I do love finding a program that I say, “Oh, I can do all of my needs in this one application.”  It’s awesome because I feel less bloated in a way.  Take for instance, VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop 5.  They both do the same thing, but VMWare Fusion has (in my opinion) a better Unity mode than Parallels’ Coherence.  But Parallels has better support for OpenGL and 3D Graphics on their virtual machines, but VMWare feels more stable with the features it provides.  So, what do I do?  I have both (and use the both evenly just to let you know).

Anyways, back on topic.

Word processing has always been an issue for me on a Mac.  Windows keeps it simpler, somewhat.

Word Processing on Windows

In terms of user interface and design, I think that there are 3 main holders of power in Word Processing on Windows.  There’s Microsoft Word, Corel WordPerfect, and IBM Lotus Symphony.  Sure that are some more out there, like OpenOffice.org and AbiWord, but they follow the trend, and don’t try to set trends.  You may argue that IBM Lotus Symphony itself is based upon OpenOffice.org, but the user interface of Symphony sets it apart.  Symphony has it’s own look and feel, not something like “Hey, use us, we look just like the expensive stuff.”  I think OpenOffice.org and AbiWord are great projects and very useful, but they don’t really try to stand out among the crowd.

All of them pretty much have the features I need, it’s just the interface or pricing.

I love the interface of IBM Lotus Symphony.  The only problem right now is how bulky it is.  I can’t use it because of how slow and clunky it feels.  If it were snappier, it’d be my word processor of choice, but right now, I just keep my eye on it hoping for speed improvements.

Corel WordPerfect is a great tool.  I know people who refuse to use anything else.  I could never really get into it.  I’m looking at it now, and I like what I see, but now I’m on Mac, so I don’t see a point in buying it.

Microsoft Word is pretty much the standard.  I personally don’t like the “ribbon.”

On Windows, I currently use AbiWord or OpenOffice.org (the build from Go-Oo).  Sure I bash them for following, but they’re reliable and useful.  I also don’t use Windows very much, so I just need something cheap to open up documents when I am on Windows.

Word Processing on a Mac

On a Mac, you get the same basic choices that Windows has, MS Word, OpenOffice.org (or NeoOffice), and IBM Lotus Symphony.  You also get a load of other choices like Nisus Writer, Mellel, Bean, Mariner Write, iWork’s Pages, Pagehand, and much more (not to mention things like Scrivener or WriteRoom).

MS Word is still the standard for most people.

OpenOffice, NeoOffice, and all the other derivatives still aim to provide the same feature set of MS Word.  I really hate the user interface on the Mac because it doesn’t flow.  Even though it no longer requires X11, it still looks like a Windows MS Word 97 clone.

IBM Lotus Symphony looks the same as it does on Windows.  I still love the user interface, but it’s still bulky and slow to run.

PageHand is a relatively new player in the Mac OS X Word Processing game.  I really like what it has so far, but it still has a long way to go.  I really need footnotes, headers, footers, and some other things that PageHand currently doesn’t provide.  I want to buy it, but I’m reluctant (although buying it would probably aid in development and get me the features I need).  Another one of my concerns, yet also my likes is it saves to the PDF format.  The actual markup is a comment in the PDF (I believe), which makes me concerned about necessary file size when sharing the document (but I can always Print->PDF I guess).

Mariner Write feels really old.  It’s still updated, but there’s times when I believe, that a meeting should be called, and an update to the modern age should happen.  Sure it’s friendly, but it feels like it’s designed for old people.  Not sure how to describe it, but I feel like I lose control in the wrong direction with it.

iWork’s Pages, on the other hand, makes me feel like I lose control in the right direction.  I really like Pages, but I don’t see me using it in my day to day writing.  I enjoy the interface, I enjoy the features, but when it comes down to some of the parts of the document I need to edit for classes, Pages needs a few more steps than what I want to take.  Mainly for custom footers and headers on every page, easy foot notes, and some other things (although I’m probably doing things wrong because I’ve been told it’s actually easy to do in Pages).

