From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).

Reveal codes[edit]

a note for any wordperfect fan that might happen to see it: what are "reveal codes"? -- Tarquin 13:08 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

It's like, say, if you used a web page editor, being able to flip between the page as displayed on a browser, and the page as HTML code, so you can see where that pesky & persistent italics tag is hiding in the text. It's the main feature that a WP user misses on being forced to use Word -- Malcolm Farmer 13:31 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Thank you :) (wow! wikipedia is fast!) -- Tarquin
I took out the WYSIWYG link in the description of the Reveal Codes edit mode, because WP had Reveal codes right back when it was just a DOS program and didn't do anything like what we now call WYSIWYG -- Malcolm Farmer 14:07 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Well I would have called its normal editing mode "WYSIWYG" even in the DOS days--which is the last I used it (4.2, if I remember correctly), in that in normal editing mode it showed the page as it would be laid out, showed bold characters and underlined italics, etc. Yes, it was just a text screen, but it was "WYSIWYG" in the sense that it didn't show anything that wasn't actually printed, and it showed stuff as close as it could to what would be printed. True, it didn't have fonts and colors and such, and maybe you have to have that these days to be considered "WYSIWYG". --LDC
Perhaps call it "formatted display"? "WYSIWYG" really means that what is on-screen is an exact rendering of the printed version, typeface, size, effect, line width and all -- Tarquin

Does anyone know of another word/text processor anywhere that includes a function that displays (in a separate window, serially, as in WP's "reveal codes" function) input text and/with formatting codes/codewords enabling the user to spot errors and do quick format debugging, error correction, and accurate format changes "on the go" so to speak?  I don't, and I know MS Word doesn't.  So what else is there?   K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How about EasyScript, Speedscript, Swiftscript, and the best of them all, The Write Stuff wordprocessors? However, you won't find any articles about them in Wikipedia. (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed[edit]

I removed "(At least one law firm had problems from submitting a Word-edited document that exceeded the maximum allowed word count because Word did not count the footnotes)"... it is hearsay, and incidental. One law firm out of 100,000s had problems. This is anecdotal at best. The sentence needs a great deal of re-work if it is going to be of use. Kingturtle 20:39 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC) Also, I removed "External link: (problems with Word's word count) " because the link is broken. Kingturtle 20:41 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I also removed "The market seems to have disagreed with the WordPerfect faithful" because it is vague and not neutral. "The market seems" and "WordPerfect faithful" need to be re-worded. The entire sentence needs to be re-thought. Kingturtle 20:47 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Actually the word count problem is not hearsay: there was an actual court case where the judge scolded lawyers using MS Word who got the wrong count. A quick google search turned up the original link:

WP Corporation article?[edit]

Perhaps WP Corporation can get its own entry? Maybe after I read "Almost Perfect" I'll know enough to write up something decent... :) --Krupo 06:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

POV phrases[edit]

I've been using WordPerfect since 1985 and have written 17 books on it and millions of words and love it. And I hate Word. Nevertheless, I feel that there were many POV or semi-POV phrases in the article that had to be edited.Hayford Peirce 02:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

File format consistency[edit]

Unlike Word, all editions of WordPerfect since version 6 also use the same file format, making it easy for users to share documents between newer and older copies.

You can't say "Unlike Word" because that implies that Word and WordPerfect share the same file format, or have the same version 6. Indeed, Word files are compatible from Word 97 to Word 2003. The phrasing as-is implies a non-NPOV, so I recommend removing the comparison to Word in that sentence. --Ilya 17:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There might be a way to clarify the wording on that, but the phrase is correct in asserting that WP's file formats have been the same since version 6. Word changed formats between version 6 and 97 (aka "7"). Word users also report myriad problems between file formats, but that's another story. :) Krupo 03:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

WordPerfect and Borland[edit]

WordPerfect was never sold to Borland. On the contrary, WordPerfect bought the Quattro spreadsheet from Borland and tried to bundle it into the WordPerfect Office suite.Hayford Peirce 01:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, reverse the names of the players. Borland marketed its programs plus WP Corp's WordPerfect as a suite, before eventually Borland sold its products (to whom, I'm not sure... I don't know if this was before or after Novell bought the package). SterlingNorth

