Apple Updates iWork for iOS and Mac with Yosemite and Continuity Support

[skaertus]

No. Yes it mixed elements of both, but no it didn't do a poor job at both.

Maybe it was inadequate for you, but based on the comments in this thread and basically everywhere else it is discussed, the overwhelming opinion is that it met the needs of many. Certainly well enough to lament over the current state of the software.

It's clear that nothing less than MS office is sufficient for you. That's fine but it shows that you have a different perspective than those who are able to use iWork effectively.

Pages met the expectations of many as a word processor, but that is only because people usually have very modest requirements in what concerns what a word processor must do. For most people, a piece of software that is capable of writing text in paragraphs is sufficient for their word processing needs. Several applications which are not even word processors are capable of doing that. Some people even use Evernote for their word processing needs.

A similar thing happens with desktop publishing software, you should notice. Several people use Microsoft Word or Microsoft PowerPoint for their very basic desktop publishing needs, and they do not need Adobe InDesign or Quark XPress, and not even Microsoft Publisher or Apple Pages.

The thing is: most people do not need a true word processor. They need software that allows them to write in, and any text editor would allow it. And Pages is more than good at this. Very few people really need the features of a real word processors, just like very few people need desktop publishing software.

Just compare Pages to any other word processor, and it is poor. Very poor. Let Microsoft Word out of it. Compare Pages to the free LibreOffice Writer. Or to Nisus Writer Pro or Mellel. Or to Corel WordPerfect, which has not seen a decent upgrade in ages. They all have advanced features that Pages lack.

I know I have a different perspective from most people at this forum. But then again I wonder how much word processing these people really use. I guess anybody who truly works with word processors and write several large pieces of text is not willing to use Pages instead of Microsoft Word or any other powerful word processor.

----------

We've been on the same side on this debate for awhile, so no surprise that I agree entirely. It never fails to amaze me how ready some are to define their specific needs as the definition of adequacy for everyone. I guess those 200 page documents I created in Pages were inadequate because I didn't need to split a footnote.

Well, perhaps you do not need to split footnotes across more than one page. Pages does indeed meet the expectations of most users. However, if you have more specific needs, then Pages does not meet these needs.

Pages does not support the following: grammar check, cross-references, indexing, draft view, and the list goes on and on.

If you don't need these advanced features, you may be perfectly happy with Pages. What if you need them?

Of course something basic is good for those who have basic requirements. But that does not make this thing good.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, perhaps you do not need to split footnotes across more than one page. Pages does indeed meet the expectations of most users. However, if you have more specific needs, then Pages does not meet these needs.

Pages does not support the following: grammar check, cross-references, indexing, draft view, and the list goes on and on.

If you don't need these advanced features, you may be perfectly happy with Pages. What if you need them?

Of course something basic is good for those who have basic requirements. But that does not make this thing good.

Well, perhaps I need to combine word processing with page layout. Perhaps I need to create flexible template documents. Perhaps I need a simple yet powerful paragraph and text styles. These are three specific needs that no other word processor that I've seen can meet.

Perhaps if you don't need those advanced features then you may be perfectly happy with something else.

Do you see how this works yet?

Incidentally, I was in an Apple store today and took the opportunity to spend some time with Pages 5.5. It sucks, because it is missing all of these advanced, if not unique, features that some us learned to appreciate in the previous versions.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I know I have a different perspective from most people at this forum. But then again I wonder how much word processing these people really use. I guess anybody who truly works with word processors and write several large pieces of text is not willing to use Pages instead of Microsoft Word or any other powerful word processor.

You only think you do. Your point of view is depressingly common.

I wrote, laid out, and created the camera-ready art for a 200 page illustrated book, all in Pages. I would not have attempted this in any other word processor, and not especially with Word. I write lengthy, illustrated reports, dozens of them a year, for a living. All in Pages. This work product looks far better than 99% of the products I see coming out of Word, and is far easier to produce in Pages.

Everyone's definition of powerful is bound to be different. This is what you are failing to understand.

 

[skaertus]

Well, perhaps I need to combine word processing with page layout. Perhaps I need to create flexible template documents. Perhaps I need a simple yet powerful paragraph and text styles. These are three specific needs that no other word processor that I've seen can meet.

Perhaps if you don't need those advanced features then you may be perfectly happy with something else.

