Apple Peel

Why So Many Mac Users Still Need Microsoft Word

Every once in a while, we get to read comments by various Macintosh columnists to the effect that, even though a great number of Mac users currently use Microsoft’s flagship word processor (either in its 98 or in its 2001 incarnation), there really are realistic alternatives, such as Mariner Write, Nisus Writer or other word processing or text editing applications.

AppleLinks contributing editor Charles W. Moore is one of the most vocal of such columnists, and regularly devotes entire columns to the topic, such as his recent one entitled “Is It Really Possible To Live Without Microsoft?” (His answer is, expectably, “Of course it is.”)

Since there are obviously many reasons to think (and judicial rulings to prove it) that Microsoft, as a company, has used and is still using many despicable and dishonest business tactics to establish and maintain its dominance over an unhealthily wide range of markets, the underlying message in such comments is that we Mac users, as the adopters of an alternative approach to computing (the Mac itself), should really make an effort to contribute as little as possible to Microsoft’s bottom-line, and therefore avoid using Microsoft products as much as possible, if not entirely.

While I agree that, as a company, Microsoft tends to make rather lousy software and to impose the use of such software through business tactics that are a clear reflection of an unhealthy monopoly situation, and while I have great respect for those Mac users who are brave enough to attempt to become and remain “Microsoft-free” in their computer-related activities — I am afraid that, for the vast majority of us Mac users, such an approach simply isn’t really practical or realistic.

My position is based on one simple, undeniable fact:

The vast majority of us have to share at least some of our files with other computer users, many (if not most) of whom are Windows users using Microsoft Word.

This very simple fact has some unavoidable consequences on our daily work, and most of us have to adopt an approach that will reasonably add the least amount of non-productive work to our already busy schedules.

The Need for Editable Documents

First of all, the above-mentioned fact should be slightly amended to reflect an additional reality of computer file sharing in 2001: The vast majority of us has to share editable files with other computer users.

By “editable,” I mean files that our correspondents will be able, not only to view, but also to change, copy, edit, etc. Most of the time, the files that you share with other people will be changed, edited, formatted, etc. in ways that require full access to their contents.

There are exceptions to that rule, of course. I sometimes take care of all the work myself, from writing the text of a document to doing its page layout in InDesign, and I then send a PDF file (with embedded fonts, graphics, and so on) to my correspondent. He or she will only be able to view or print this document, and I can thus keep full control of the eventual printed output. But such an approach is, for obvious reasons, not realistic for day-to-day document production.

It’s not realistic either to expect everyone to use InDesign or Quark XPress for document production. Regardless of how much those programs have improved over the years, they are still too bulky, complex, resource-hungry and expensive to expect anyone to standardize on them for basic clerical work.

What people could theoretically standardize on is a text editor. However, the limitations of text editors (such as BBEdit) are just too obvious in terms of formatting for this to be a realistic suggestion.

The Need for Decent Document Formatting

No matter how basic the work of a secretary can be, he or she will still have to use character formatting (italics, bold, etc.), paragraph formatting (alignment, line spacing, etc.), and document formatting — features that no text editor can provide.

In addition, even though so far it has been a losing battle as far as I can tell, we should all try to get as many people as possible to properly use formatting features such as character styles and paragraph styles. The benefits of styles in word processing are well-known: it’s easy to automatically change formatting settings throughout your document by just changing a style’s definition; designers and page layout people will have a much easier time trying to import your work into their designs without losing any formatting; and so on. Text editors simply do not have such features.

I know very well that, right now, the vast majority of Microsoft Word users do not use Word’s style features properly (both character styles and paragraph styles), but that doesn’t make those features superfluous. The problem is not with the style features themselves, it’s with the fact that Microsoft (and other word processor developers) have so far failed to provide the average user with an easy-to-understand, straightforward interface for accessing those features, which will in turn encourage him to learn how to use them properly, without doing things behind his back that he doesn’t know how to control. (Microsoft’s attempts to address this issue, with Word’s many “automatic” features, have consistently failed.)

