mr. Dee
Jul 10, 2006, 06:13 PM
If they add the "word processing mode", then that simultaneously renforces my gripes with it (see other threads), then negates them.

It's an extra step in setting up a document, but I like the thought of it from a productivity standpoint. As long as there's no Clippy.

I am sure Apple will be wise enough to have an option in Preferences for Pages to set the default start up mode. So if you know you do mostly wordprocessing, it will automatically start in that. Also, you should be able to toggle modes.

Squire
Jul 10, 2006, 06:43 PM
Part of the problem is the way they market it. There was such an emphasis on templates and graphic-intensive stuff when it was first demoed in MacWorld 2005 that it's hard to think it can be a good word processor.

I wonder if they did that to downplay it as a potential threat to MS Word.

My first thought was how it looked 100x better than Microsoft Publisher.

Just last week, a coworker was showing me some of the stuff he'd done on Word. (He was creating a sort of workbook for a class he's going to be teaching.) He was proud and it did look pretty good. Then I showed him Pages. His jaw literally dropped.

Again, I think this latest rumor shows that Apple will address some of the perceptions (or misperceptions, depending on who you ask) by allowing people to dive into word processing mode and adding better search and research functions. It just might make me a convert.

You and IJ Reilly bring up some very good points. I agree that there are some misconceptions about Pages. Hopefully, nothing that a word processing mode and a renewed marketing strategy can't rectify. I'll definitely be a buyer.

You're not alone...you're the third one in this thread to mention it.

Mark me down as the 4th. :D

-Squire

jsalzer
Jul 10, 2006, 06:53 PM
So, is this like the "Normal" view in Word? I was just mentioning to a MS fan last week that I don't understand why they call it "normal" when it hasn't been "normal" in 20 years.

Books come in pages. Notes come in pages. When I print what I type, it prints on pages. Why would I not want to type in a page layout mode? It seems much more natural to me. The other mode just make me think of the old monochrome screened computers. Not very natural.

I greatly agree on wanting to see the return of the WYSIWYG Font Menu. I'd also like to see a side bar as well laid out as ClarisWorks' was. Speaking of which, can we have arcs back? And those other great gradient options we had in CW?

I know - I ask too much. I do love Pages, though. It's freed me from both Word and Pagemaker. :)

Aussie John
Jul 10, 2006, 07:40 PM
a module for layout and one for word processing??? Please no!!!! To me that sounds more complex. If i want to type a document I just open a blank template. What is so difficult about that?

As far as i can tell Pages only lacks a few features to be a "fully fledged" word processor, such as;

Grammer checker (dubious value in my opinion)
indexing
Better mathematical notation input
Table of Contents is not bad but could have some additional features.
better cross referencing

Personally I dont mind the inspector.

I write specifications and pages is fine for that. I can see for academic works Pages may be a bit lacking

mdriftmeyer
Jul 10, 2006, 08:15 PM
As a frequent user of Pages 2, I would like more toolbars and less of the 'inspector' stuff, which to me is not as convenient.

Get used to more Inspectors with Tab Views and less Toolbars. Cocoa apps are designed with Inspector Views.

akac
Jul 10, 2006, 08:29 PM
I use Pages almost exclusively for writing documentation. We originally used Word, then moved to InDesign (my background was 8 years working in layout with Quark), and then to Pages. Pages just works better for long docs than ID and Word. I love it.

My only two beefs with Pages is the fact that its toolset is everywhere. You've got some toolbars which only really get you to some space hogging side views and inspectors which take up tons of space just for the one or two things I need to hit. Second, it needs a built in macro language - even if its based off AppleScript (i.e. an AS menu would do then). Having AppleScript support but not accessible within the app itself makes it much harder to deal with.

For example when I put in a graphic, I want to make it 2'' wide, shadow, move with text, wrap to the left with a black border. That's 4-5 panels I have to go through each time I add a pic. I add about 50 or so pics per doc.

So first I'd love if they could organize the menus, toolbars, inspectors, and such a lot better. Its just so haphazard. Next the ability to script repetitive actions.

Oh and speed. Even on my 2.16Ghz MBP its slow. Word 2007 (even in beta) is lightyears faster.

akac
Jul 10, 2006, 08:30 PM
Get used to more Inspectors with Tab Views and less Toolbars. Cocoa apps are designed with Inspector Views.

Inspectors are good for certain things. Like a window for working with all the graphic editing that iPhoto provides for an image. It is NOT so good for what Pages uses it for. And inspectors are not a Cocoa thing. I use tons of Cocoa apps and many don't use inspectors. Its a general UI thing - the programming API should have nothing to do with what UI comes out of it.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jul 10, 2006, 08:45 PM
I'm with you 150%. I love pages in that it just lets me create:fast. I don't like that it makes assumptions (or more, I don't like the assumtions that it makes) as to what I want to do. Your example of the dropped in graphic is dead-on. I dropped in the graphic, so probably I want the graphic. I may want to do more with the graphic, but I may not. iWeb does the same thing, and the pre-1.1 template-only-no-blank-pages thing just made it even worse.

I'd like a tiered level Pages. Maybe an "expert mode" or something that just places things, then has better designed menus and "inspectors" to let me do what I want with it. I find the inspectors to not be well laid out or logical. Why is the text broswer in a completely different dialog than other text attributes, i.e. paragrapgh style, color, etc.? Only Apple knows. If you want to do seperate dialogs, at least give me the option to merge or tab like InDesign.

My only two beefs with Pages is the fact that its toolset is everywhere. You've got some toolbars which only really get you to some space hogging side views and inspectors which take up tons of space just for the one or two things I need to hit. Second, it needs a built in macro language - even if its based off AppleScript (i.e. an AS menu would do then). Having AppleScript support but not accessible within the app itself makes it much harder to deal with.

For example when I put in a graphic, I want to make it 2'' wide, shadow, move with text, wrap to the left with a black border. That's 4-5 panels I have to go through each time I add a pic. I add about 50 or so pics per doc.

So first I'd love if they could organize the menus, toolbars, inspectors, and such a lot better. Its just so haphazard. Next the ability to script repetitive actions.

bousozoku
Jul 10, 2006, 09:19 PM
I'm with KookAid, I find that the Inspector is far more time consuming than a well laid out Icon Bar with drop boxes. Maybe it's because I've been using Microsoft Office forever. But I have given Pages a serious try and I find that I really like it, except for it's lacking AutoCorrection and Inspector.