That's correct; "Borland Office" was a package sold by Borland, including WP (licensed from WPCorp) as its word processor, as Borland's word processor (Sprint) had no market share to speak of. At the time Borland was gearing up to compete product-for-product with MS and Lotus, and probably hoped to buy WP eventually. Then Novell stepped in with the same hopeless goal (after all, they already had DR-DOS and Netware to compete with MS-DOS and NT), and bought out both companies' officeware. Tverbeek 02:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Borland was indeed a fairly strong player at the time. I think what WPC had planned on doing was acquiring Borland, or at least a merger. Yes, they bought Quattro (to replace the lackluster PlanPerfect--which was terrific if you were a power WP user). However, they also bought Paradox, which was more powerful and flexible than DataPerfect. DataPerfect was pretty good, but it lacked programming concepts of languages (like recursion and looping). Our team was tasked with coming up with ways of developing a LOT of DP setups that did something it wasn't really designed to do. Once all this was complete, Novell came along. This really isn't surprising since they were a couple of miles apart and had worked quite cooperatively from the beginning. WPC wrote apps primarily to Netware and I'm sure Novell provided them with deeply discounted file and print server licenses (if only for development).DieselRam (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to other word processors[edit]

I think the "other word processors" should be explicitly named in order for the section to sound plausible. Currently the "more stable", "easier", "greater use" phrases sound like taken live from an ad. At the same time, the points such as "a wide variety of import and export filters" aren't really comparative.

So, what I'm proposing is: either change the section to "features" and remove the comparative points; or change it to "comparison to MS Word" and remove the non-comparative points; or specify all word processor names that all the points apply to and remove the non-comparative points. -Unavowed

WordPerfect for UNIX not mentioned in version history[edit]

Wordperfect for UNIX also existed, but I'm not sure what versions were out there. On Corel's FTP site you can find demo versions for HP, IBM, SGI, SCO and Sun systems. However, I don't know what versions these are, and what versions have been released on this. - 22:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that too. I used WP 5.1 on an AIX mainframe regularly about 10 years ago--it was almost exactly like the DOS version, but there was also an e-mail client, a plaintext editor, and a curses shell, similar to pine/pico's "pilot". —Chowbok 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There is also no Wordperfect for OS/2 listed.
I seem to recall a version for JavaOS too. Anyone remember WP on the JavaStation.

WordPerfect & OOo[edit]

Quoting the article: Advocates of open-source software scoffed at its proprietary, closed-source nature, and questioned the viability of a commercial application in a market dominated by free software, such as and numerous others.

OOo was not released until June 2000 -- a full three years after the release of WordPerfect Office for Linux. Were any office suites available for Linux before WordPerfect Office for Linux was released? jonathon 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Applix springs to mind, it was well established when I bought my copy for AUD59 in 1999. Applix was nicely programmable in the Emacs tradition (although without LISP), and that lead the company to pursue markets which wanted "clever documents". Applixware increasingly de-emphasised the use of Applix for word processing and eventually stopped selling it all together. In 2000 Adobe released a beta port of the UNIX variant of FrameMaker, but then did not proceed with a commercial release. In 1998 StarDivision was offering StarOffice for $0 on Linux, but it was pretty buggy. It wasn't until Sun acquired it that sufficient bug squashing occurred. When OOo was open sourced --- and thus included in distributions --- there wasn't any great desire to go to the hassle of using anything else. Gdt (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Future versions[edit]

The "Future Versions" section really needs to be cleaned up. I'm afraid of doing it myself, because I'm afraid of upsettin people who have invested their time in this article, but really, it's a collection of past speculation, POV, and disorganization. I think this section should be discussed (with regards to what we should do with it).-- 02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested reorganization[edit]

I've corrected some nits and added some new material, but was frustrated by an article organization that impedes discussion. I intend to return and work on it, but here are my initial thoughts:

Add the topic "WordPerfect Ownership so there is a section near the top that sketches the history of WordPerfect ownership. As it is, there is no coherent discussion of WordPerfect Corp.'s merger into Novell and no discussion at all of Novell's sale of less than the full product line to Corel. So the reader gets no clue about Corel's role or its strategic blunder in allowing Novell to retain "Groupwise," or the other Library/Office tools. Should also summarize the history of Corel being taken private after Michael Cowpland and Derek Burney were ousted from Corel leadership.

Add the topic "Marketing" to discuss the history of WordPerfect's marketing, i.e., the concentration of features for law offices in the early days, WordPerfect's development and marketing as a development platform for system integrators, VARs, and add-on developers. Novell's plan to go head-to-head with Microsoft from a Netware-DR DOS platform with market-leading office software to counter MS Office. Corel's blunder in not recognizing that WordPerfect was a development platform, its abandonment of the platform developers, its focus on the retail channel that had worked for Draw, and its blunder of playing into the "let's make a deal" games of the big software retailers, creating the market pressure that drove retail prices below the price Corel charged VARs and system integrators, the entirely predictable resulting exodus of the developers, VARs, and system integrators to Microsoft's office development platform.