Mellel is a word processor that I keep looking at, trying, and finding myself hating for tampering with.  It’s a great tool, but the learning curve is too steep for me to make the jump.  I’d like to learn to use it, but I can’t find the time nor patience to do so.

Bean is a free minimal word processor.  It has the basic features most people need.  I think it’s okay for basic word processing, and it’s fast as can be, but it lacks the power I need.

Nisus Writer Pro is what I currently use.  I love the interface and the features, but it’s still a bit rough around the edges in comparison to some of the other things out there.  I rarely use images in my documents, but when I do, I always question why I’m trying to do it in Nisus.  Other than that, foot notes, headers, footers, and a lot of other things are easily.

I really like Nisus Writer, PageHand, and Symphony because the most common things I need to do are easily and readily accessible.  MS Word, OpenOffice, and some others have floating windows and a bunch of other things to customize regularly accessed or regularly changed  parts of a document creating too much clutter (in my opinion).  The person working on PageHand probably read my mind or something because they way it handles typography is simply beautiful to me.  I love the way it works.  I wouldn’t have bought Nisus Writer Pro if Symphony worked well enough for daily use on my computer (sorry Nisus).  Symphony is great project, but I think they need to work on making it more usable (or tolerable?).

My main issue with word processing on the Mac is that there are so many choices, and each choice handles things in its own way, which is both a blessing and a curse.  On Windows, it’s more of choose the one that opens the right file formats, or which one works nicely with your wallet.  On Mac, the concern is how do you, as the user, want your word processor to work with you (or how do you want to work with the word processor).

I think there are many great things coming out in the future.  OpenOffice is working on a new user interface (at least for Impress?), MS Office 2010 is supposed to come out soon, and PageHand is still relatively young and growing.  I haven’t heard that many rumors about an iWork ’10 (other than there probably won’t be one).

Anyways, what do you use for word processing and why?

Both are awesome, but I guess it depends on what you’re doing that determines which one you want to buy.  Here are some viewpoints and yeah.  Don’t take me on my word, both offer trials, but this is just from my experience.

Developing

If you’re developing, I say go with VMWare Fusion 3.  VMWare Fusion 3 feels more stable and crashes less on me.  Parallels is pretty stable, but I run into a few quirks every once in a while (mainly with how the windows move or programs closing without notice).

VMWare Fusion also offers some cooler integration features (in my opinion).  Both show the windows notification area, but VMWare introduces an application menu as well (which works on Linux as well, at least Ubuntu).  Parallels shows the start menu if you click on the icon in Mac’s Dock (while in Unity), but it shows the Windows start menu, not feeling very Mac-like.  Okay, okay… that’s not really development related, but when I’m testing stuff, I like feeling some connection between everything.

As for speed, Parallels does feel faster, and it does perform some tasks faster, but it’s not as stable.  I’ve had Visual Studio crash a couple of times so far while it’s pretty stable in VMWare Fusion.

Gaming

Not that I do much gaming.  Parallels wins.  That sums it up.  Sure VMWare has made tons of improvements, but it’s not as good as Parallel’s.  I’ll post a video running some stuff in Parallels, then running in VMWare.  I play some simple games, like The Secret of Monkey Island, and there’s a difference.

So if you’re gaming, then I suggest using Parallels.  Some of the bigger games will die or slow down (in both Parallel’s Desktop 5 and VMWare Fusion 3), but the games that do run tend to run better in Parallels.

Office & Productivity

I say go with either.  Parallels is less stable with some applications, but for general office and productivity applications, it ran well.  VMWare runs fine too.

If you’re buying it to run general Windows apps under Mac OS X, then pick either.  If you want to watch some wmv’s under it, pick either.

Linux Support

Go with VirtualBox.  It provides a really awesome Linux experience…  The only issue is it doesn’t integrate with Exposè or the Dock.  It does do OpenGL and DirectX (for Windows) though (I think).