Randy

I'll take my Inspector over extra tool bars, unless someone provides contextual tool bars, something I haven't seen since my desktop publishing software Calamus SL on Atari ST. A lot of my software uses an inspector dialog of some kind and I'm pleased to have that instead of 3 or 4 or 15 tool bars, which take up more room. It's tough when the tool bars take more room than the text.

Maybe they'll even offer ground-breaking features like bi-directional text editing :rolleyes:

Seriously, if Apple wants to compete in the word processing field, they need to start addressing people around the world, not just those who they consider guranteed target audience.

Tri-directional would be even better. You have to spend huge amounts of money to get RLTB (right to left, top to bottom) word processing and page layout in an international package.

Demoman
Jul 10, 2006, 09:37 PM
I entirely agree with you on these points. Apple is barely marketing iWork at all, let alone in a way which would help people understand its value. At MW last January I made a point of mentioning the Mac owner confusion over what Pages does to one of the reps on the floor who was demonstrating the new version. He also happened to be on the Pages programming team. (Which game me an opportunity to show him a bug I'd found. :))

He seemed surprised to be hearing what I was telling him, and I wasn't entirely sure he believed me in the end, but perhaps this rumor reflects some understanding on Apple's part that they're not getting the message out about these applications, particularly Pages. Maybe they'll get serious about marketing in version 3.

One other thing, I think Apple ought to be bundling iWork with most if not all of their systems, and not necessarily because we like to get free booty. The more Mac owners used iWork, the more who would see the value in forking out for the upgrades. This is exactly how Apple already markets iLife, so why they're not doing this for iWork is just plain mystifying.

That is really a sound idea. Personally, I do not mind paying the $79 for iWork, in fact it is a zero issue for me (I own Final Cut Studio, Macromedia Studio, Adobe Creative Suite, Shake, Lightwave, etc). I think establishing a user base is what Apple should be focusing on.

Migration into the business world can be a very tenuous undertaking, just ask Taligent (or Steve with Next). Having the best product does not guarantee success. In fact, the history of computers, especially PC's, is littered by the failures of superior technology. In the 80's there was a slogan among corporate computer buyers; "No one ever got fired for buying IBM". The simple truth is, corporations are usually very conservative when it comes to buying technology. Sure, there are exceptions. But, the majority has the mindset, "never put yourself in a position where you can be criticized.

I am an IT Manager and have brought in Macs on a trial basis. I convinced the technology budget oversight committee that we are better off with Mini’s, rather than Citrix thin clients. We still have to license each thin client for Office. The economics are:

Mini – Standard w/1GB RAM, iWork and Keyboard = $856.00 – before business discount
Thin - HP t5520, 64MB, Windows CE = $359 – Office Standard $335 – keyboard/mouse $75 = $769.00

With the Mini you actually have a fine computer. The thin client cannot do anything without momma. This is a very easy choice unless you have to add another ~ $400 for Mac:Office. That is why the spreadsheet is so important. I already know Pages works for the majority of my users. Any changes that make it more appealing is just that much better.

digitalbiker
Jul 11, 2006, 12:58 AM
Apple never intended for iWork to compete with MS Office. Apple merely wanted to fill a niche for those AppleWorks users who didn't need a full blown behemoth Office Suite like MS Office.

It is only the die-hard Apple users that detest MS Office who are suggesting that iWork is a replacement for MS Office.

I have been using Pages and Keynote since Day One. Pages One was almost worthless in my book. Apple should have given away Pages v2 to those who suffered through version 1. Keynote was interesting and useful from version one but still lags significantly behind PowerPoint.

Both Pages 2 and Keynote now make a nice little package at $79.00 for those users who don't need to work in an MS Office environment and don't need all of the revision, collaboration, and integration tools of MS Office.

But come on, let's get real. iWork doesn't really come close to what is offered by a professional business suite like MS Office. It's like saying, Photshop Elements is a replacement for Creative Suite 2.:eek:

JFreak
Jul 11, 2006, 01:10 AM
As a frequent user of Pages 2, I would like more toolbars and less of the 'inspector' stuff, which to me is not as convenient.

Oh my god, I hope Apple doesn't listen to you :)

bousozoku
Jul 11, 2006, 01:19 AM
Apple never intended for iWork to compete with MS Office. Apple merely wanted to fill a niche for those AppleWorks users who didn't need a full blown behemoth Office Suite like MS Office.

It is only the die-hard Apple users that detest MS Office who are suggesting that iWork is a replacement for MS Office.

I have been using Pages and Keynote since Day One. Pages One was almost worthless in my book. Apple should have given away Pages v2 to those who suffered through version 1. Keynote was interesting and useful from version one but still lags significantly behind PowerPoint.

Both Pages 2 and Keynote now make a nice little package at $79.00 for those users who don't need to work in an MS Office environment and don't need all of the revision, collaboration, and integration tools of MS Office.

But come on, let's get real. iWork doesn't really come close to what is offered by a professional business suite like MS Office. It's like saying, Photshop Elements is a replacement for Creative Suite 2.:eek:

Photoshop Elements 4.0 is a capable replacement for Photoshop CS2 for a lot of people, even professionals. It depends on what you're doing with it.

I've used various word processors since writing my own in the early 1980s and MS Word 4.0 was quite nice but Microsoft kept adding so many features that it's become haphazard and troublesome. It is counter-productive for a lot of people, especially when you have to revise previous documents.

Pages 2 is a useful release but it's not final. To discount it or iWork totally is not reasonable.

digitalbiker
Jul 11, 2006, 01:39 AM
Photoshop Elements 4.0 is a capable replacement for Photoshop CS2 for a lot of people, even professionals. It depends on what you're doing with it.

Your sort of re-iterrating what I was saying. iWork is to Office as Elements is to CS2. For some people it is good enough, it is the 70% functionality that most consumers use. But saying it is better, or that it replaces the pro app is just wrong.


Pages 2 is a useful release but it's not final. To discount it or iWork totally is not reasonable.

I never discounted anything. If you read my post again you will see that I said Pages V1 was a lame duck app. Version 2 is a nice little product as is the $79 iWork package. But Pages is not a professional replacement of Word and iWork is not a professional replacement of Office. It is not intended to be that way. iWork is a consumer oriented package and is trying to be on par with say "AppleWorks" or "MS Works"

I realize that some people will be more content with a consumer version and will recommend it as a replacement. But that still doesn't give it the same functionality of the Professional app.

belovedmonster
Jul 11, 2006, 03:49 AM
For all of those people who are saying "Once it adds X I can finally remove MS from my computer..." have you not considered Open Office? I find its actually better than MS Word in many respects and being open source its totaly free.