Do you see how this works yet?

Incidentally, I was in an Apple store today and took the opportunity to spend some time with Pages 5.5. It sucks, because it is missing all of these advanced, if not unique, features that some us learned to appreciate in the previous versions.

In fact, what you need seems to be something that Pages can offer. The needs you describe are not word processing needs. They are basically desktop publishing needs: page layout and templates. Pages mixes word processing and desktop publishing – or at least it used to do – in a natural way like no other word processor does. It certainly lacks several word processing features, and probably some desktop publishing featurees, but it does (or at least did) a reasonably nice job at combining both. Your needs have little to do with text structure (apart from the styles); they have more to do with the appearance of the text itself.

Perhaps you could find this in other products such as Adobe InDesign or Quark XPress. As professional applications, they may not be as simple and straightforward, but they are certainly more advanced.

 

[skaertus]

You only think you do. Your point of view is depressingly common.

I wrote, laid out, and created the camera-ready art for a 200 page illustrated book, all in Pages. I would not have attempted this in any other word processor, and not especially with Word. I write lengthy, illustrated reports, dozens of them a year, for a living. All in Pages. This work product looks far better than 99% of the products I see coming out of Word, and is far easier to produce in Pages.

Everyone's definition of powerful is bound to be different. This is what you are failing to understand.

I am not failing to understand that.

It appears that your needs are desktop publishing needs and not word processing needs at its core.

A 200-page illustrated book is the work to be done in a desktop publishing application. A word processor is a very poor application for preparing such a book. A desktop publishing solution is much better at this. Perhaps Adobe FrameMaker, which is suitable for long documents, could be used. A 200-page illustrated book has probably a lot to do with designing page layouts, putting pictures in the page, and making text and graphic elements look nice and professional.

These needs far exceed what a word processor is supposed to do. And you probably did not need any advanced word processing needs.

I finished my PhD thesis last year. It had more than 300 pages and over 1,000 footnotes. Several of these footnotes contained references to other footnotes. I needed structured text, and it was all about structure. And all about text. No pictures, no graphic elements. Appearance did not matter at all. It should be printed in a pre-defined format. If I wanted to publish it later, I should just send the manuscript to an editor and the editor would put it in the format to be printed. Pages was a very poor solution for this kind of usage. But Word had all the features I needed. And it is basically word processing at its core: writing and editing text.

Dealing with page layout and illustration is more a matter of desktop publishing. Yes, most word processors can do some basic desktop publishing these days. It is convenient and useful. I can understand that a report looks more beautiful if done in Pages than in Word. This is because Pages may be better at desktop publishing.

We seem to be talking about the same thing here. You found what you needed in Pages, and these features –*whatever you call it –*make your documents look good, and help you produce 200-page illustrated books. However, I don't find what I need in Pages, as I need word processing features that are core to word processors and not found on other software.

Pages seem to mix word processing and destkop publishing in a unique way. But it is a poor, very poor word processor. It makes beautiful pages, but processes words poorly. This is what I am talking about.

 

[sracer]

I know I have a different perspective from most people at this forum. But then again I wonder how much word processing these people really use. I guess anybody who truly works with word processors and write several large pieces of text is not willing to use Pages instead of Microsoft Word or any other powerful word processor.

I've bolded the part that separates your view from mine. You have created a personal definition of what it means to "truly work with word processors". And because of that, you are failing to see the value of anything that has less functionality than MS Office, or to be able to understand how iWork 09 can be of greater usefulness than the latest iWork.

 

[skaertus]

I've bolded the part that separates your view from mine. You have created a personal definition of what it means to "truly work with word processors". And because of that, you are failing to see the value of anything that has less functionality than MS Office, or to be able to understand how iWork 09 can be of greater usefulness than the latest iWork.

What I meant is that Pages does not satisfy the requirements of those who need to explore the more advanced functionality of word processing. I understand that Pages satisfy the needs of several people who have basic word processing needs. Of course a 14-year old student will find Pages very useful, and perhaps better than Word, to do his homework. It is easy to use, and it can produce beautiful documents easily.

What I am also saying is that Pages has functions which are core to desktop publishing software, and this is the reason why people do not see it in other word processing applications. Of course they have a value of their own.

I understand that Pages '09 may be more useful than the current Pages for some people. All those complaints about Apple removing features were because of something.