Add the topic "Current Market Conditions" for a discussion of trends in WordPerfect's market. Provides a logical space to discuss long-term trends, WordPerfect's loss of market share, its only niche market where it retains the lead being the law office market, the same market that fueled WordPerfect's growth, Microsoft's dominance of the market, Sun's acquisition of StarOffice and open sourcing of that platform as, OOo's growing market share (estimated 10% now), the adoption by OASIS and then ISO of the OpenDocument file format standard for office documents, Microsoft's countermove with its XML formats, Corel's refusal to reveal its plans for OpenDocument and Unicode support.

Part of the organizational problem also stems, I think, from trying to separate discussion of WP DOS and WP Windows. As demonstrated in the text, it is very difficult to talk about one without talking about the other. The divison by operating systems supported also gives short shrift to WordPerfect support for many other platforms. It might allow better organization by dropping those two topics and incorporating their elements and those of the Ownership topic discussed above under a "History" topic. Subtopics might go something like: Initial Development, Satellite Computing Era, WordPerfect Corp. Era, Novell Corp. Era, Corel Eras, then go to a "WordPerfect Today" topic that provides an overview of important features.

I'll think about it some more, but I'm pretty sure it's the organization that is messing things up.

Very good points. The current page reads like product literature. 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WordPerfect complaints[edit]

Could there be room for a section with gripes, in hopes that the programmers read it and improve the product, or at least provide workarounds? I hate, for example, the way the screen jumps around when you save in WP 12 for Windows, or the way the font toolbar says that "Selected Text" is some particular font when really it's got three different fonts. Or the nonstandard use of CTRL-W. Or the failure of the down arrow to take you from inside the last line to the end of the last line. Or the way WP reformats text when you paste it. Or the failure of the blockquote format to change text if it's highlighted over a page break. Or, worst of all, the inability to even use multiple document windows without seeing that gray background thing that blocks your other windows. Actually, the worst thing may be the nagging dialog box that asks you if you want to save the highlighted text as a separate document. Could anyone possibly do that often enough to justify presenting the question to all users rather than making it an obscure menu option? Maybe this section could be called "Reasons WP is a Discount Word Processor" or "What Makes Me Curse WP Every Day." Or maybe these things have been fixed in the current version.

I haven't noticed those problems with WP 5.1 for DOS. Maybe it's a Windows related bug?
I have a feeling WP for DOS also obscures the desktop even when no documents are open. Does DOS even use a desktop and windows? If not, why would anyone use DOS? (Does anyone use DOS?)

--Curiously strange 15:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia there is no place for this. In case you encounter bugs, just go to the newsgroups of corel (find the link on; go to community and click on newsgroups and you will get a list of newsgroups on the different corel products). Annabelleke 08:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WordPerfect thesaurus format[edit]

Can somebody comment on the way the Thesaurus file is structured in Wordperfect?

Is it interchangeable between different versions of Wordperfect?

Where can I get a German Thesaurus file that is compatible with what Wordperfect expects? (My best choice for Wordperfect would be WP 5.1 for DOS.) Would the WP 5.1 Thesaurus file (written for DOS) work with Wordperfect for the Atari ST?

How compatible is the Atari ST version of Wordperfect's Thesaurus with the Mac version? Can they be switched freely?

Advertising tone[edit]

Is it just me or does this sound a bit like an advertisement for WordPerfect?

"No description of WordPerfect for DOS would be complete without mentioning its Alt-keystroke macro facility..." 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this entire article reads like a puff piece written by marketing folks. It is full of opinion about how great WordPerfect was/is. It should stick to the facts and the history, and not make judgements or espouse opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason that this is mentioned, as just one example, is that at the time it was a very big deal which no other product had, and it saved users a lot of time. It is not horn blowing, it is a signal fact in the development spectrum. - KitchM (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. This article reads like a hagiography.... Gerweck (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

To mention a kind of an advertizing tone is a kind of nitpicking. Is there an additional nitpicking box anywhere ? I threw myself through the complete text, wondering where I would find that advertizing tone. Blah. More counting the lacks and instabilities and missing features (like Unicode support) found. If one really thinks that is like an advertisement, ok, but from a very very bad Ad office. It should be clear that WP was/is a very good piece of software, until it began to struggle with Windows, lost its markets, and there is no reason to hide its benefits. Please someone, do us a favor and remove that damn marker, because what it says is simply not true. No one will buy that Corel Product now because of one so-called advertizing line of text here, which isn't existing at all. Regards (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


Grammatik should be mentioned!