A year ago I would of said Apple would never package iWork free with Macs, but the more I see that iWork is hardly setting the world alight the more I think it probably would be a better business model to package it with systems. Im sure they will offset the cost with selling more Macs in the first place but more importantly getting people hooked into buying the update each year ala iLife.

IJ Reilly
Jul 11, 2006, 10:36 AM
Photoshop Elements 4.0 is a capable replacement for Photoshop CS2 for a lot of people, even professionals. It depends on what you're doing with it.

I've used various word processors since writing my own in the early 1980s and MS Word 4.0 was quite nice but Microsoft kept adding so many features that it's become haphazard and troublesome. It is counter-productive for a lot of people, especially when you have to revise previous documents.

Pages 2 is a useful release but it's not final. To discount it or iWork totally is not reasonable.

Yeah, isn't it nice when people decide unilaterally what is "professional" and what is not? The distinctions are totally arbitrary of course, but it's easy to see how by virtue of this thinking, Word remains dominant. Nothing else will do, because nothing else will do. What a wonderful tautology.

For the record, I've been using Pages happily and successfully since it came out. Version 2 is an improvement, as well it should be, but that's a long way from saying that version 1 was worthless.

bousozoku
Jul 11, 2006, 10:51 AM
Yeah, isn't it nice when people decide unilaterally what is "professional" and what is not? The distinctions are totally arbitrary of course, but it's easy to see how by virtue of this thinking, Word remains dominant. Nothing else will do, because nothing else will do. What a wonderful tautology.

For the record, I've been using Pages happily and successfully since it came out. Version 2 is an improvement, as well it should be, but that's a long way from saying that version 1 was worthless.

From his rebuttal, I guess we didn't read what he meant from what he said.

I actually got quite good use from version 1 after they added the page sorter.

Eraserhead
Jul 11, 2006, 11:12 AM
Better mathematical notation input
The exact opposite is why I shelled out the £35 for iWork, it can have the best mathematical notation support (far superiour to Word* and better than OpenOffice)

If you download LaTeXiT (http://ktd.club.fr/programmation/latexit_en.php) and have LaTeX installed on your system (see this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2247154#post2247154) for how to install LaTeX) you can set up a shortcut in the preferences of LaTeXiT (say Command - /) so that you can automatically create an equation from LaTeX written in Pages (using the Services menu), because Pages is a Cocoa App.

*If you shell out $100 for MathType, Word is probably better than with just Equation Editor, I have never used it though.

EDIT 2:Reading this thread is great, I don't feel like the only person in the world to like Pages, I'm looking forward for an excuse to give Keynote a go as well.

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 01:07 AM
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough...

Hmm... Let's start with the idea of present value. $79 spent a year from now isn't worth $79 today. So, $79 a year for the next five years is actually only worth $300-$361 (assuming a possible APR of between 3% and 10%). Now, that's compared with $399.95 for Office. Hmm. But there's another factor here. If a given upgrade doesn't have any features that are compelling to you, you don't have to get it. Wow! That would mean that iWork would be even less!

Now, all of that being said, of course if iWork isn't functional for you now you shouldn't get it. But if it is, as this thread has shown that there are a lot of us out here for whom it, in fact, is, then there's no reason for us not to get it. So, all around, I'd argue that iWork is a cost savings over MS Office, even if you upgrade every time.

Plus, if all you need to make it a worthwhile office suite is a spreadsheet, then there are a variety of options at various price points. These include OpenOffice Calc, KOffice KSpread (both free), Mariner Calc, etc.

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 01:35 AM
Consolidating some replies here...

How about if inspector sections could be 'torn off' and moved or docked below like in photoshop? There are certainly 2 or 3 sections that I would like open all the time.<snip>

Why not just use more than one inspector? Pages allows you to add more inspectors to your screen anytime you want (up to a maximum of 8). If you've got the screen real-estate, why not just have an inspector for each panel that you're hitting all the time. I usually have at least two open...

<snip>
Grammer checker (dubious value in my opinion)
indexing
Better mathematical notation input
Table of Contents is not bad but could have some additional features.
better cross referencing
<snip>

I agree on all counts. I use MathType for my equations, and while I can relatively easily cut and paste them in, there are often text baseline issues, and it just plain isn't that elegant. AppleWorks had nice hooks into MathType or Equation Editor. Double click on an equation and it would pop up in the editor, and so on.

Apple never intended for iWork to compete with MS Office. Apple merely wanted to fill a niche for those AppleWorks users who didn't need a full blown behemoth Office Suite like MS Office.

It is only the die-hard Apple users that detest MS Office who are suggesting that iWork is a replacement for MS Office.

Well, now that depends, doesn't it. What percentage of users (consumer or professional) do you suppose actually use the features that set MS Word apart from Pages? I bet you it's pretty small. So, for all of the rest, then Pages is a competitor for MS Word. And that pool includes a lot of professionals as well as consumers. You said it, yourself. It's for users that don't need a behemoth office suite.

I have been using Pages and Keynote since Day One. Pages One was almost worthless in my book. Apple should have given away Pages v2 to those who suffered through version 1. Keynote was interesting and useful from version one but still lags significantly behind PowerPoint.

Okay, I'm curious, how is it that Keynote lags significantly behind PowerPoint? I started using Keynote with version 1, and I was able to do things with it that colleagues couldn't get close to with PowerPoint. Now, I'll grant that there are some things that PowerPoint does that Keynote is still either not good at or simply can't do, but the same can be said in the other direction. So, from my perspective, Keynote and PowerPoint have been on a nearly equal footing for some time. Yet you think PowerPoint is significantly ahead of Keynote? Please explain...

<snip>
I realize that some people will be more content with a consumer version and will recommend it as a replacement. But that still doesn't give it the same functionality of the Professional app.

Yeah, as others have said, let's be careful with labels. Just because I don't have $25,000 invested in camera equipment does that mean that I'm not a "professional" photographer? Or, if I wrote a book using an iBook instead of a "professional" computer like a PowerBook or a PowerMac or (gulp) a PC, does that mean that I'm not a professional author? I could go on, but my point is simple. Programs are tools, just like computers, cameras, etc. The tool is never what makes a professional. The person using it is.