If you don’t want to use VirtualBox (because you’re running multiple VM’s at once, or just want to spend some money), I say go with VMWare Fusion 3.  In my opinion, the features offered by VMWare beat Parallels making the Linux experience better.  It’s mainly just how they handle the “Unity” or “Coherence” modes.

Other Points

• When switching to Unity or Coherence, VMWare Fusion 3 is faster (at least for me).
  • VMWare has better integration with the Dock.  Applications minimize to their place in the Dock (so I.E. minimizes into the I.E. icon).  Parallels doesn’t do this.
  • Parallels has better integration with Exposè.  Overlapping windows aren’t drawn overlapping in Exposè.
  • For dragging windows, Parallels looks a lot nicer.  I tend to get a trailing effect with VMWare Fusion.
• For running and starting applications, Parallels Desktop 5 is faster (for things like Firefox, Internet Explorer and whatnot).
• In terms of stability, VMWare is better.
  • Applications tend to crash less.
• Feature wise
  • Windows Support: I think Parallels is slightly better at running Windows.
  • Integration with Mac OS X: VMWare Fusion wins in number of features and usefulness, Parallels wins in quality of features (definitely looks nicer).

Buying Advice

Like I said, it depends on what you’re using it for.  I feel safer with VMWare Fusion 3.  It feels more stable, but it is also somewhat sluggish.  If you’re developing, or just looking to run simple Windows apps, VMWare Fusion is good.

For gaming, I like Parallels better.  It’s faster, and the graphics seem smoother.  It also support OpenGL 2 on all versions of Windows, unlike VMWare which only support OpenGL 2 on Windows XP (or is it the other way around?).

Hope this helps you.  Don’t blame me if you spend but don’t like, there’s a free trial for both.

My first looks at it aren’t too impressive.  It’s been quite sluggish for me, but that might just be the Windows XP VM I have.  Switching to “Unity” was about the same speed, exiting “Unity” was definitely faster.

The new start menu is cool.  Integration with the Mac OS X Dock is a lot better.  There’s still the redraw issue when using expose and the windows are minimized or overlapping.

Applications don’t seem to be starting up as fast since I switched.  Like I said, it’s probably just me Windows XP VM.  I’ll post updates if Vista has the same issue, or if a clean install fixes it.

I don’t really see the “improved drawing in unity.”  It’s actually worse for me.  When I drag a window, I get even more lag than usual (like the trailing window outline).  The mouse does seem more responsive though.

There’s a whole list of new features here, but I think a clean install will work much better than upgrading.

Updates:

Vista is definitely running faster.

Snow Leopard seems awesome so far (except that not all of the software I use has been updated for it yet).

The issue I faced today was the installation times.  When I installed Tiger, it only took 1 hour.  Leopard installed in 45 minutes.  Snow Leopard took 32 minutes on my iMac (pretty quick I guess).  On my macBook, it took 1 hour and 37 minutes.  The times for Tiger and Leopard are for my macBook.  My iMac is new and Snow Leopard is the first major upgrade on it.  I was really shocked about the whole 1 hour and 37 minute thing.  People were posting that upgrades were as fast as 13 minutes and the longest I heard was about 50 minutes.  So I allocated a good hour to do this on my macBook.  Just shocked.

I’ll admit, the Finder and Preview run a lot faster on my macBook now.  There are some other applications that also run a bit snappier.  The boot time, shut down time, and connecting to a wireless network are also faster.  So it’s definitely worth the upgrade.  Disk eject is now a lot more intuitive.  The preview in Finder is a great improvement (Expecially when uploading videos and stuff).

My only complain is that the installer didn’t run as fast as it claimed it would.  I’ll admit, I’m probably an anomaly because I do have some custom compiled things and modifications…  But that’s on my iMac, not on the macBook.  So yeah…

Love using Snow Leopard, but let’s hope that if I ever need to reinstall, it’s a lot faster.  The installation itself was easy and simple, but the wait was killing me (out of eagerness to test).