Before WordPerfect[edit]

This section needs fact-checking, especially the claims involving Weidner and Wydner: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Wydner. Gordonofcartoon 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this section probably should be deleted, as the authors of it have had their accounts removed and all related material deleted as well, more than three months ago. Phuff

Fair use rationale for Image:WordPerfectX3.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:WordPerfectX3.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the obvious[edit]

Before 1992, WordPerfect was almost synonymous with word processing. It had massive market share and training in WordPerfect was almost job one for anyone using a personal computer in business. When Microsoft Windows began to become the platform of choice in the early 90s, WordPerfect was understandably slow to develop a Windows version of their product, and it left open a big void and opportunity for Microsoft Word for Windows (Microsoft's new word processor).

It may have been understandable for WordPerfect to ignore Windows at first, but certainly not wise in retrospect. As a grad student at that time, I can attest that Wordperfect for Windows was far behind Microsoft Word for Windows at that time. By the time WordPerfect corporation "woke up" to the need to develop a good Windows version, it was too late.

I started my master's thesis on Wordperfect for DOS in 1992, and moved it to WordPerfect for Windows. Endless problems were the result. Graphs and charts were messed up and it seemed that 12 pages was about the limit of its capability. I ended up nearly recreating my entire thesis on Microsoft Word for Windows.

It's hard to mention a better candidate for winner of the best "what were they thinking" award for the 1990s. To lose a near-monopoly market share in less than 2 years is surely some sort of record. Landroo 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as a Service bureau 1984~1992, the reason we kept the old version of WordPerfect? Not a clue here except for the mention of the DOJ. Lawyers got tears in their eyes because it could print legal briefs on legal sized paper. Show me Office 2007 doing that. ( It can, but to get it right, you have to mess with a whole host of settings ). Service bureaus made a lot of bread an butter money from law students and lawyers wanting to print their briefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Your point should be mentioned somewhere. Even after all my years in the industry, I still am amazed by this singular blunder. Talk about dropping the ball. WPC sure did. Damn shame. And still, nothing's quite as good. - KitchM (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do I remember a WP upgrade that would have happened about 1990/91, where in the previous version (maybe 4.1) ALT-F7 was "save file" and in the next version (maybe 4.2), the ALT-F7 was "delete current file". They actually HURT their dedicated users, who were used to using a keystroke for "save" and remapping the same keystroke to "delete". I could be wrong, but that's what I remember (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)stevestoneky

PDF edit is actually not unique feature of WordPerfect[edit]

The subsequent release of X3 (identified as "13" internally and in registry entries) has been met with generally positive reviews, due to new features including a unique PDF import capability

Not completely true. PDF import and editing support is featured in recent versions of KWord, part of KOffice - integrated office suite for KDE. For more information look at

--Bocke 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Peacock terms and uncited statements[edit]

I noticed the the following peacock terms and weasel words in the article:

  • WordPerfect Corporation released the program's most successful version ever...
  • ...its unusually user-friendly macro/scripting language, PerfectScript
  • ...have produced disappointing results
  • This capability provided an amazingly powerful way to rearrange data...
  • Unfortunately, this facility could not easily be ported...
  • A new and even more powerful interpreted token-based macro recording and scripting language...
  • Infamously, WordPerfect used F3...
  • WordPerfect for DOS shipped with an impressive array of printer drivers...
  • The Library/Office bundle also included a noteworthy task-switching program...
  • Microsoft Windows had no answer to such powerful features other than a glitz of windows...
  • exceptionally powerful relational database - DataPerfect
  • The site also maintains an extensive clip library for use in PerfectScript programming...
  • The WordPerfect template and document file formats have remained remarkably stable since the WordPerfect 6.x DOS and Windows versions...
  • The DOS version's impressive arsenal of finely tuned printer drivers...