While I am also saying is that the word processing capabilities of Pages are weak. Yes, they are. You can call it whatever you want, it does not matter. Pages does not support features aimed at easily structuring large and complex pieces of text. No, it does not. It provides, however, features that are useful for building fancy page layouts.

Different needs? Absolutely. But this leaves me completely disappointed at Apple. For me, it's form over function, as always. This may be the reason why Apple never implemented features to make Pages richer in structuring text – these features would not make the document look any better anyway. And this may be the reason why Apple even removed features from the '09 version.

It just does not matter. It seems like that if Pages is good enough to produce a beautiful homework for a 14-year old student, then it's perfectly fine. Pages is not meant to compete with the heavyweights, nor Apple is willing to invest the necessary amount of money for developing the features that would allow it to compete.

 

[IJ Reilly]

In fact, what you need seems to be something that Pages can offer. The needs you describe are not word processing needs. They are basically desktop publishing needs: page layout and templates. Pages mixes word processing and desktop publishing – or at least it used to do – in a natural way like no other word processor does. It certainly lacks several word processing features, and probably some desktop publishing featurees, but it does (or at least did) a reasonably nice job at combining both. Your needs have little to do with text structure (apart from the styles); they have more to do with the appearance of the text itself.

Perhaps you could find this in other products such as Adobe InDesign or Quark XPress. As professional applications, they may not be as simple and straightforward, but they are certainly more advanced.

Nope.

----------

I am not failing to understand that.

It appears that your needs are desktop publishing needs and not word processing needs at its core.

Nope.

----------

I've bolded the part that separates your view from mine. You have created a personal definition of what it means to "truly work with word processors". And because of that, you are failing to see the value of anything that has less functionality than MS Office, or to be able to understand how iWork 09 can be of greater usefulness than the latest iWork.

Yup.

 

[skaertus]

Nope.

----------



Nope.

----------



Yup.

What do you need then in terms of functionality that Pages provides and other word processors and desktop publishing software fail to do?

 

[IJ Reilly]

What do you need then in terms of functionality that Pages provides and other word processors and desktop publishing software fail to do?

This has already been explained to you in some detail, but you simply refuse to accept the answers every time, whether the explanation comes from me or someone else. So why would I (or anyone else) bother going over this all again?

FWIW (probably nothing now, in this endlessly circular discussion), I and others are talking about the previous version of Pages. This is the one we like, not the current, crippled version, which we find to be maddeningly reduced in functionality. Those of us who understand the utility of the previous version had reason to hope for continued development, and were shocked by Apple's choice of feature regression.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

I still use ’09 mostly for Numbers’ “Reorganize” button, which is a quick and dirty way of doing stats/filtering on tables and allowed me to get over the lack of Excel’s PivotTables for day-to-day stuff.

Any news on whether this feature’s been brought back to life?

Check out the SUMIFS function. Its good.

 

[skaertus]

This has already been explained to you in some detail, but you simply refuse to accept the answers every time, whether the explanation comes from me or someone else. So why would I (or anyone else) bother going over this all again?

FWIW (probably nothing now, in this endlessly circular discussion), I and others are talking about the previous version of Pages. This is the one we like, not the current, crippled version, which we find to be maddeningly reduced in functionality. Those of us who understand the utility of the previous version had reason to hope for continued development, and were shocked by Apple's choice of feature regression.

I understand that you, and several others, may prefer the previous version of iWork, as it had more features than the current one. As far as I am aware, Apple removed several page layout features and ended up making iWork for Mac very similar to its iOS counterpart. I also understand that people that have always used iWork for doing their stuff may have become mad at Apple.

I understand all of this.

I was never a heavy iWork user.

I started using iWork '08, but it did not have the features I was expecting. iWork '09 was released one year and a half later, and it did not have the features I needed either, but at least it was software in active development, and I had hopes that it would keep improving at a faster pace than Microsoft Office in order to catch up some day.

But then several years went by, and not one single iWork update. In 2013, after more than four years, Apple released a new version with a redesigned interface but less features than before. It was, of course, underwhelming. I was hoping that Apple would add new features to it, as a new beginning, since the excuse for taking so much time to release this stripped-down iWork was that Apple engineers were working on a brand-new 64-bit version, rewriting the app from the beginning.

