Skip navigation

AppleWorks and Lion

31597 Views 210 Replies Latest reply: Nov 13, 2013 10:35 AM by MlchaelLAX RSS Branched to a new discussion.
  • Roger Wilmut1 Level 9 Level 9 (64,045 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 2, 2011 9:21 AM (in response to christopher rigby1)

    christopher rigby1 wrote:

     

    AppleWorks came along around 5? 6? 7? years before the move to Intel!

    Yes, and the macros worked on the original processors - pre PowerPC - it may even have been the move to PowerPC which scuppered them. I just don't remember when this happened: but I do know that the it was a change in the System which removed programming on which macros and Publish & Subscribe depended: I just don't remember the details. Indeed I don't think they disappeared at the same time - P & S went first.

  • christopher rigby1 Level 4 Level 4 (2,070 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 2, 2011 9:47 AM (in response to Roger Wilmut1)

    The timeline goes something like :

     

    PPC processors replace Motorola processors around 1994.

     

    ClarisWorks 5 (WITH macros and P&S) debuts 1996/7.

     

    Apple takes Claris 'in-house' in 1998 - CW5 becomes AW5.

     

    Apple releases AW6 in 2000.

     

    OS X appears 2001, with AW6 'Carbonised'.

     

    There's an interesting website relating the history of CW by one of its development team :

     

    http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/bob/clarisworks.php

     

    Extract from Wiki :

     

    The last version, AppleWorks 6, replaced the communications feature with a presentation feature (in prior versions there was only rudimentary support for presentations through the other features).[citation needed] It was also ported to the Carbon API to work on Mac OS X, but as an early Carbon application, it did not take advantage of many of the newer features of Mac OS X and portions of the interface still retained elements of the Platinum appearance of Mac OS 8/9.

  • Roger Wilmut1 Level 9 Level 9 (64,045 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 2, 2011 10:26 AM (in response to christopher rigby1)

    That's interesting, thanks for that. The macros could run impressively fast, but they couldn't be edited: I had a couple of really quite complex ones, and they were a pain to construct because you could only assemble the entire thing, run it, and try to work out where it fell over. When they died I used QuickKeys instead, and this was a big improvement as you can look at and edit each step, and indeed run it step by step if desired.

     

    A pity about Publish and Subscribe though: I used that in a couple of cases so that I only had to enter data in one place.

  • christopher rigby1 Level 4 Level 4 (2,070 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 2, 2011 10:36 AM (in response to Roger Wilmut1)

    Roger Wilmut1 wrote:

     

    A pity about Publish and Subscribe though: I used that in a couple of cases so that I only had to enter data in one place.

     

    It was a boon for writers - you could have 'word count' as a published single-cell spreadsheet at the head of each chapter, then a full spreadsheet subscribing to all the chapters giving a total which got updated

    automatically whenever you did editing or new stuff.

     

    Of course, it can be replicated in FileMaker Pro so all is not lost. But it was a shame it got dropped from AW.

  • LateBloom123 Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 2, 2011 12:36 PM (in response to christopher rigby1)

    So, the simple explanation why they couldn't keep Appleworks going was because it would've cost them money to continue with Rosetta? That, at least, would be understandable. If that's it, then I get it, but don't like it.

     

    I could see totally wiping it out if Appleworks was a flawed or damaging program, but why not just create something cheaply in their new operating systems to allow customers that like the product to continue using it? It's WAY better than Pages, in my opinion.

     

    So, I'm guessing the few of us that want it just aren't enough motivation. In other words, they'd rather have you buy and learn something new.

     

    I don't mind the new stuff, but it's just that I can't be alone in not wanting to convert EVERYTHING. Some of the stuff doesn't convert well and gets mangled in Pages. I guess I just need to not worry about it.

  • Giorgio Garuzzo Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 12, 2011 10:52 AM (in response to LateBloom123)

    Why not for Apple to provide a software to transfer the Appleworks DB content to some other DB (I mean that the customer should first set the new DB and then transfer the data, probably via the spreadsheet option of Appleworks) ?

     

    It would have shown respect for customers: in fact, to save some money for Apple, Apple's customers will, gobally, spend or lose much more money.

     

    It would be a business, too. Many customers would happily buy a new DB if they get some conversion tool.

     

    Apple could even plan for this software in the future and announce it now: many customers would continue use Appleworks and wait.

     

    In any case, as a computer guy since early 1960's, I confirm what I read on these pages: Applework DB is (was!) fantastic.

  • janesanha Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 12, 2011 11:06 AM (in response to Giorgio Garuzzo)

    Which reminds me, does anyone have a recommendation for a DB to use for mailing labels???

  • christopher rigby1 Level 4 Level 4 (2,070 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 13, 2011 4:36 AM (in response to Giorgio Garuzzo)

    Giorgio Garuzzo wrote:

     

    Why not for Apple to provide a software to transfer the Appleworks DB content to some other DB (I mean that the customer should first set the new DB and then transfer the data, probably via the spreadsheet option of Appleworks) ?

     

    It would have shown respect for customers: in fact, to save some money for Apple, Apple's customers will, gobally, spend or lose much more money.