Using alternative solutions such as Mariner Write or Nisus Writer (on the Mac side) and WordPerfect (on the Windows side) might seem to be an appropriate solution. But real world experience teaches you that, no matter how useful “filters” and other file format conversion tools such as the excellent MacLinkPlus Deluxe can be, they simply cannot take into account all the little things which are specific to each word processor and which play an important role in document formatting. Very basic things such as tabulations, for example, still aren’t translated properly enough when converting a WordPerfect file into a Microsoft Word file, no matter which tool you use, because WordPerfect’s way of handling tabs is fundamentally different from the approach used by Microsoft Word.

No matter how efficient those conversion tools are, they cannot ensure a level of formatting consistency that is good enough to produce satisfactory results for most documents. They are good enough to give you access to the textual contents of a file and to give you at least an idea of what the formatting is intended to look like, but not enough that you don’t have to fix a number of things or — in many cases — start again from scratch when it comes to document formatting.

In addition, as indicated above, things would already be problematic enough in inter-application file sharing if every word processor user did use character styles and paragraph styles properly in his formatting. But, since most users do not use styles properly, and instead still resort to formatting “tricks” such as multiple spaces, multiple tabulations or multiple empty lines (paragraphs), it is quite obvious that a tiny change in a document can wreak havoc in the document and make its existing formatting a nuisance.

For example, there can be tiny differences in fonts — even fonts with identical names, such as the ubiquitous “Times” — from Windows to Mac that can cause the space between certain characters (the “kerning”) to be slightly different. This can cause certain words to be a bit longer or shorter, which, in turn, can cause certain lines to flow differently, which, in turn, can cause certain paragraphs to be slightly longer or shorter than in the original. Because of this “snow-ball” effect, and because of people’s lack of use of safety features such as styles, you can end up with a document that has a different number of pages, with undesirable trailing lines or empty spaces that were not anticipated by the originator of the document.

In fact, it is already hard enough, even when sharing a Microsoft Word file with a Windows person, because of such architectural differences between the Mac OS and Windows, to make sure that the formatting will be properly preserved between Word for Mac and Word for Windows. Can you imagine how hard it is to make sure it is preserved to an acceptable degree if you don’t even use the same word processor?

The Need for Tables

The issue is not limited to character and paragraph styles. The most obvious example that I can think of where compatibility and readability is paramount is tables.

Everyone uses tables. They are a quick and efficient way to present data or information, and every decent word processor is equipped with table features.

The problem, here again, is that not every word processor uses the same architecture for tables, and not every word processor supports the features (such as vertical alignment, cell merging, etc.) which enable you to produce decent looking tables, or support them using the same approach.

I cannot count the times that I have received a WordPerfect file containing tables that I have had to convert with MacLinkPlus in order to be able to view and edit it in Word. MacLinkPlus makes a decent attempt at reproducing WordPerfect’s table features in Microsoft Word format, but when you start having numbered lists in tables and things like that, I am afraid it can only do so much. (Here again, if table features were used properly, there would be fewer problems, but I’m still not sure it would be enough to guarantee a sufficient level of inter-application compatibility.)

Once again, in order to produce decent-looking documents with tables, you need a certain level of accuracy and a certain palette of features, and there are too many factors that can cause a table not to convert properly.

The Need for “Smart Document” Features

Then there is the issue of what I call “smart document” features, i.e. features such as automatic page numbering (with options for different layouts for odd and even pages), automatic tables of contents, cross-references, end notes, etc.

In many cases, those features are not a luxury for clerical workers, but a necessity. Here again, of course, for the same reasons as above (bad interface), the features are not always used as they should be. But they are being used, and if you want to access them or use them to better control the form your document will take once it leaves your computer and gets edited by someone else, you need a sufficient level of compatibility.

Conclusion

These are just some of the aspects of document production that make it necessary for most users to use a word processor (rather than a text editor or a page-layout program). But even within this limited range of aspects, I have identified many features for which the current level of inter-application and Mac/Windows compatibility is not sufficient to enable most Mac users to remain “Microsoft-free” in a Microsoft-dominated world.

Of course, I am not particularly pleased that I have to spend several hundred dollars every other year on a product that I don’t particularly like to use and that I find deeply flawed in many respects. I am not particularly pleased to be contributing to Mr. Gates’ already obscene personal fortune. By the same token, however, I am not particularly pleased with the current price of gas, and with the fact that most of my money is contributing to the huge profits of big oil corporations and to the indecent salaries of their executives. But I don’t have a choice! I have a car and I have to drive it.