Well, now Apple releases a new iWork version, with a new interface again, but no new features.

I really wish Apple could make a decent iWork, but it doesn't.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I really wish Apple could make a decent iWork, but it doesn't.

The point being, they used to make a decent version. One that could have been improved, yes, but a very good product as it was. In fact what happened is Apple's vision for iWork changed radically with last year's version, especially for Pages. It previously occupied a niche straddling word processing and DTP (hence, the name). This ambitious concept was abandoned in favor of feature parity with the mobile version. Not a bad idea in itself, but it became one when Apple decided to throw everyone who'd embraced the earlier concept overboard.

 

[cheekyjeremy]

Not a bad idea in itself, but it became one when Apple decided to throw everyone who'd embraced the earlier concept overboard.

Agreed. What would have been great was bringing the iOS version up to the desktop quality rather than dropping the desktop quality down to the iOS version

 

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed. What would have been great was bringing the iOS version up to the desktop quality rather than dropping the desktop quality down to the iOS version

Even those of use who would like to see this happen have to acknowledge that the mobile platform doesn't led itself to all the features of a desktop version. The better way would've been for Apple to create modes for full features and for compatibility.

 

[Traverse]

That is the ability to have 2 text boxes placed in a document and have the text automatically flow from one box to the next. In Pages '09 that is what those little blue arrows/boxes are on a text box.

Out of curiosity, what is the benefit of this? I'm genuinely asking because I was an extremely heavier user of Pages 09 before they ruined it, but I never tried this.

 

[Traverse]

I'm behind on my Macrumors readings! Sorry for so many quote, but I'm going through this entire thread at once and answering each that caught my attention.

I am mostly referring to Pages. I have never been a hard user of Keynote, especially because I work in an environment where I must send all presentations in PowerPoint format, and therefore I have always used PowerPoint to make sure everything would be 100% compatible and that I would have no unpleasant surprises at the moment of the presentation.

I realize and understand your need/like for Office, but Pages '09 was by no means crap. For the things you need (I believe you mentioned cross references in another thread) Pages may fail. Pages did not have every feature of Word, but that is what made it so great.

I've never felt compelled or able to be creative in Word, but Pages encouraged creativity. In Word I just use the Normal template and clumsily mold it. Yes I realize that is my shortcoming, but word was never as flexible as Pages. I've used Word since Office 2003 for Windows and while I do use it now and generally like it (live with it) it can be frustrating. Bullets will randomly mess up, custom formatting won't stick, and odd glitches drive me crazy!

I found pages so much more flexible. I created so many custom templates and the features in Pages almost always worked without issue. Yes, there were annoying shortcomings such as no intuitive way to center text vertically, but overall I found the package nice. I actually enjoyed working in Pages, I never "enjoy" working in Word. I created large documents will multiple sections and both unique and document wide formatting and it all came together beautifully. Also, Pages had so many simple things, such as center line guides, when working with figures, tables, and graphs. It was great. The new Pages can do much, probably most, of what I need, but lacks even basic features.

----------

It includes inserts for figure and photo pages. They can be dropped into the report wherever needed, quickly, easily and with total formatting consistency. This feature is just great. It is now gone. The form-creation abilities of '09 and its predecessors are also strong. Even discounting for the loss of text box flow, something else happened in the current version to blow up our forms completely.

This. I have tried to mold Word and create formats, but the slightest adjustment to one section seemed to cause havoc to the others. I can never get a complex document to be completely consistent. I STILL can't get a table of freakin' contents to format to my exact liking, though it was nearly effortless in Pages.

Also, and forgive my all caps: WHY IS CALIBRI IN EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT EVEN WHEN NEVER USED!? I mean, come on! I like Calibri, but not for everything! I would remove it from headers, footers, document bodies, and still it was there!! Like a demon possession!

----------

I have to disagree with you. Pages was never good as a word processor, not the '09 version, neither the current one.

I must respectfully disagree with you. Like I said in an above post.

There are many kinds of "writers." A purely academic one who needs many advanced features like cross references or index/outlining tools may need Office and not like Pages.

Pages was unmatched a document format consistence. I start from an Apple template, blank, or my own template and create a professional research proposal will a multitude of edits and never screw up anything. Pages works with figures/captions/charts/general data almost flawlessly. And now matter how much I tweaked a document or adjusted/add/delete sections, my custom table of contents and bookmarks never got messed up. Word can't handle a table of contents well. At lease the Mac one. It may be me, but I've really tried many times.

