iWork 2.0?

Okay. I had the chance to actually try it, and I guess those who reported to me for macnews.net.tc didn't actually _try_ anything besides the templates. If you choose 'Empty', it _does_ create an empty document and you _can_ just write away. Some keyboard shortcuts are a bit strange in the German language as far as I can tell, but otherwise, it looks and acts nicely. It _can_ export HTML, too, btw., but most users will probably use .doc or .pdf export more.

I'll give it another whirl now...

Ah, btw.: Pages has its own file format, which neither TextEdit nor MS Word can open so far. The file extension is .pages, which makes sense. Sadly, you cannot set the default file format to anything different, as for example .doc (which would be good if you intend to use Pages as a Word replacement but have to work with other people often...).
 
I think you'll find that the .pages is really a package and the actual document is in xml somewhere within that package.
 
I disagree with Fryke. The "for the rest of us" is a good phrase used to describe people who do not follow the masses. Which happens to be those who use Apple computers.
The features like creating newsletters were already available for Appleworks users but it appears to me that iWork just does it better and is more exciting. Also consider that it is good that Apple has surpassed what word processors are expected to do. I would rather see an integration of existing applications such as iCal and Mail. This only leaves phasing out our friend Appleworks.
 
fryke said:
Okay. I had the chance to actually try it, and I guess those who reported to me for macnews.net.tc didn't actually _try_ anything besides the templates. If you choose 'Empty', it _does_ create an empty document and you _can_ just write away. Some keyboard shortcuts are a bit strange in the German language as far as I can tell, but otherwise, it looks and acts nicely. It _can_ export HTML, too, btw., but most users will probably use .doc or .pdf export more.

I'll give it another whirl now...

Ah, btw.: Pages has its own file format, which neither TextEdit nor MS Word can open so far. The file extension is .pages, which makes sense. Sadly, you cannot set the default file format to anything different, as for example .doc (which would be good if you intend to use Pages as a Word replacement but have to work with other people often...).
Click to expand...
Big deal if you can't set .doc to be your default format. You can still Save As and make it one.
Pages is going to be awesome. Blank, using a template or making your own. And it would appear that the inspector will be pretty powerful.
I am most interested in seeing how Pages works with Keynotes. Keynote could suddenly become very powerful if you can import a Page into Keynote and then add transitions to the bits and pieces. Imagine opening the header, then a column, then another column. If something like this can happen it will be unbelievable.
If not Pages still looks awesome.
 
Pages converts .doc files when opening (i.e. they turn 'untitled') and you can 'export' as .doc. That's it.
 
kcmac said:
Big deal if you can't set .doc to be your default format. You can still Save As and make it one.
Click to expand...

Well, it _is_ a big deal if you intend to work a lot with people who're using Office. It'll mean you'll always end up with double files. They send you a .doc, you open (convert) it and have to export it again. It'd sure be a _lot_ easier under these circumstances to be able to use .doc as default file format. Or if not that, if Pages could open .doc files without converting them and you could just hit 'save' and it'd save it to the original file's location/name, you know...

For example if you open a .doc with TextEdit and hit save. Like that I'd want it.

About the inspector: I actually like MS Word 2004's expanding palettes better, because I can choose several to be open at a time, whereas with Pages I have to switch between the tabs. But I'm sure I'll get used to those over time...
 
The "export to PDF".. is that the system-wide "save as pdf" from the print dialog, or have they taken the MS approach and added another inconcistency, by adding an "export to PDF" menu item?
 
Well, I wouldn't call it 'inconsistency', because it's in the export dialogue. You go to 'File', 'Export', and then you choose between PDF, Word, HTML, RTF and Plain Text.
 
You can also save as PDF from the print dialogue, of course, and the result is EXACTLY the same. So that's good. I think it's a _good_ thing to have PDF in the export dialogue, too, since we shouldn't push users to only use Word or HTML. And some users - although that seems impossible almost - might otherwise not think of PDF as the perfect option that it really is (WYSIWYG).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top