Oh, and one quick questions.  Is anyone else (on a 13″ macBook) experiencing issues with the Grid view of a Stack going out of screen?

The screen is much larger than I thought it’d be.  I’ve seen the 20″ ones in stores, but rarely see the 24″ ones.  You don’t really realize how big they are until you actually sit in front of it.  It’s almost like a TV.  So since it’s almost like one, I’ve installed Plex and the Hulu Desktop just for kicks.

I’ve started working on the layout for my portfolio, and the screen makes it easy enough to fit both the code and a preview.

My mom likes it because it’s nice, bright, and big.  So she likes looking at photos and stuff on it.  I think my parents want to steal it.

It runs great so far; it can handle stuff I’ve thrown at it so far.  The speakers were better than my expectations (although I might get a nice set of external ones).  The only issue I have so far is finding a place for it .  The base is small, but it’s really wide.  So its currently on a table instead of a desk.

In buying it, my parents wanted to get the free iPod and printer for themselves.  We haven’t setup the printer yet, but it looks nice.  My mom has fallen in love with the iPod.  She’s been checking her e-mail, browsing the web, and a bunch of other stuff so far.  I don’t think she’s going to share it with my dad…

I’m pretty sure MS will be gaining a lot of sales.  If you have that large of a market, and you announce a new product, then there is bound to be a large number of sales.  Heck, Apple could release a new iPod, and MS a new Zune, and many will predict that Apple’s sales will be bigger than MS’s because Apple currently has that market.  But if you release a failure like Vista and claim Windows 7 will make up for it, of course you’re going to see an increase in sales.  All of the people who bought Vista will want to upgrade, and all of the people still on XP might want to upgrade (if Windows 7 runs as well as people hope).

Apple gain a lot of people because Vista was a let-down.  Many are predicting that Snow Leopard will be a let down because it aims to improve upon Leopard, and not add hundreds of new features.  Leopard already added a bunch of new features, and I think every once in a while, it’s better to release something faster then something newer.

I’ve also heard that a lot of people think that the Windows 7 task bar is better than Mac’s dock.  I really like Mac’s dock.  Played with the Windows 7 taskbar, and sure it’s “good,” but it doesn’t work the way I work.  Windows 7 also added a lot more productivity features, but Mac’s Exposè is a lot nicer for me.

I also like the whole idea of the hard ware and the software coming from one place.  I don’t need to worry about compatability issues and stuff like that.  I also know most of my other hardware already works with Macs.  I don’t plan on upgrading my laptop to Snow Leopard until I can guarantee everything runs fine on my iMac (which hopefully, Snow Leopard comes out before I order).

One of the main reason’s I’m not switching to Windows 7 is the software available (odd, right?).  Things like Storyist, Scrivener, Nisus Writer, Pixelmator, and etc are only available on Macs.  Also, the number of things to use when developing applications for the Mac are much better (in my opinion) than Windows.

Another issue for me is the “editions” part to Windows.  I don’t really like seeing this in software.  I know the whole “pay for what you’ll use” approach to it, but the price difference between all of the different versions, “eek!”  I can’t afford “Ultimate,” but I can easily afford a Mac OS X upgrade.  I know that Mac OS upgrades are pretty much released yearly, but they do seem a bit more affordable in the long run (if you’re buying one of the upper end versions of Windows when it’s released).  It’s $129, no matter what you’re running previously.  I always do a clean install, so there’s not bloat from previous versions as well.

What were some of the other questions I’ve been asked… (I keep saying I’m buying a new iMac soon, and people want to know why ‘m not thinking about Windows 7)…

I have tried the Windows 7 Beta.  I am a Mac fanboy.  I don’t play computer games on my mac (that why I bought a PS2 and a Wii).  I like the Mac interface much more than Windows.  A lot of the applications’ interfaces seem more intuitive taking advantage of Mac’s features.  Windows 7 does offer some cool new features, but I like Mac’s better.