----------

It's clear that nothing less than MS office is sufficient for you. That's fine but it shows that you have a different perspective than those who are able to use iWork effectively.

We've been on the same side on this debate for awhile, so no surprise that I agree entirely. I guess those 200 page documents I created in Pages were inadequate because I didn't need to split a footnote.

I've been on this side of the debate with you two as well. Sracer is right: you need to see it from other perspectives. IJ Reilly, your comment made me laugh.

Pages met the expectations of many as a word processor, but that is only because people usually have very modest requirements in what concerns what a word processor must do.

I agree with you a lot in your Office Mac 2014 thread, but here you are way...WAAAAY off. "Modest" is subjective. I have not created a 200 page dissertation (yet, but working on my Thesis with Scrivener and Pages now) with split footnotes and advanced word features, but that does not mean my requirements are light. My writing includes many references which both Pages and Word do fine with Endnote. However, I also work with many graphical figures, charts, tables, etc. when conveying research reports. I have a very high need for format consistence and flexibility. Word is great, and is surely the most feature packed and subjectively advanced word processor available and I use it heavily, but it simply failed at many fundamental tasks.

You can do anything you do in Pages with Word, but you can't do it as easily and cleanly. Every major edit I make requires a lot of general maintenance with the rest of the document. An example? Inserting a figure would not center for some glitchy reason. Finally getting it in there caused bullet indentions and paragraph formatting to skew. Why? I don't know. God has a sense of humor maybe.

----------

Just compare Pages to any other word processor, and it is poor. Very poor. Let Microsoft Word out of it. Compare Pages to the free LibreOffice Writer. Or to Nisus Writer Pro or Mellel. Or to Corel WordPerfect, which has not seen a decent upgrade in ages. They all have advanced features that Pages lack.

Not being rude, I genuinely want to know. Can you list some of these features that are necessary and Pages lack? You may have a valid point, I just don't know what you're referring to.

----------

Even those of use who would like to see this happen have to acknowledge that the mobile platform doesn't led itself to all the features of a desktop version. The better way would've been for Apple to create modes for full features and for compatibility.

That would have been ideal, but too complex for Apple's view of consumers. Keep Pages/Numbers/Keynote for the masses, but bring back a super version of Pages 09 with a new name under their stupid "Pro Apps" on there website. I'd pay handsomely. But Apple gave up on "Pros". Why is Aperture still for sale when they stopped support? That's how they get you.

 

[skaertus]

The point being, they used to make a decent version. One that could have been improved, yes, but a very good product as it was. In fact what happened is Apple's vision for iWork changed radically with last year's version, especially for Pages. It previously occupied a niche straddling word processing and DTP (hence, the name). This ambitious concept was abandoned in favor of feature parity with the mobile version. Not a bad idea in itself, but it became one when Apple decided to throw everyone who'd embraced the earlier concept overboard.

I may disagree with you on iWork '09 being decent, but we should both agree that it was at least promising back then. Now it seems like a dumbed-down office suite for homework more than anything else.

 

[Traverse]

I may disagree with you on iWork '09 being decent, but we should both agree that it was at least promising back then. Now it seems like a dumbed-down office suite for homework more than anything else.

True. We will never come to a common view on iWork. So we should just all respectfully agree to disagree before Mods close the thread for going off topic.

 

[skaertus]

I realize and understand your need/like for Office, but Pages '09 was by no means crap. For the things you need (I believe you mentioned cross references in another thread) Pages may fail. Pages did not have every feature of Word, but that is what made it so great.

I've never felt compelled or able to be creative in Word, but Pages encouraged creativity. In Word I just use the Normal template and clumsily mold it. Yes I realize that is my shortcoming, but word was never as flexible as Pages. I've used Word since Office 2003 for Windows and while I do use it now and generally like it (live with it) it can be frustrating. Bullets will randomly mess up, custom formatting won't stick, and odd glitches drive me crazy!