I am afraid that, with Microsoft’s current monopoly, the situation for most Mac users in this Microsoft-dominated world is rather similar, and that expecting the majority of them to “think different” to the point that they will effectively alienate themselves from the vast majority of the people that they have to work with is simply not realistic.

As well, from a political/ethical point of view, there’s something to be said in favour of those people who, rather than to oppose the “enemy” in a blatant, but possibly counterproductive kind of way, elect to strive to “work from within” in order to contribute to the push for progress and improvements that, ultimately, could contribute to overall improvements that might benefit the majority of their fellow computer users.

Some people might find that this is still too optimistic, that Microsoft has gone beyond the point where such an approach is still realistic, that the only options that still might lead to change are things such as a massive boycott of Microsoft products… But this doesn’t really take into account the simple fact that, today and for the foreseeable future, most Microsoft users, whether they use a Mac or a Windows PC, are just basically regular folks trying to get work done, meet their deadlines, and make life as bearable as possible for themselves and for the people that they choose to or have to work with.

Email Pierre Igot

Pierre's "ApplePeel" page here at Applelust.com

What do you think? Hash it in our forums...

MacBook Pro (5-17-06) Dr. Neale Monks. A subjective review of the MacBook Pro
Freeway 4 Pro (2-28-06) Dr. Neale Monks. Freeway Pro, the Quark-like web design program from Softpress, has been substantially revised and sports a bright new look. But do the changes go more than skin deep? Neale Monks finds out.
Astrostack (1-18-06) Dr. Neale Monks. Long respected as one best astronomical image processing applications about, in its newest incarnation AstroStack now runs on the Macintosh. Has the wait been worthwhile?
Virtual PC 7 (11-23-05) Dr. Neale Monks. Virtual PC 7 is the update to the venerable Windows emulator to be entirely all Microsoft’s own work. Can Mac users expect to see any dramatic changes?
Eudora Pro 6.2 (8-5-05) Dr. Neale Monks. Eudora has been one of the most popular e-mail clients for the Macintosh for more than a decade. Neale Monks finds out how it compares with the Mail application that comes with OS X
MacAstronomica (4-22-05) Dr. Neale Monks. How does this amateur naked eye astronomy software stack up?
iKey 2.0 (3-11-05) Jeremy Young. How well does this automation utility work? How much time will you save?
Wolfram Research Publicon (3-11-05) Jeff Terry Does this new scientific word processor live up to the potential?
Microsoft Office 2004, Part 3, Word (1-28-05) Dr. Neale Monks. Are there enough new features to necessitate a jump from v.X?
REALbasic 5.5 (12-03-04) Dr. Neale Monks. Neale takes a look at the latest version of this programming package.
Office 2004, Part 2, Excel and Entourage (11-05-04) Dr. Neale Monks. In the second part of his review of Office 2004, Neale Monks looks at Excel and Entourage.
Phone Valet 2.0 (11-05-04) Pat St-Arnaud. The best question to ask might be "Is there anything that you can't do with this telephone/Mac integration tool?"
TiPaint Touch-up Kit and iKlear iPod Cleaning Kit (10-29-04) Dr. Neale Monks. Is it possible to restore the shiny good looks of iPods and PowerBooks even after years of use? Neale Monks looks at two cleaning products designed especially for Apple hardware.
Microsoft Office 2004, Part 1, PowerPoint (10-15-04) Dr. Neale Monks. In the first part of his review of Office 2004, Neale Monks looks at PowerPoint, for many people still the benchmark for presentation software.
ScrapX (9-17-04) Dr. Neale Monks. Aqueous Software's ScrapX brings the Scrapbook to OS X
CDFinder (8-20-04) Dr. Neale Monks. Finding what you want from among a stack of similar looking CDs can be a hassle, but help is at hand. Neale Monks looks at CDFinder, a budget-priced but powerful cataloguing tool.
Endnote 7 (8-13-04) Dr. Markus Geisen. EndNote 7 is a literature database that seamlessly interacts with your word processor. Is the latest version worth the upgrade?