Now, that said, there are some professionals who need some of the tools that MS Office gives them, and they can't do their job without them. Great. Use MS Office. More power to them. But there are a lot of professionals who don't, and for them iWork can be a perfectly functional professional application. And, I think what some others have been trying to say is that it might even be a better application.

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 01:55 AM
By the way...

A little off topic, but seeing as how this thread seems to be being frequented by Pages-ophiles, I have a question...

I'm working on a booklet that's designed to simply print to 8-1/2 x 11 pages, and be folded over, giving a 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 booklet. Does anyone know of a straight-forward way of getting this to print out properly? (Right now I'm printing each page separately, which means that each piece of paper goes through the printer four times, if you see what I mean).

I'd be delighted if anyone has an easier way to handle this...

(P.S. I didn't see an easy way to do this in MS Word either... ;) )

IJ Reilly
Jul 12, 2006, 10:20 AM
How about a two-column landscape layout? You'll need to set the margins, columns and the gutters properly, but after that, you should be good to go. (Then you can save it as a template for next time.)

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 11:08 AM
That's more or less what I've done. The issue is this. If you envision a twenty page booklet, it will consist of five pieces of paper. On the front of the first piece of paper, the left panel will be page 20 and the right panel will be page 1. On the back, the left panel will be page 2 and the right panel will be page 19. And so on. It is this non-sequential printing of the pages that I'm struggling with. How do you tell it to print pages 20 and 1 on the first piece of paper, other than having it print page 1, then putting the paper back into the printer and having it print page 20.

(A big reason that I'm trying to get away from the manual solution is that I want to save this as a PDF so I can hand it to a copy shop to print out multiple copies for me. But, unfortunately, you can't print to a PDF page twice. :) Oh, and I've tried using the Layout option in the print dialog, but it reduces that page image dramatically, so 10pt font becomes 6pt font. So that wasn't a good solution...)

bbassett67
Jul 12, 2006, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE= As long as there's no Clippy.[/QUOTE]

:(

QuarterSwede
Jul 12, 2006, 01:54 PM
Noooo, not a grammar check! They are ALWAYS horrible!

bluebomberman
Jul 12, 2006, 02:31 PM
Snowy-

Any professional copy shop should be able to take your sequential, 5.5" x 8.5" size pages and turn it into a booklet with binding in the middle. My understanding is that they have super-expensive machines that can do that without much effort.

I don't think you need to futz around with a non-sequential layout unless you plan to print this out yourself without the use of fancy $40,000+ copiers.

lifeofart
Jul 12, 2006, 05:20 PM
That's more or less what I've done. The issue is this. If you envision a twenty page booklet, it will consist of five pieces of paper. On the front of the first piece of paper, the left panel will be page 20 and the right panel will be page 1. On the back, the left panel will be page 2 and the right panel will be page 19. And so on. It is this non-sequential printing of the pages that I'm struggling with. How do you tell it to print pages 20 and 1 on the first piece of paper, other than having it print page 1, then putting the paper back into the printer and having it print page 20.

(A big reason that I'm trying to get away from the manual solution is that I want to save this as a PDF so I can hand it to a copy shop to print out multiple copies for me. But, unfortunately, you can't print to a PDF page twice. :) Oh, and I've tried using the Layout option in the print dialog, but it reduces that page image dramatically, so 10pt font becomes 6pt font. So that wasn't a good solution...)

Too bad you don't have a professional app such as the latest MS Word!:eek:

Then you could just open the new brochure wizard. Set it up for four quadrants per page, front and back printing. Place your images & text in the proper quadrant in the proper orientation. Autopage number the quadrants, and email the doc file to your printshop.

Almost all professional printshops except word doc files and can print your brochure out on their professional quality printers on your paper of choice.

But I guess you are stuck with a worthless .pages file and if you fart around with it long enough you might just be able to get something out that a print / copy shop could use.

wmmk
Jul 12, 2006, 05:27 PM
Too bad you don't have a professional app such as the latest MS Word!:eek:
Some people (mainly people who don't need a proffesional app) don't want a professional app.

Then you could just open the new brochure wizard. Set it up for four quadrants per page, front and back printing. Place your images & text in the proper quadrant in the proper orientation.
Yeah, too bad Word isn't as good as that unprofessional pages at aligning images properly:rolleyes:

Autopage number the quadrants, and email the doc file to your printshop.Almost all professional printshops except word doc files and can print your brochure out on their professional quality printers on your paper of choice.
Good thing all printshops accept .pdf files!

But I guess you are stuck with a worthless .pages file and if you fart around with it long enough you might just be able to get something out that a print / copy shop could use.
Ain't it great that pages hhas a better .pdf export than Word, and it can export a .doc?:rolleyes:

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 05:39 PM
Snowy-

Any professional copy shop should be able to take your sequential, 5.5" x 8.5" size pages and turn it into a booklet with binding in the middle. My understanding is that they have super-expensive machines that can do that without much effort.

I don't think you need to futz around with a non-sequential layout unless you plan to print this out yourself without the use of fancy $40,000+ copiers.

You know, that's a good idea.

Here I was so caught up in the idea of getting it to be a final version, I didn't even think of that. Let the machines that are designed to do this do the work....

(I'm not even going to dignify the other snide poster with a response :rolleyes: )

lifeofart
Jul 12, 2006, 05:48 PM
Some people (mainly people who don't need a proffesional app) don't want a professional app.:

Well thats fine and I understand many people don't need a professional app. But this person was complaining about a consumer app "Pages" not having all the features that he needed. Yet he claims vehemently that Pages can fully replace Word


Yeah, too bad Word isn't as good as that unprofessional pages at aligning images properly:rolleyes::
Says who? I have used both and frankly I like Word better for handling graphics. Pages is great if your images work with your templates but if they don't you have to fart around with locking and unlocking, grouping and ungrouping, and it is extremely tedious.



Good thing all printshops accept .pdf files!:
You must not be able to read. Snowy clearly states that .pdf doesn't work for him because it doesn't allow double sided printing.

Look, I am not trying to say Pages is useless. It is a very nice "Consumer level" app. Yes, some pros could make use of it but some pros could also use VI in the terminal window too. Does that mean that it is as useful or has the same features as the "Pro App" MS Word. No.:rolleyes:

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 05:57 PM
Too bad you don't have a professional app such as the latest MS Word!:eek:

Then you could just open the new brochure wizard.
Hey life-o-fart!
When last did you use MS Word for Mac?

lifeofart
Jul 12, 2006, 06:02 PM
You know, that's a good idea.