I found pages so much more flexible. I created so many custom templates and the features in Pages almost always worked without issue. Yes, there were annoying shortcomings such as no intuitive way to center text vertically, but overall I found the package nice. I actually enjoyed working in Pages, I never "enjoy" working in Word. I created large documents will multiple sections and both unique and document wide formatting and it all came together beautifully. Also, Pages had so many simple things, such as center line guides, when working with figures, tables, and graphs. It was great. The new Pages can do much, probably most, of what I need, but lacks even basic features.

"Enjoyable" was something Pages has always been, and certainly much more than Word. I like its beautiful interface and everything feels very nice in a way only Apple can do it. But it does not have all the features of other word processors, especially the more advanced ones, and that is a fact. It certainly has its own advantages, and most of them related to desktop publishing and page layout, but it is a poor word processor in terms of sheer features.

This. I have tried to mold Word and create formats, but the slightest adjustment to one section seemed to cause havoc to the others. I can never get a complex document to be completely consistent. I STILL can't get a table of freakin' contents to format to my exact liking, though it was nearly effortless in Pages.

Also, and forgive my all caps: WHY IS CALIBRI IN EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT EVEN WHEN NEVER USED!? I mean, come on! I like Calibri, but not for everything! I would remove it from headers, footers, document bodies, and still it was there!! Like a demon possession!

This sort of thing was annoying in Word, but they seem to have become much better with the newer versions. I do not have this kind of issue in Word 2013.

I must respectfully disagree with you. Like I said in an above post.

There are many kinds of "writers." A purely academic one who needs many advanced features like cross references or index/outlining tools may need Office and not like Pages.

Pages was unmatched a document format consistence. I start from an Apple template, blank, or my own template and create a professional research proposal will a multitude of edits and never screw up anything. Pages works with figures/captions/charts/general data almost flawlessly. And now matter how much I tweaked a document or adjusted/add/delete sections, my custom table of contents and bookmarks never got messed up. Word can't handle a table of contents well. At lease the Mac one. It may be me, but I've really tried many times.

I never had a problem with document consistency in Word. Pages may be easier to handle it, but Word does it as well. At least Word for Windows. Word for Mac is a different beast, and I do not dare doing something really important on it.

I agree with you a lot in your Office Mac 2014 thread, but here you are way...WAAAAY off. "Modest" is subjective. I have not created a 200 page dissertation (yet, but working on my Thesis with Scrivener and Pages now) with split footnotes and advanced word features, but that does not mean my requirements are light. My writing includes many references which both Pages and Word do fine with Endnote. However, I also work with many graphical figures, charts, tables, etc. when conveying research reports. I have a very high need for format consistence and flexibility. Word is great, and is surely the most feature packed and subjectively advanced word processor available and I use it heavily, but it simply failed at many fundamental tasks.

You can do anything you do in Pages with Word, but you can't do it as easily and cleanly. Every major edit I make requires a lot of general maintenance with the rest of the document. An example? Inserting a figure would not center for some glitchy reason. Finally getting it in there caused bullet indentions and paragraph formatting to skew. Why? I don't know. God has a sense of humor maybe.

Are you using Pages for doing your thesis? Perhaps it is not the best alternative for it, given that it does not handle cross-references and footnotes well. It has Endnote integration, but I never really tested it. Does it scan fields or just inserts the Endnote citation formatted? Pages may do a better job at handling graphic elements, but this may not be enough for thesis writing.

Not being rude, I genuinely want to know. Can you list some of these features that are necessary and Pages lack? You may have a valid point, I just don't know what you're referring to.

Actually, I have some in mind:

• cross-references
• footnotes splitting in more than one page
• indexing
• endnotes
• draft view
• outline view
• thesaurus
•*support for portrait and landscape pages in the same document

These are some important features that I do remember now. I could not use headings numbered 1, and sub-headings numbered 1.1, 1.2, and so on, in Pages, but I am not sure it cannot be done, so I did not list it there. (Can you do that? If you can, please let me know how it is possible.)

Anyway, nearly all these features are present in most word processors out there – Microsoft Word, Corel WordPerfect, LibreOffice/OpenOffice Writer, Nisus Writer Pro, Mellel, and so on. Some of them are present even in UX Write for iPad. It is just inexcusable that Apple did not implement such features.

That would have been ideal, but too complex for Apple's view of consumers. Keep Pages/Numbers/Keynote for the masses, but bring back a super version of Pages 09 with a new name under their stupid "Pro Apps" on there website. I'd pay handsomely. But Apple gave up on "Pros". Why is Aperture still for sale when they stopped support? That's how they get you.