     

    It would be a business, too. Many customers would happily buy a new DB if they get some conversion tool.

     

    Apple could even plan for this software in the future and announce it now: many customers would continue use Appleworks and wait.

     

    It's a numbers thing, I am sure of that. Compare the number of Windows XP users out there, against the number of legacy Mac users - the former massively outweigh the latter (millions <> thousands). Apple seem more interested in 'switchers' these days, than supporting legacy Mac systems, I suppose it makes much more commercial sense. It is a shame for us though.

     

    As for Apple's commercial customers, 99% of those will have used FileMaker Pro rather than AW DB, almost from Day One. They won't be losing money or sleep.

  • christopher rigby1 Level 4 Level 4 (2,070 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 13, 2011 4:39 AM (in response to janesanha)

    janesanha wrote:

     

    Which reminds me, does anyone have a recommendation for a DB to use for mailing labels???

     

    Do you mean starting from scratch (not converting from AW Database)? I would say that FileMaker Bento would be your ideal choice for that. It's very cheap compared to FM Pro.

  • virtualteacher Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2011 12:44 PM (in response to don gmt)

    I haven't tried this technique out yet, but my friend has it working... Appleworks running within Lion.

     

    His solution was: VMWare under Lion can run a Snow Leopard Server virtual machine... which is AppleWorks compatible.

     

    There are a few links which talk about it, if you search VMWare Under Lion + AppleWorks

  • Allan Eckert Level 8 Level 8 (39,420 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 5, 2011 12:47 PM (in response to virtualteacher)

    Sounds like a terribly convoluted way to keep AW. IMHO migrating over to newer applicationwas both easier and provide vastly improved feature in addition.

     

    Allan

  • christopher rigby1 Level 4 Level 4 (2,070 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 7, 2011 2:39 PM (in response to Allan Eckert)

    Allan Eckert wrote:

     

    Sounds like a terribly convoluted way to keep AW. IMHO migrating over to newer applicationwas both easier and provide vastly improved feature in addition.

     

    I guess it boils down to various equations : if you've iWork and Office then what you say makes perfect sense Allan - though it would still be a giant conversion if you've a lot of AW files.

     

    On the other hand, if you've access to either or both of VMWare or Parallels, and Snow Leopard, then it makes sense to keep going with AW, especially as that solution would last a long time.

  • Allan Eckert Level 8 Level 8 (39,420 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 7, 2011 2:47 PM (in response to christopher rigby1)

    IMHO there are ususally very valid reasons why an application is declared dead. To ignore those reason is usually a total waste of your time and resources. I say cut your looses and give up on AW.

     

    Allan

  • christopher rigby1 Level 4 Level 4 (2,070 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 7, 2011 3:08 PM (in response to Allan Eckert)

    Allan Eckert wrote:

     

    IMHO there are ususally very valid reasons why an application is declared dead. To ignore those reason is usually a total waste of your time and resources. I say cut your looses and give up on AW.

     

    In this case I think the valid reason was that AW was an old suite and Apple wanted to develop something more reflective of the style offered by OS X. Which is why we now have iWork. And there are many better word processors, spreadsheets, databases, and bitmap graphics programs than those contained in AW.

     

    However it is still true that there has never been a better integrated suite of apps either for the price or for a lot more money. And it contains a vector graphics program. I can understand why many people are reluctant to cut it loose.

  • Asatoran Level 4 Level 4 (2,535 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 7, 2011 7:28 PM (in response to christopher rigby1)

    While I sympathize with all the Appleworks users, one has to realize how OLD the Appleworks suite really is.  I was using Appleworks back in the Apple ][ days back in 1984.  (yes, Apple ][ and yes 1984!)  I agree, for the price, getting a decent, very usable drawing program and a database was quite a feat.  After the spin-off to Claris Corporation and Clarisworks, I even had GSWorks, which was bought by Claris and renamed Clarisworks GS and all the Beagle Bros add ons to Appleworks.  (Does anyone under 30 ever even heard of Beagle Bros?! )  If you think it is painful to move off of Appleworks 6 for Mac, imagine my pain of discarding a couple hundred buck worth of Beagle Bros Appleworks add ons when I upgraded from a Apple IIGS to a Mac IIsi.

     

    The "porting" to MacOS and WIndows took place in the early 90s.  So we are talking about a software package that was born about 20 years ago.  (Over 25 if you go back to the Apple ][ version.)  "No one" really does "works suites" anymore.  Even Microsoft dropped their Works product after they "lost" the price war with Appleworks.  (MS Works was $99 initially.  Clarisworks was $49. )  Microsoft Office is just a collection of standalone apps.  OpenOffice/Libreoffice is about all we have, but yes, does not import AW drawing or databse files..

     

    So while I sympathize with all the AW users, I am more in line with Allan's viewpoint that it's time to move on past 25 year old programming.  I was fortunate that I "cut the cord" more than a decade ago.  Hmmm, all this nostalgia, I may have to pull out the old IIGS and fire up GSWorks.

     

    (edit: ok, well, I stand corrected that MS hasn't really dropped MS Works.  But from MS, it's really treated as the preloaded bloatware on OEM PCs.)

1 2 3 4 5 ... 15 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (3)

This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.