Here I was so caught up in the idea of getting it to be a final version, I didn't even think of that. Let the machines that are designed to do this do the work....

(I'm not even going to dignify the other snide poster with a response :rolleyes: )

I'm sorry if my comment came off as being snide.

But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.

Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.

Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.

I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 06:13 PM
...
Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. ...

Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.

...

(my bold emphases).

... oh ... really ??

bobber205
Jul 12, 2006, 06:16 PM
Ha ha... when I glanced at the RSS feed I thought it said "Page 3 Features?". I thought: "Why the heck would MacRumors add a 'Page 3'? Much of the 'Page 1' stuff never comes to pass, and they've got 'Page 2' for the even less substantiated stuff..."

:p

I thought the same thing. :p

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 06:21 PM
Well thats fine and I understand many people don't need a professional app. But this person was complaining about a consumer app "Pages" not having all the features that he needed. Yet he claims vehemently that Pages can fully replace Word



Says who? I have used both and frankly I like Word better for handling graphics. Pages is great if your images work with your templates but if they don't you have to fart around with locking and unlocking, grouping and ungrouping, and it is extremely tedious.




You must not be able to read. Snowy clearly states that .pdf doesn't work for him because it doesn't allow double sided printing.

Look, I am not trying to say Pages is useless. It is a very nice "Consumer level" app. Yes, some pros could make use of it but some pros could also use VI in the terminal window too. Does that mean that it is as useful or has the same features as the "Pro App" MS Word. No.:rolleyes:

Well, it seems that you didn't read my earlier posts. I'm not complaining that Pages doesn't have all the features that I need. I'm asking if there was a way to do what I was trying to do. The answer was yes, and it was quite straight forward.

Also, I take it that you didn't read what I said about the idea of there being "professional" and "consumer" apps. I think it's BS. These are just tools. In fact, based on the argument that Pages isn't a "professional" app because it can't handle printing this way, then MS Word hasn't been a "professional" app until the latest version, because it couldn't either. That's the problem. Where do you draw the line and say "if it can do XYZ then it's a professional app, if it can't then it isn't"?

And, yes, PDF will work fine for me. I was objecting to PDF because I was trying to basically "print" my booklet myself to a PDF file that could simply be printed on any printer by any minimum wage employee. But, as was pointed out, print shops have nice big fancy printers run by people who know what they're doing (at least in theory) that will take a simple, sequential PDF file and properly print it to the correct panel and correct side automatically. It probably works much better than MS Word does, and, by letting someone who works with it all day long do their job, it relieves me of one more thing that I have to worry about figuring out how to do. So, PDF will work for me.

Now, can we drop this whole "professional" vs. "consumer" app business? Lord knows, Pages is quite capable of producing very professional results. I've done it. Just because it doesn't have all of the features that MS Word has doesn't mean it isn't or can't be used as a professional application.

An analogy just leapt to mind. In the world of Mechanical CAD, there are a lot of programs out there that you can use. One example is Pro-Engineer. This is a top of the line product and you can actually spend more than $100,000 on a single licensed seat (tricked out with a lot of add-ons). There is no doubt that this is a professional application (if only because no consumer in his right mind would spend the money on it). In comparison, consider something like AutoCAD. AutoCAD costs a measly $1400, and it has nowhere near the capabilities of ProE. So, by your logic, AutoCAD must not be a "professional" app, but a "consumer" app.

I've known a lot of engineers that would find such an assertion highly offensive.

So, it all comes back to the point that these are tools. It's what the tool is used for that makes it a professional tool or a consumer tool. And I'd guess that MS Word is used quite a bit as a consumer tool, and Pages is being used as a professional tool, too.

lifeofart
Jul 12, 2006, 06:33 PM
So, it all comes back to the point that these are tools. It's what the tool is used for that makes it a professional tool or a consumer tool. And I'd guess that MS Word is used quite a bit as a consumer tool, and Pages is being used as a professional tool, too.

I understand what you are saying but are you really going to call "Vi" a pro app for word processing and say that it fully replaces Word. You can use any app as a tool to create a professional product.

Apple labels iWork as a "consumer level" app. not me.

My definition of a "Pro level" app is one that has industry maturity, is excepted as standard industry wide, has many many features which allow it to be versatile and is useful in a variety of professional industries. It probably isn't the easiest app to use because it isn't focused to just one industry.

I would bet you that not .1% of printshops, publishers, lawyers, engineers, etc. even know what a .pages file is let alone are they working with it daily.

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 06:38 PM
Well said Snowy_River.

Very good point about tools. If two tools are suitable for a given job, then a "pro" will choose the lower cost tool. That is why the pro is in business.

I had forgotten that Word is bundled with MS Works, so of course it must by implication be a consumer application.:rolleyes:

For what it's worth, I am just wrapping up a 2000+ page text/spreadsheet/template toolkit that includes 400+ pages of pdfs - all created using Pages. The longest pdf is around 90 pages, including a ToC.

Edit

You can use any app as a tool to create a professional product.

Exactly

My definition of a "Pro level" app is one that has industry maturity, is excepted as standard industry wide, has many many features which allow it to be versatile and is useful in a variety of professional industries. It probably isn't the easiest app to use because it isn't focused to just one industry.

No ... that's the definition of a mature, widely used, feature-rich, difficult to use application.

I would bet you that not .1% of printshops, publishers, lawyers, engineers, etc. even know what a .pages file is let alone are they working with it daily.

That's ok. Excluding lawyers (who sometimes need to track changes, so would naturally prefer Word), which of the others won't accept a pdf?

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 06:40 PM
I'm sorry if my comment came off as being snide.

But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.

Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.

Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.

I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.

I've been using Pages since it first came out, and I've exchanged documents that were exported from Pages into Word format with other users without any problems. In general, of all word processors that I've worked with (and I've tried out quite a few), Pages has some of the best Word compatibility that I've seen. (That's not to say that I haven't seen some things move - i.e. graphics - on export, but the errors, if any, are generally minor).

To go back to the CAD analogy, in years gone by AutoCAD was the only CAD program, for all intents and purposes. Any new CAD programs were frequently measured, first and foremost, by their ability to exchange documents with AutoCAD. Of course, there was never a perfect ability to make such exchanges, as AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) kept the definitions of the dwg file format secret, and usually changed it from one version to the next. So, it made import/export difficult for the competitors, much like what MS does with Office. Did the fact that the exchanges weren't perfect mean that companies who chose to use other CAD packages weren't really professionals? No.