Apple should keep just one version of iWork, and should put all the features there. I don't understand why Apple has to dumb down everything.

 

[Traverse]

"Enjoyable" was something Pages has always been, and certainly much more than Word. I like its beautiful interface and everything feels very nice in a way only Apple can do it. But it does not have all the features of other word processors, especially the more advanced ones, and that is a fact. It certainly has its own advantages, and most of them related to desktop publishing and page layout, but it is a poor word processor in terms of sheer features.

In sheer number of features, yes Word wins.

This sort of thing was annoying in Word, but they seem to have become much better with the newer versions. I do not have this kind of issue in Word 2013.

That's great to hear. That was so annoying.

Are you using Pages for doing your thesis? Perhaps it is not the best alternative for it, given that it does not handle cross-references and footnotes well. It has Endnote integration, but I never really tested it. Does it scan fields or just inserts the Endnote citation formatted? Pages may do a better job at handling graphic elements, but this may not be enough for thesis writing.

I don't feel any linear writing tool is good for a Thesis where you will inevitably jump around. I'm using Scrivener and will export the final draft to Pages (and Word if need) for final formatting and footnote/endnote updates before I submit it as a PDF and have a hard copy binded for my committee.

Actually, I have some in mind:

• cross-references
• footnotes splitting in more than one page
• indexing
• endnotes
• draft view
• outline view
• thesaurus
•*support for portrait and landscape pages in the same document

Thank you for the list. This clarifies things.

- Pages cannot do cross references or footnote splits. You are correct that Word is superior here. I have never had the need to do this, but I know others' needs are different and that's why we have different apps.

- I don't know what exactly the point of Draft view is (I've never really used it) aside from a simple layout. Pages has an Outline view.

- I don't trust Word's thesaurus and use external sources, but OS X has a built in function.

- I may be wrong, but I think Pages can have portrait and landscape.

EDIT: about endnote. I believe you have all the feature of Word integration except the cite while you write. When I had a citation it automatically adds a Works cited page as well and pre-formats it. There is a contextual menu where you can choose your citation style and customize specific entires, but I use the MLA standard.


You bring up valid points (which I expected you would). Some of the features you listed aren't available in Pages and thus it is a bad match for you. But I still don't think that it means that Pages is an inferior Word Processor. A "word processor" is not a set term encompassing a standard set of features. Pages allows me to manipulate, format, and connect text and images and is thus a word processor.

Word will always have more features and, in that metric, is superior. And for your needs it is superior. But for me and many others on this forum Pages was superior. I am simply able to work faster and more productively with Pages than I have ever been able to in Word.

Apple should keep just one version of iWork, and should put all the features there. I don't understand why Apple has to dumb down everything.

They should, but they won't. Apple is really infuriating in that regard.

----------

Side note not addressed to anyone: I tried the current pages again and still don't like it. I opened one of my basic research proposals and it opened properly, but I still display the "intelligent" sidebar versus the all -encompassing sidebar. There is no vertical ruler that I can see. Also, it still can't do side by side pages or work with .rtfd formats.

----------

Question: Does anyone know if Pages '09 or the new Pages encrypts files when password protected?

I know in Word, when you password protect a file it become encrypted.

 

[skaertus]

That's great to hear. That was so annoying.

Word 2013 really impressed me. Very mature piece of software.

I don't feel any linear writing tool is good for a Thesis where you will inevitably jump around. I'm using Scrivener and will export the final draft to Pages (and Word if need) for final formatting and footnote/endnote updates before I submit it as a PDF and have a hard copy blinded for my committee.

I have tried to use Scrivener but, as good as it may be, I don't think I can get along with this non-linearity.

Thank you for the list. This clarifies things.

There is probably much more. I just wrote what I had in mind.

- Pages cannot do cross references or footnote splits. You are correct that Word is superior here. I have never had the need to do this, but I know others' needs are different and that's why we have different apps.

I have the need for cross-references. Footnote splits as well, although I may live without it if I make some footnotes shorter (again, I should not need to do that because of a shortcoming of software).

- I don't know what exactly the point of Draft view is (I've never really used it) aside from a simple layout. Pages has an Outline view.

Draft view is good if you have lots of footnotes.

