Pages 3 Features?

[IJ Reilly]

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]

Dammit. I misread this article title as "Page 3 features" as in the Page 3 of Macrumors we had for April Fools.

 

[bluebomberman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

-Squire

 

[jsalzer]

Normal View

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]

word processor?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

iWork is not Office

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.

 

[JFreak]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 and have LaTeX installed on your system (see this post 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]

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]

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.