Again, these are just tools.

Will Pages fit the bill for everyone? Of course not. Does MS Word fit the bill for everyone? No. That's why there are different products out there. Certainly, Pages is not as feature rich (you named some specifics, though you missed some of Pages features in your citation ;) ) as MS Word. It's also a much younger program. Is it going to be a Word Killer? Probably not for the foreseeable future. But it's quite capable of doing what probably 90% of what the Word users out there use Word for. If the other 10% are stupid enough to buy it without checking to see whether or not it has the features that they need to do their jobs, then they deserve to have their money go to Apple.

Oh, and what's this about "pro print shops" only taking Word files? I've never been to a print shop that didn't like PDF.

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 06:54 PM
I understand what you are saying but are you really going to call "Vi" a pro app for word processing and say that it fully replaces Word. You can use any app as a tool to create a professional product.

If Vi is being used by a professional to produce a professional product, then, yes, I'd call it a professional application. As far as being able to completely replace Word, well if the professional in question was able to stop using Word, then apparently it was able to completely replace Word for that professional.

Apple labels iWork as a "consumer level" app. not me.

Show me where Apple calls Pages a consumer app (http://www.apple.com/iwork/pages/).

My definition of a "Pro level" app is one that has industry maturity, is excepted as standard industry wide, has many many features which allow it to be versatile and is useful in a variety of professional industries. It probably isn't the easiest app to use because it isn't focused to just one industry.

Your definition of a "professional" app seems mighty arbitrary, even to the extent of excluding most applications that exist. Specialized databases that are designed for a specific industry wouldn't meet your definition. Computer-Aided-Machining (CAM) software (which is only useful in one industry) wouldn't meet your definition. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

I would bet you that not .1% of printshops, publishers, lawyers, engineers, etc. even know what a .pages file is let alone are they working with it daily.

So now you're adding another level of definition to what it takes to be a "professional" app? Some percentage of people have to know about it? And where do you draw the line? Gee, I guess this means that any start-up company trying to produce a new professional application is doomed because how can they ever reach this percentage upon the release so their product can be considered "professional"? :rolleyes:

I come back to my point. I think the simplest definition of a "professional" app is an app that is being used by a professional to produce a professional product. Any other definition falls short of the mark, IMO.

digitalbiker
Jul 12, 2006, 07:09 PM
Apple labels iWork as a "consumer level" app. not me.

My definition of a "Pro level" app is one that has industry maturity, is excepted as standard industry wide, has many many features which allow it to be versatile and is useful in a variety of professional industries. It probably isn't the easiest app to use because it isn't focused to just one industry.

I would bet you that not .1% of printshops, publishers, lawyers, engineers, etc. even know what a .pages file is let alone are they working with it daily.

Very well put. I agree with you 100%. I bought pages thinking it could replace MS Word after seeing Jobs demo at MacWorld a couple of years ago.

When I tried to use it to build a Messier Catlog viewers guide it was the worst software experience I have ever had. It crashed constantly, it corrupted files. It was difficult to manipulate the graphics and get them where I wanted them. Text flow was clumsy. It was painfully slow.

I have a G4 1.67 GHz, 1 GB, PB and it took 7 minutes (I timed it) to open the document. The document contained 100 tiffs and 100 jpgs in tables on only 50 pages. It would open, then it would take another 3 minutes to scroll.

Pages V2 was better but still sucked. I could never make compatible .doc files. Most of my co-workers were on Windows machines running Office 2003 and when I would email the .doc, I would always get an email back saying that something was wrong with my file or that their virus checker said it was bad. Whatever, I had to finally abandon Pages.

I don't even like pages for quick documents. AppleWorks is better or even BBedit, depending on the type of quick document I need.

Even Apple doesn't advertise this product as a competitor for Word. They simple sell it as a consumer level productivity tool.

digitalbiker
Jul 12, 2006, 07:19 PM
Show me where Apple calls Pages a consumer app (http://www.apple.com/iwork/pages/).


Oh come on at least give the guy something!

It is common knowledge that Apple markets two principle lines.

The consumer line which used to be prefaced by an "i". iWork, iLife, iBook, iPod, etc.

And the Pro line which used to be prefaced by power or Pro . Ex: PowerBook, PowerMac, Final Cut Pro. etc.

I am also sure that if you review the introduction of Pages at MacWorld it was intended to compete as a consumer product and not a replacement for Word by Steve Jobs. He is always very careful about how he phrases things so that he doesn't upset, MS or Adobe, when they come out with these apps.

bluebomberman
Jul 12, 2006, 07:28 PM
I'm at a loss trying to figure out how this thread got a bit crazy...

The actual program used in Snowy's case matters little in getting it ready for the printer. You give the printer the file to print, and he/she will print it for you. Doesn't matter if it's a pdf from Word, a pdf from Pages, a doc from Word, an Indesign file, or a Quark Express file. If they can open the file, they can print it.

Again, most copy shops have elaborate folding, binding, stapling, and saddle stitching services that don't require the customer to figure out how to non-sequentually order pages. A skilled copy machine operator should be able to set up the job in less than 10 minutes.

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 07:36 PM
Very well put. I agree with you 100%. I bought pages thinking it could replace MS Word after seeing Jobs demo at MacWorld a couple of years ago.

When I tried to use it to build a Messier Catlog viewers guide it was the worst software experience I have ever had. It crashed constantly, it corrupted files. It was difficult to manipulate the graphics and get them where I wanted them. Text flow was clumsy. It was painfully slow.

I have a G4 1.67 GHz, 1 GB, PB and it took 7 minutes (I timed it) to open the document. The document contained 100 tiffs and 100 jpgs in tables on only 50 pages. It would open, then it would take another 3 minutes to scroll.

Pages V2 was better but still sucked. I could never make compatible .doc files. Most of my co-workers were on Windows machines running Office 2003 and when I would email the .doc, I would always get an email back saying that something was wrong with my file or that their virus checker said it was bad. Whatever, I had to finally abandon Pages.

I don't even like pages for quick documents. AppleWorks is better or even BBedit, depending on the type of quick document I need.

Even Apple doesn't advertise this product as a competitor for Word. They simple sell it as a consumer level productivity tool.