- I don't trust Word's thesaurus and use external sources, but OS X may have a built in function.

Word thesaurus is useful for me when I am looking for a synonym of a word I have used a few times before. It works well for this purpose.

- I may be wrong, but I think Pages can have portrait and landscape.

I was not able to find a way of doing that.

One thing I use a lot are headings like this:

1. Heading
1.1. Sub-heading
1.1.1. Sub-sub-heading
1.1.2. Sub-sub-heading
1.2. Sub-heading
1.2.1. Sub-sub-heading
2. Heading 2
2.1. Sub-heading
2.2. Sub-heading
2.2.1. Sub-sub-heading

Is there a way of doing this kind of thing in Pages? I tried everything, but I could not do it. If Pages cannot do this, it is unbelieable.

EDIT: about endnote. I believe you have all the feature of Word integration except the cite while you write. When I had a citation it automatically adds a Works cited page as well and pre-formats it. There is a contextual menu where you can choose your citation system and customize specific entires, but I use the MLA standard.

Cite-as-you-write is not really good. I like using fields and then updating them all at the end. Does Pages work like that?

You bring up valid points (which I expected you would). Some of the features you listed aren't available in Pages and thus it is a bad match for you. But I still don't think that it means that Pages is an inferior Word Processor. A "word processor" is not a set term encompassing a standard set of features. Pages allows me to manipulate, format, and connect text and images and is thus a word processor.

Word will always have more features and, in that metric, is superior. And for your needs it is superior. But for me and many others on this forum Pages was superior. I am simply able to work faster and more productively with Pages than I have ever been able to in Word.

Well, it depends on the parameters. I have found several features that Pages lacks. Of course, if Pages lacked one or two features, I might live with it. But it seems to lack a lot of features which are often found in other word processors, and that have been found for several years. I am not talking about Microsoft Word only.

Pages is very polished and all, and I am sure that if I did not have many requirements in terms of features, I would prefer it over any alternative. It is very fluid and easy on the eyes. But it is simply underwhelming that it lacks so many features found even in free word processors.

They should, but they won't. Apple is really infuriating in that regard.

It is not very difficult to add features. Lots of word processors have them. It seems to be more like a philosophy.

 

[Traverse]

Word 2013 really impressed me. Very mature piece of software.

Gives me hope for Office Mac 2015

I have tried to use Scrivener but, as good as it may be, I don't think I can get along with this non-linearity.

It's very different, and I'm still getting used to it, but I think it will pay off.

I have the need for cross-references. Footnote splits as well, although I may live without it if I make some footnotes shorter (again, I should not need to do that because of a shortcoming of software).

No you should not. You shouldn't have to change your workflows to match software (within reason), which is why Word is superior for you.

One thing I use a lot are headings like this:

1. Heading
1.1. Sub-heading
1.1.1. Sub-sub-heading
1.1.2. Sub-sub-heading
1.2. Sub-heading
1.2.1. Sub-sub-heading
2. Heading 2
2.1. Sub-heading
2.2. Sub-heading
2.2.1. Sub-sub-heading

Is there a way of doing this kind of thing in Pages? I tried everything, but I could not do it. If Pages cannot do this, it is unbelieable.

Yes, Pages does this unless I misunderstood you. Go to the inspector -> T (text) ->Select Tired numbers (see screenshot.)

Cite-as-you-write is not really good. I like using fields and then updating them all at the end. Does Pages work like that?

I unfortunately can't answer that, I've never tried it that way.

Pages is very polished and all, and I am sure that if I did not have many requirements in terms of features, I would prefer it over any alternative. It is very fluid and easy on the eyes. But it is simply underwhelming that it lacks so many features found even in free word processors.

It is underwhelming for you, but I understand your position.

It is not very difficult to add features. Lots of word processors have them. It seems to be more like a philosophy.

Well their philosophy sucks.

 

[Traverse]

y.

Here's another screenshot of using tiered numbers. You can adjust the level of indent with the inspector or the ruler triangle at the top of the screenshot.

 

[skaertus]

Here's another screenshot of using tiered numbers. You can adjust the level of with the inspector or the ruler triangle at the top of the screenshot.

Thank you. But are you trying this on Pages '09 or the current Pages? I have tried to find it on Pages 5.5 (the one which was released last week) and I cannot find it.