I think the following statements need a citation:

  • WordPerfect users forced to change word processors by employers frequently complain on WordPerfect online forums that they are lost without Reveal Codes...
  • PerfectScript was specifically designed to be user-friendly...
  • WordPerfect for DOS was notable for its Alt-keystroke macro facility...
  • Many people still know and use the function key combinations from the DOS version...
  • ...the developers' wish to keep the user interface free of "clutter" such as on-screen menus
  • ...retains a small but dedicated following...
  • ...Bruce Bastian's older brother - a brilliant programmer who had written some of IBM's earliest disk-caching patents
  • ...These solutions are often created by corporate developers or programmers
  • While Wordperfect retained a majority of the retail shelf sales of word processors...
  • Amongst the remaining avid users of WordPerfect are many law firms and academics who favor the Wordperfect features such as macros and reveal codes...
  • Despite pleas from longtime users...
  • This was an attempt to win back users who had switched to MS Word because WordPerfect for Windows was so different from the DOS version they knew and loved...
  • Although the Linux distribution was fairly well-received, the response to WordPerfect for Linux was varied...
  • Developers of other Linux-compatible word processors questioned the need for another application in the category
  • Advocates of open-source software scoffed at its proprietary, closed-source nature, and questioned the viability of a commercial application in a market dominated by free software...
  • ...has been met with generally positive reviews
    Michael2 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Having worked with Perfectscript for 4 1/2 years as a programmer for a state agency, I can say that for me, Perfectscript was indeed easier to use, and often more powerful than Visual Basic. Indeed, some of the limitations on Perfectscript were imposed by Windows. The team I was on was able to complete the federal automation requirements; the team trying to program using Visual Basic was not, despite their having more funding and more experienced programmers. From a design standpoint, Perfectscript owes an incalculable debt to J. Dan Broadhead, the lead programmer through version 10. Perfectscript is capable of working with WordPerfect, QuattroPro, Presentations, and Paradox, as well as alone, and can be compiled as an executable. Based on these experiences, I object to the use of 'weasel' or 'peacock' words when it comes to Perfectscript. The limitations the macro language currently has owes more to Corel's short-sighted failure to maintain a full-time development team than anything else. I have programmed in GWBasic, Pascal, C++, dBaseIII+, Visual Basic. I found Perfectscript the easiest to learn, and has made learning PHP and Javascript a snap.
WP still does both Reveal Codes and Tables better than Word, even Word2007. Based on hundred of hours of Enterprise use, WP8 ran just fine on NT4, 2000, and XP, a testament to its stability, even when the core of the WP8 program was not designed to run on the newer operating systems.
While the WP Forums are good, especially WP Universe, a reference to the Perfectscript programming language should also include a link to J. Dan's website:[1]
- DTavona (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that one of the problems with the concern about so-called peacock terms and weasel words is that too many overzealous editors fail to notice that the article is about the product, and the comments regarding the product are obviously to be taken within that context. It would be stupid to ignore sound facts because someone thought it was too grandiose or self-serving or not based in reality. When I read an article, I demand to know all about the subject, not just one slanted viewpoint. I believe that most of the statements are just fine. - KitchM (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Editing down peacock terms and weasel words does not make Wikipedia represent only one point of view; on the contrary: those things erode our neutrality, and are more often than not unverifiable. This is especially important on articles about commercial products because Wikipedia can be seen as neither endorsing not criticizing a particular product because that could potentially result in legal action and is also just generally bad form for an encyclopedia. We can cite other people praising or criticizing WordPerfect all we want, but if there's no citation, we must be completely neutral, and if there is, it must be accompanied by a qualifying phrase indicating that the praise or criticism doesn't originate from us. Gnorris97 (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I want to mention that I fixed some of the above comments' formatting because it was nonstandard and hard to read. I didn't touch any of the text. Gnorris97 (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Classic mode[edit]

Worth putting in a few more words about it? I was unsure what it meant and did a quick external google... basically it brings it back to a sort of DOS-like appearance, but still inside of a normal window (not a windowed text terminal) and with all the WYSIWYG stuff. The odd thing is that this seems to be touted as something unique... whereas I was using this a few years ago in Word 6 (then 97 and 2000) on an old, old Win9x laptop, and still go back to it from time to time on my newer XP one with Word '03 - it has all the options, e.g. going to proper full-screen with no toolbars or scrollbars (unless you explicitly want them), white text on a blue background, etc, just not under any fancy name. It even allows you to set the keyboard shortcuts to be WP compatible and, though it's probably not as detailed as these reveal codes, can display various publishing and markup codes that are usually hidden. How quietly controvertial :D (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Almost Perfect" link[edit]