Well, I'm sorry that you had such a bad time. However, if someone in your situation were to come to me and say "I'm working in an office with a bunch of people using MS Word where I have to exchange documents back and forth with them, and I was considering trying to use a new piece of software which says it can import and export Word format. What do you think?" I would have told you in no uncertain terms that I think you're nuts for trying such a thing. In-house you need to have 100% compatibility, which no product could ever give you except Word itself.

lifeofart
Jul 12, 2006, 07:37 PM
Your definition of a "professional" app seems mighty arbitrary, even to the extent of excluding most applications that exist. Specialized databases that are designed for a specific industry wouldn't meet your definition. Computer-Aided-Machining (CAM) software (which is only useful in one industry) wouldn't meet your definition. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

No, I don't get your point. CAM software is used in a variety of industries. Auto companies, airline companies, boat industries, tools industries, machine shops, agricultural industries. But if the CAM software is a mature useful standard in those industries it is probably a very capable pro app. Like wise customized databases would not be a pro app in itself. The database program used is the pro app not the specific database.

So now you're adding another level of definition to what it takes to be a "professional" app? Some percentage of people have to know about it? And where do you draw the line? Gee, I guess this means that any start-up company trying to produce a new professional application is doomed because how can they ever reach this percentage upon the release so their product can be considered "professional"?

It is not another level of defiintion. Industry standard implies that most professionals use it, Doesn't it?

Yes, it is very very difficult for a startup company to produce a competitive pro app in a mature industry. It takes several years for a product to mature and recieve user feedback and multiple modifications before I would classify it as "Pro". That is why these are difficult markets to crack.

Snowy_River
Jul 12, 2006, 07:40 PM
I'm at a loss trying to figure out how this thread got a bit crazy...

The actual program used in Snowy's case matters little in getting it ready for the printer. You give the printer the file to print, and he/she will print it for you. Doesn't matter if it's a pdf from Word, a pdf from Pages, a doc from Word, an Indesign file, or a Quark Express file. If they can open the file, they can print it.

Again, most copy shops have elaborate folding, binding, stapling, and saddle stitching services that don't require the customer to figure out how to non-sequentually order pages. A skilled copy machine operator should be able to set up the job in less than 10 minutes.

You know, I'm with you. If we don't stop this bickering the thread is likely to get closed. I always find it irritating when that happens. So, I suggest we drop the "professional" vs. "consumer" argument. It's clear that we have different opinions, and neither of us seems to be being swayed by the other's arguments. So, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

Now, just so I don't get accused of trying to get the last word in before saying that we should drop it, I'll invite those on the other side of the argument to have one last quip, which I won't respond to. Then we can drop it. Sound fair?

lifeofart
Jul 12, 2006, 07:45 PM
You know, I'm with you. If we don't stop this bickering the thread is likely to get closed. I always find it irritating when that happens. So, I suggest we drop the "professional" vs. "consumer" argument. It's clear that we have different opinions, and neither of us seems to be being swayed by the other's arguments. So, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

Now, just so I don't get accused of trying to get the last word in before saying that we should drop it, I'll invite those on the other side of the argument to have one last quip, which I won't respond to. Then we can drop it. Sound fair?

Fair enough, I hate arguing over such minute issues anyway. Besides anyone that has an opinion probably won't change it just because of a few forum flames.

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 07:46 PM
Lifeofart - some advice please.

I've been trying to find the "brochure wizard" (specifically the flexible page/quadrant location feature) that you talked about in MS Word (I have the latest version and updates). I would find it very useful, but can't locate it. Can you tell me how to find it?

digitalbiker
Jul 12, 2006, 07:47 PM
Fair enough, I hate arguing over such minute issues anyway. Besides anyone that has an opinion probably won't change it just because of a few forum flames.

I'm with you all. We will have to agree to disagree. Hopefully with some dignity still intact.

lifeofart
Jul 12, 2006, 07:53 PM
Lifeofart - some advice please.

I've been trying to find the "brochure wizard" (specifically the flexible page/quadrant location feature) that you talked about in MS Word (I have the latest version and updates). I would find it very useful, but can't locate it. Can you tell me how to find it?

Well to be honest I was referring to the windows version of Word. I use Office 2003 on Windows and Office 2004 for Mac. I am not sure if the Mac version of word has the same plug-ins.

On the windows version. Go to file -> new and select the publishing tab. From there select Brochure. It will fire up the wizard and template if you have these options loaded.

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 07:56 PM
Well to be honest I was referring to the windows version of Word. I use Office 2003 on Windows and Office 2004 for Mac. I am not sure if the Mac version of word has the same plug-ins.

On the windows version. Go to file -> new and select the publishing tab. From there select Brochure. It will fire up the wizard and template if you have these options loaded.
Got it - thanks (I use Win Office 2003 only a couple of times a year these days, so am somewhat rusty).

bluebomberman
Jul 12, 2006, 07:58 PM
Lifeofart - some advice please.

I've been trying to find the "brochure wizard" (specifically the flexible page/quadrant location feature) that you talked about in MS Word (I have the latest version and updates). I would find it very useful, but can't locate it. Can you tell me how to find it?

1) New>Project Gallery
2) Click on the New Pane on top.
3) Choose Business Forms.
4) Choose Brochure.
5) Choose a template that doesn't suck.
6) Wonder why brochures are listed under Business Forms.
7) Pray that you don't need more than a 6-column brochure on one double sided-sheet of paper.

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 08:33 PM
1) New>Project Gallery
2) Click on the New Pane on top.
3) Choose Business Forms.
4) Choose Brochure.
5) Choose a template that doesn't suck.
6) Wonder why brochures are listed under Business Forms.
7) Pray that you don't need more than a 6-column brochure on one double sided-sheet of paper.


Yep, yep, I figured that bit out. I was looking for the flexible page/quadrant stuff - to print in "booklet" form, for example. It aint in Word for Mac.

WHAT?!! YOU MEAN YOU STARTED FLAMING ...


Exactly.

bluebomberman
Jul 12, 2006, 08:44 PM
Yep, yep, I figured that bit out. I was looking for the flexible page/quadrant stuff - to print in "booklet" form, for example. It aint in Word for Mac.

My recollection is that Word for Windows doesn't have it either. I have no way to verify that right now, though, since I don't have a Windows computer here on the premises.

If you're willing to suck it up and go to a copy shop, though, then it's a moot point; you can just design it as a normal document and have them bind it on double-sized paper. (Example: they can fold 11" x 17" sheets into a 8.5" x 11" booklet.)

Squire
Jul 12, 2006, 10:25 PM
Why did you think this...