Mac only requires 512 MB of ram (at the moment), while Vista (non-Home Basic, Home Basic doesn’t compete with any OS in my opinion) needs at least 1 GB ram.

Aero isn’t too appealing to me.  At first I thought it was cool, but there doesn’t seem to be consistance between the window border and the content.  There’s no flow.  So some Mac applications lack a flow in the border and content of the application, but that’s being improved.

More onto editions…  The Windows XP “mode” everyone keeps telling me about is only available on the “Professional” version.  I’m guessing the price difference will reflect the inclusion of the Windows XP SP3 liscense.  I can run Windows XP on my Mac as well.  I guess you can install it under VirtualBox or something on one of the lower-end versions of Windows 7 as well.  To run it on my Mac, I do have to jump through the same hoops as the lower end versions of Windows 7, but I’m guessing, Mac OS X Snow Leopard will be cheaper than Windows 7 Home Premium.

Yeah…  There’s my rant.  I’ll stick with my Mac.  Don’t see me switching back any time soon.  If you’re wondering why I switched to mac in the first place, I’ve always wanted one, but was never allowed to get one until I graduated from High School.  The only reason I can see me switching back to Windows is when I need to use Turbo Tax, but then again, I think that run perfectly fine in a virtual machine.  Or if Mac’s become way out of budget and all of the software on my current Mac becomes way outdated and I’m forced to switch.  Or if I decide I really want to play fallout 3 and don’t want to buy an xBox 360.

• Parallels Desktop 3.0
• VMWare Fusion 2.0
• VirtualBox 2.2

All of my experiences are from installing Windows XP Professional-32 bit.  All guests has the same settings.

I originally purchased Parallels Desktop as it was the main option for Virtualization.  Parallels 3.0 is okay.  I’ve heard that 4.0 is an epic improvement.  Parallels 3.0 is sluggish and painful to use.  It has a better “coherence” mode than VirtualBox, but I can live without the eye candy (it’s a perk, but if it’s more sluggish, then why would I use it?).  I plan on upgrading to 4.0 this summer, but until then, Parallels 3.0 will remain as an outcast.  It was running slower than VirtualBox.  It was much faster than Q though.  The multi-monitor support on Parallels Desktop 3.0 is bad, almost horrible.  It just tells the guest that the screen resolution is (X2 – X1) by (Y2 – Y1)  So if you click maximize, you lose control of windows, windows might appear in regions you can’t see.  It’s find if all of your monitors are the same resolution and positioned in a square or a rectangle, but if you have a setup like mine (13-inch macBook and 20-inch monitor) it doesn’t work.

VirtualBox 2.2 is an awesome improvement from the 1.X version.  2.2 added much more support on Macs for other guest operating systems.  I’m fairly certain that VirtualBox was the first to offer a “seemless” mode for Linux guests.  The question being why would I want a seemless Linux guess on Mac when a lot of the stuff is ported over?  Just to be able to do it.  VirtualBox is fast and effecient.  One of the problems I have is it lacks multi-monitor support.  So for free, it does an awesome job, and the only perks of the paid software seems to be better support for some items (like 3-D gaming, Multi-monitor support, and some other things).  For my purposes (browser testing and cross-platform app testing) VirtualBox is fine, but if you know anything about me, I’d rather pay a lot for a name than to get something cheap or free.  VirtualBox rocks, but people like me tend to crave more and file for bankruptcy early on in life.

VMWare Fusion is so far my favorite.  I hear that Parallels Desktop 4.0 beats it hands down, but until I upgrade, VMWare Fusion is what I’ll use.  My one problem with it is that VirtualBox starts up a bit faster than it.  Once it gets up and running, I can’t really see any differences in speed, but I do see differences in functionality.  The multi-monitor support in Fusion is awesome.  The “Unity” mode does exactly what it’s called.  Windows works on my Mac just like it should.  The windows can be dragged anywhere and if I use the maximize button, it only maximizes in that monitor, not in all of them.  If feels like they’re working just fine together.  Parallels Desktop 3.0 makes me feel like Windows is running in a separate application, like it’s struggling to work.  VirtualBox works fine, and in a single-monitor setting, it’s fine, but Exposé doesn’t work as nice as it does in Parallels and Fusion.