I added back the "Almost Perfect" book link, because it well documents the history of WordPerfect and someone had it removed. -Mardus (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with putting in a link to "Almost Perfect" but I do want to temper it with the knowledge of ABPcorp and what went on inside. This was Alan and Bruce's baby and they brought on Pete for whatever reason. They also forced him out just before the sale to Novell (possibly because of). Pete has a somewhat bitter tone throughout the story, but trust me, it's well-deserved: he was a tyrant and a terrible manager, not to mention a miserable communicator (but that's just my experience from within the hallowed streets of 1600 North Technology Parkway).DieselRam (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, it is a good history piece with a lot of useful insight into the operations of the corporation. This shows some of the screwups by Alan and Bruce, with lasting damage to us all. It deserves to be included for further reading. By the way, please properly indent replies. - KitchM (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Terrible reorganization of article?[edit]

When I visited the article less than a year ago (see diff from 01.05.2007.), it was very interesting, but now it almost sounds more like another marketing page for Corel :( -Mardus (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DEC Rainbow? OS and hardware versions need clarification[edit]

"Known versions for the DEC Rainbow 100 include version (?), released November 1983. In addition, versions of WordPerfect have also been available for Apricot, Atari ST, DEC Rainbow," The DEC Rainbow could run either CP/M or DOS (might have had some incompatibilities with IBM DOS). It had one Intel 8088 CPU and one Zilog Z80 CPU for the purpose of running either Operating System. If someone could find citations, please specify whether it is WordPerfect for Rainbow DOS, or CP/M (unlikely). In general, microcomputers of the early years only had one specific OS, but, as in the case with the Rainbow, the operating system should be specified. Cuvtixo (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Why is the version after 12 called X3 instead of 13?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because of Triskaidekaphobia ?? --RayBirks (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't "X" the Roman numeral 10? So "X" + 3 = 13 in Arabic numerals. Cute. —QuicksilverT @ 18:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't the picture show a blank document with all the default settings? (see the picture for Microsoft Word). JagunTalkContribs 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WordPerfect is a proprietary word processing application developed by Corel[edit]

WordPerfect was not developed by Corel. Corel bought WordPerfect from Novell in 1996. WordPerfect sold itself to Novell in 1994. Zork101 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WordPerfect Corporation sources[edit]

Atchison, Sandra D., "The Land of Plenty--Of Software," Business Week, October 19, 1992, p. 84.

, "WordPerfect: How Long Can it Lead the Band?" Business Week, August 11, 1986, p. 66A.

Bulkeley, William M., "Upstart WordPerfect Corp. Finds Niche: Word Processor Dents Position of 'Big Three'," Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1987, p. 6. Fisher, Lawrence M., "WordPerfect Appoints a New Chief," New York Times, December 10, 1993, p. 24. Impoco, Jim, "How Utah Created a Mountain of Jobs: A Pro-Business Climate Lures High-Tech Industry," U.S. News & World Report, February 22, 1993, pp. 43-44. Rebello, Kathy, "The Glitch at WordPerfect," Business Week, May 17, 1993, pp. 90-91. "Relearning Its Lines," Economist, June 26, 1993, pp. 73-74. Rooney, Paula, "WP Duel Scars Smaller Companies," PC Week, June 22, 1992, p. 221. Seymour, Jim, "Fast, Flexible, & Forward-looking," PC Magazine, February 29, 1988, pp. 92-104. Strehlo, Christine, "What's so Special about WordPerfect," Personal Computing, March 1988, pp. 100-116. "WordPerfect Corporation's Alan Ashton On: Taking Giant Steps," Personal Computing, March 1988, pp. 119-120. Zachary, G. Pascal, "Novell to Buy WordPerfect, Lines of Borland," Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1994, pp. A3, A9.

, "WordPerfect Ships Windows Version of Software, Heating Up Competition," Wall Street Journal, November 11, 1991, p. B3.


WordPerfect Corporation is the manufacturer of the world's all-time best selling, prepackaged word processing software. Along with its flagship WordPerfect word processing program, the company develops and markets software for a variety of computer operating systems. Its products serve three principal markets: business, work group, and consumer applications. The company is additionally recognized as the software industry leader in providing customer support for its products, which are offered in 28 languages and marketed throughout the world by more than 55 international affiliates serving nearly 120 countries.

WordPerfect traces its roots to a partnership which began in 1976 between Bruce Bastian, a Brigham Young University (BYU) graduate student and director of BYU's marching band, and BYU computer science professor Alan Ashton. The two collaborated in devising a software program which would display band formations in three-dimensional graphics. After Bastian received his master's degree in computer science the pair again joined forces to design a word processing system for the city of Orem's Data General Corp. minicomputer system in 1979. Bastian and Ashton kept the rights to the WordPerfect software they designed for Orem, deciding to market it through their own company.