I agree with you 100%. I bought pages thinking it could replace MS Word after seeing Jobs demo at MacWorld a couple of years ago.


...if you knew this...

I am also sure that if you review the introduction of Pages at MacWorld it was intended to compete as a consumer product and not a replacement for Word by Steve Jobs.

?

I was going to say that it was not marketed-- at least initially-- as a Word-killer but it's obvious I don't need to convince you of that.

Anyway, I think MS Word and Pages are both good apps. :D

-Squire

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 10:57 PM
My recollection is that Word for Windows doesn't have it either. I have no way to verify that right now, though, since I don't have a Windows computer here on the premises.

Word XP & 2003 for Windows have a "book fold" option - not the same as the process that lifeofart was describing, which is more like something I've used in MS Publisher 2000.

IJ Reilly
Jul 12, 2006, 10:59 PM
... anyway, this can be accomplished in Pages, but it requires a bit of creativity. Start with a custom page size (5.5 x 8.5 presumably). Lay out your booklet on these pages. Then, when printing the pdf, output 2-up. Reordering the pages into the correct order for printing is a bit of trick, but once you know the order, the pages can be dragged where they belong in the thumbnail viewer. This is really a job for a good page layout application, not a word processor of any kind. I sure wouldn't trust it to a Word Wizard.

Also, anyone who'd send a Word document to a printer with the expectation of good results is not anyone who I'd mistake for knowing the first thing about graphic arts or printing.

wmmk
Jul 12, 2006, 11:08 PM
why don't we get back on the topic of pages 3 before the thread is closed?
sound good fellas? you said you'd drop the argument.

kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 2006, 11:25 PM
Before we finish on the bookfold tangent, I found a couple of useful sites that Snowy_River might want to peruse for his "booklet" style printing. This one (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005021608303265) sets up a PDF Services script. This one (http://word.mvps.org/Mac/BookletsFold.html#BookletPrograms) looks at three programs that take a pdf (printed from Pages, or for that matter Word) and print in booklet form.

Back on topic, I am a heavy user of Pages (and other tools when they suit) and will certainly welcome the Charts and WP mode. Along with general usability tweaks.

spydr
Jul 12, 2006, 11:43 PM
great news. I'd love to use iwork instead of office which is slow and crashy, but pages just doesn't cut it for me right now. What I'd really love is for pages to have a "notebook" kind of view like word does because that's much more convenient for taking notes in class.
I agree it might be great but I doubt if it will be a priority for them now. Grammar engine and word processing muscles would be the first to get added. For current notetaking and notes management you should look into Circusponies Notebook - it is an awesome package for just 29 bucks (academic price) and is feature packed.

Me myself can't wait for a spread sheet application! The last real need for I have for M$'s ORIFICE would be over!!

Snowy_River
Jul 13, 2006, 12:21 AM
I agree it might be great but I doubt if it will be a priority for them now. Grammar engine and word processing muscles would be the first to get added. For current notetaking and notes management you should look into Circusponies Notebook - it is an awesome package for just 29 bucks (academic price) and is feature packed.

Me myself can't wait for a spread sheet application! The last real need for I have for M$'s ORIFICE would be over!!

I'm not sure I understand this "notebook" view. I don't see any such view in MS Word, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Taking notes was mentioned, so are you talking about notes relating to a given document? Pages 2 has something like that:

http://www.apple.com/iwork/pages/features/comments.html

If it's something else, I'm curious to understand it better.

Oh, and thanks for the links, kiwi-in-uk.

Squire
Jul 13, 2006, 12:40 AM
Those of you who have used both versions of Pages, do you find the '06 version to be significantly quicker? Someone a few pages ago commented on its sluggish performance. I have to admit that I've had sort of a delayed reaction (in terms of the time it takes for a sentence to appear after I've finished typing it) in my limited Pages experience. (Mind you, I do have an older machine.) A performance increase alone would be a worthy upgrade in my book.

-Squire

Snowy_River
Jul 13, 2006, 12:52 AM
Those of you who have used both versions of Pages, do you find the '06 version to be significantly quicker? Someone a few pages ago commented on its sluggish performance. I have to admit that I've had sort of a delayed reaction (in terms of the time it takes for a sentence to appear after I've finished typing it) in my limited Pages experience. (Mind you, I do have an older machine.) A performance increase alone would be a worthy upgrade in my book.

-Squire

I've used Pages from day one. I'd say that Pages 2 seems just as quick if not quicker than Pages 1. I never really thought about it, so I can't say that I did any kind of comparison, and I no longer have Pages 1 on my computer to try to do a comparison with.

Before we finish on the bookfold tangent, I found a couple of useful sites that Snowy_River might want to peruse for his "booklet" style printing. This one (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005021608303265) sets up a PDF Services script. This one (http://word.mvps.org/Mac/BookletsFold.html#BookletPrograms) looks at three programs that take a pdf (printed from Pages, or for that matter Word) and print in booklet form.

Back on topic, I am a heavy user of Pages (and other tools when they suit) and will certainly welcome the Charts and WP mode. Along with general usability tweaks.

I said it already, but let me reiterate: Thank you!

I downloaded the free application CocoaBooklet, and it works great! It even adds an option under the PDF menu to "print" directly to a PDF booklet. And it only reduces pages as far as they need to be reduced. (In one of my earlier attempts I tried using the layout option to print 2 pages on a PDF page, but it reduced each page as if it was 8-1/2 x 11 even though they were 5-1/2 x 8-1/2, so things were way too small.)

So I'm now ecstatic with this solution! I may still bring just the basic PDF file to the printer, but, then again, I may hand them this. Who knows?

So, yet again, thank you!

HiramNL
Jul 17, 2006, 02:37 PM
Pages needs real wordprocessing tools, like cross-references, bibliography, and an outline view. If that's what's in store with Pages 3, I'll be very pleased.

That said, I use Pages 2 every day already, for both copywriting and page layout jobs. It runs quite nicely on my MacBook.

As far as a grammar tool is concerned: that's a useless feature. It never works, in any app, on any platform. And people should simply learn grammar, if they want to write something. It would make much more sense for Apple to include dictionaries and thesauri for other languages. We're not all Americans!

netdog
Oct 12, 2006, 05:00 AM
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough.



I write lengthy academic papers, am writing a play and a book which I am pretty far into. So far, I don't miss Word one bit, and that is using Pages 2.

Pages has a lot of features. It just takes some time to learn how to use it.