So, in terms of cost, VirtualBox wins hands down.  You get the most for your money.  It runs fast, handles most of what you throw at it, has a “seemless” mode, and is good for those who can settle with it.

In terms of functionality, VMWare Fusion has my heart.  They added educational purchasing options, so for those poor unfortunate college students like me, you can grab a copy at $40 instead of $80 (heck, buying it new in school is cheaper than me upgrading to Parallels Desktop 4.0 at $57).

Parallels Desktop 4.0, I’ve been told, surpasses Fusion, so I’ll post an update on that later on.

If you’re wondering what I do, I basically test different web site designs and interfaces on different platforms.  VirtualBox is enough for that, but now I’m doing desktop application interface design and testing.  VirtualBox is enough for that, but the features in Parallels and Fusion make them better options as a Windows Virtual Machine in one of those integrates better with Mac OS X.

I don’t really do gaming or 3-D interface design, so I can’t review anything like that yet.  This summer, I should hopefully officially open my portfolio, so wish me luck with that.  Hopefully I can find a job next year >.<

I do like SousChef.  Didn’t see that one coming, but I do cook, and I’ve been looking for a recipe manager, and it seems good enough for the job.
I hope the locked apps get unlocked.  I didn’t buy in hopes that they’d be unlocked, but after seeing them, they look pretty awesome.

Not sure if I’d suggest buying it yet.  I was looking at Picturesque and Acorn for a while now, so I bought it for those 2.  The other apps might win me over.  I was watching the revealing and I was bummed out when they started with the eBay app, but once they said Picturesque and Acon, I was sold.  Although I was a bit confused because I was reading articles on how the developer for FlyingMeat was against MacHeist at first, maybe things have changed for the better?

But yeah… I’m going to go play with my new apps   Hopefully MacHeist regains control of the MySQL database soon…

If you’re planning on buying the bundle, feel free to use this link to say I referred you and get me more crap for my mac.

Now I have the best of both worlds!

That, my dear reader, is WriteRoom in front of some Gnome’s terminal.  Ubuntu in seemless mode on my Mac.  Do I hear a “awesome”?

So yeah…  My day was made slightly better when I saw this (they released the update when my laptop was indisposed).

I hope I can do it, but I have to keep in mind that college comes first.  I’m in the middle of choosing a writing software though.  I know I don’t want to use a standard Word Processor like MS Word or OO Writer, so I’ve been looking around.  I first saw Bean, but it’s still a standard word processor.  I was considering it since it’s minimal and runs fast, but I was pretty sure I’d need something more.  Books and Novels need a better organizational setup for the “word processor” or “text-editor.”

So there are three different pieces of software I’m currently torn between, 1 is sort of knocked out do to some reviews, but they are StoryMill, Jer’s Novel Writer, and Scrivener.  StoryMill caught my attention from MUPromo, but after reading the reviews, I decided to avoid it for now.

I started to play with both Jer’s Novel Writer and Scrivener.  I’m stuck between deciding which one I like better.  I fell in love with the user interface and ease of use of Jer’s Novel Writer, but Scrivener does have a bit more features.  Jer’s Novel Writer is much easier to use.  I like the margin notes and the ease of use of the database.  They both have full screen, which is awesome, but Scrivener’s is a bit better and easier on the eyes.  But Scrivener does have some setbacks.  The user interface isn’t as kind and intuitive as Jer’s Novel Writer.  It also doesn’t seem to make writing the primary purpose of the software.  It seems to be based on organization than actual writing, but I guess it makes up for it in features.

I’ll post some screenshots and more in depth comparison as time goes on, but right now I’m torn.  Both are ~$30, which seems great compared to some of the other things I’ve seen out there, but I’m not sure which one is for me.  I guess I’ll play around and find out.