With only one customer reference and a meager expense budget, Ashton and Bastian started Satellite Software International (SSI) in 1980. Relying largely on word-of-mouth advertising, SSI began to sell WordPerfect 1.0, which represented a significant departure from the Wang standard for word processing. The WordPerfect program was based on the idea that distracting computer functions should be kept off of the computer screen and that users should be able to simply start typing on a blank screen. Cuvtixo (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WordStar Function Keys[edit]

”This was in contrast to WordStar, which used only Ctrl, in conjunction with traditional typing keys.”

A common misunderstanding seems to be that WordStar did not utilize the function keys. In fact, from version 4.0 onwards, all function keys were used alone and with Alt, Shift and Ctrl keys, making a total of 40 key functions available just as in WordPerfect and Microsoft Word. An added bonus was that each function key could be reprogrammed by using the WSCHANGE program, also used for modifying screen colours, page settings etc.

Pardon my English; it's a foreign language. Harjasusi (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WordStar originated on CP/M; those computers only had Ctrl and Shift modifiers and few had F-keys. My Kaypro II didn't have F-keys, anyway. The ctrl-key [release] another-key was the primary mode of control. For example, to save a marked block of text, press ctrl-K (for the block command) and then S to save. WordStar also made extensive use of "dot commands" which were usually headers in the document that specified line spacing, character spacing, mono versus proportional; the only one I can think of off hand is ..LS 8 for 8 lines per inch.

When WordStar migrated to a DOS machine, then the F-keys and Alt modifier became a possibility. By that time, I'd already cut my teeth on Wang/MultiMate (since it was the only thing Utah State University had in our department) and when WordPerfect came along a short time later, it was a HUGE improvement. DieselRam (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Law firms[edit]

This has already been mentioned a few times above, but I noticed that the article doesn't really mention WordPerfect's popularity among law firms -- far more popular on average than it is with the typical business. Mostly has to do with easier formatting when it comes to briefs, case files, etc. A recent TUAW article reminded me of it -- you can see some colloquial evidence of that here as part of a larger article on iPhone apps, although it's not really an RS.

Anyway, I don't have the time anymore to edit beyond minor grammatical or spelling fixes, but if someone is enamored enough with this article, maybe it'd be a good direction to move in. I know, I know... WP is filled with people asking for changes and putting citeneeded tags; be bold and do it yourself. I'm a hypocrite, what can I say. (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Keyboard template image[edit]

I realize that the keyboard template image I added to the article has a copyright notice, but I believe it falls under fair use because it promotes scholarship and because the version of WordPerfect the template is for is so old as to have become obsolete and therefore the copyright owner can no longer exploit the material for profit.

File conversions[edit]

One of the features of WP not mentioned in this article is it's virtually near perfect file conversions, especially and particularly when going from WordPerfect to MS Word.  While doing legal typing I've formatted new WP documents to use the same format as MS Word documents that I was asked to copy and edit.  After finalizing and proofing my WP document, I simply save it as an MS Word (pick a version) and return the MS Word document to my client.  Rarely have I encountered even slight changes from the original MS Word document I copied. Try doing the reverse with MS Word.   MS Word doesn't even come close to rendering an error-free conversion.  And it isn't because Big Gorilla Microsoft doesn't have some of the best and brightest software designers and engineers in the world in its shop.  (Think 'marketing'.)

If you do a "save as" function in WordPerfect you'll see a list of historical and long-out-of-use file types that's like going back in time.  And WP will convert a contemporary document to any one of those old file types -- if you've a mind to do so.  Like Wordstar for example, the text editor I used "back in the day" of 5.25 inch floppy disks when i was lugging my KayPro II all over the world.  So a bit about the file conversion range and excellence of WordPerfect (above all others) would be advantageous and rather helpful in this article, I should think.  K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that WordPerfect purchased the file-translating rights from an external company, or acquired the company, I don't know which. I did know the name of the external company, but it's been way too long for my memory.deisenbe (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WordPerfect 5.0 on the Amiga?[edit]

The article states that the Amiga version topped out at WP4.1, however it's my impression that a version of 5.0 was in testing but never officially released, and as with many software projects it apparently leaked at some point, as I happen to have a copy of it in my Amiga apps folder (which was acquired from a large torrent so it shouldn't be that scarce). However, not really gonna add it on here right now since it's pseudo-OR, need to do some more research). LocalH (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gates testimony on Wordperfect[edit]

Should be put in at some point. google search here. CarolMooreDC 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

a story about a littil girl[edit]

a — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Merging WordPerfect Office to WordPerfect[edit]

Being from Ottawa, i want to be proud of Corel and their WordPerfect Office suite. Unfortunately, their glory days are far behind them. Ottawa's school boards (such as CÉCCE) and the Ottawa Public Library proudly provided Corel's office suite in the past years. Nowadays, however, the suite is gone and the teachers demand Microsoft Word.

This is just a small snapshot. The point is, if the suite can't even be embraced in its own city, how can it be notable anywhere else? It's not. The WordPerfect Office article merely reads like a sales brochure, listing the software bundled with each version of the office suite. It doesn't summarize its components (WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, Corel Presentations and more), nor does it go over the pros and cons of them or the suite. It doesn't talk about real world deployment or market share of the suite. It doesn't even elaborate on Corel Office for Java. The article doesn't have a purpose that fits the goal of Wikipedia.

In short, i believe the WordPerfect Office article should be merged to the WordPerfect page. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I do not agree with this merge. Having the office suite article as part of the word processor article is a little confusing. Also that WP Office has a very small marketshare does not mean historical information about the suite has no place on Wikipedia; after all, we have also articles on defunct programs like WordStar.
Before you started working on Corel WordPerfect Office (now a redirect), it was not a real article indeed, but the last version before the merge could stand on its own, in my opinion. Bever (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


This DOS-only program needs to be mentioned somewhere, or have its own article written. There is a user's group and mailing list at , and free downloads of the program, but there is nothing more recent than 2008.

WordPerfect Magazine (published by WordPerfect) and the (independent) Wordperfectionist[edit]

What I remember of Wordperfectionist, which if memory serves came as a black-and-white newsletter, is that it published some macros I had written for 5.0, then updated to 5.1. They automated common tasks that manuscripts needed before being typeset. (At the time I was a publisher.) I have the macros but have no current information about WordPerfectionist (or WordPerfect Magazine either). If anyone is interested in the macros they can be found on this page:*/ , under the names and An article discussing them is at*/ WP 5.1 (DOS, of course) can be downloaded free at (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement that it reads like an advertisement - how to remove it?[edit]

I think it's time to remove this preliminary statement, given the many revisions since 2012. I don't know how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talkcontribs) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Configurability of WP-DOS[edit]

As a very intensive user of WP-DOS (3.0-5.1+) I would like to suggest that the main (and unique) characteristic of WP was not Reveal Codes or any other individual feature of the program, but its extreme configurability. As the existing article states, the macro language allowed you to design entire programs that performed complex operations with a text. Add to this the ability (which goes unmentioned in the article) to assign any value or macro to any key (including the "dead" 5 on the numeric keypad without NumLock on), and you get a program that allows its entire interface to completely reconfigured. I know, because I did it. No mainline consumer program I've ever heard of has allowed this. It represents an entirely different vision of what not only a word processing program, but any program, can be. Unfortunately, this vision was not very well marketed and very incompletely documented. Still, I think, it deserves a place in the history of computing, and thus in Wikipedia. It shows just how far you can go without a mouse or GUI. Thus, my own redesign of WP converted the entire hard-to-remember-the-function-key-driven WP menu system into a simple and logical ASCII-graphical-pull-down menu system operated only with the (reorganized) arrow keys of the numeric keypad, with just few common editing commands assigned to the most accessible function keys. WP could very well itself have designed a number of different interfaces of this kind, adapted to the needs of different user groups, thus producing, in effect, a range of different programs resting on the same base. Today, the contrary trend dominates: The rigid lack of configurability of Mac systems is increasingly copied in Windows, and even Linux. I believe Wikipedia could do us all a favor by preserving the memory of this potential in WP. Perhaps sometime it will inspire someone to design programs in this way again... Filursiax (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

WordPerfect for Mac, version 1: Before Mac OS 7[edit]

The article currently states that WordPerfect for Mac ran on Mac OS 7.0 thru 9.2.2. Actually, WordPerfect came out before what is now called Mac OS 7. Long ago, I learned WordPerfect version 1 on a Mac Plus running System 6. I recognize that this fact is a very minor point of trivia, because WordPerfect for Mac version 1 wasn't widely used. Oaklandguy (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^