Talk:Pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Apple Computers?

"developed by Apple Computer" this doesn't read well at all and I'm convinced it should be written Apple Computers. Read it out loud, it just doesn't sound right.

Although it sounds awkward I believe it is correct since it is the name of the company, no need to pluralise it imo. Eidola 06:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apple's official company name is Apple Computer, Inc. So it is correct. "Apple Computers" refers to the international branch of the company which is called "Apple Computers", but in this case it should be called Apple Computer, Inc.

Wackymacs 10:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this moot now since it is Apple, Inc. now, can we delete these comments? Preclaro 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other word processor links

Love it or loathe it Microsoft Word is the most widely used Word Processor, and it seems odd not to include it in the Links.

  • I have added it to the links list. Wackymacs 10:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am admittedly more of a loather than a lover (".DOC emails" give me the creeps) but this sentence is hilarious anyway:
It is generally considered that Pages is best suited for basic page layout and word processing tasks, while Microsoft Word and Adobe InDesign are more suited for publishing large-scale advertisement materials or an entire printed book.
There's this semi-humoruos saying: If Microsoft Word was designed for making long documents, they would have called it Microsoft Book. Granted, newer versions are more suitable to the task than older ones, but a professional DTP program or even LaTeX (if you know how to use it) are still much better choices for creating a book than Word. By the way, my father is a freelance journalist and very fond of Microsoft for no explicable reason (Macs are made for the type of work he is doing!), and not even he is naive enough to use Word for DTP. Instead, he uses QuarkXPress to layout newspapers and advertising material. Even though IIRC he writes the raw articles with basic formatting in Word, he would never think of using that thing for prepress. There are many reasons for not using Word as a pseudo-DTP program: crude support for page layout, bloaty native file format, lack of stability, problems with Encapsulated PostScript support, lack of color management and last but not least many publishers don't even accept .DOC files because of reproducibility problems (prepress requires that documents print exactly the same as they looked in your DTP program or print previewer). But PDF export from MS Word requires Acrobat Distiller.
Take a look at the article on Microsoft Publisher (if Word is so great at DTP, why does Microsoft even sell a program called Microsoft Publisher???), quote:
It is often considered to be an entry-level desktop publishing application, and to provide superior control over page elements to Microsoft Word but inferior to page layout programs such as Adobe Systems' InDesign and Quark, Inc.'s QuarkXPress.
Or read this assessment which has the second highest PageRank in a Google search on 'DTP "Microsoft Word"'. Aragorn2 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you can drop the link to Abiword, too. If people care about other word processors, send them to a category for it. Otherwise, you're going to need to link OpenOffice, AppleWorks, and on and on with no end. --Carl 12:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NeXT version?

Is this version of Pages related to the version that Steve Jobs developed at Next?

  • Yes, It is since Steve Jobs is currently the CEO of Apple, and is slowly bringing the NeXT Software over to the Mac OS X platform. Wackymacs 10:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have researched in this and actually know that Pages under Mac OS X is a port, as I have done research in this area, the picture should not have been removed without discussion on this page first. Wackymacs 09:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What does your research consist of? What's the evidence? "I actually know this to be true" isn't an adequate justification unless you're talking about something you've done yourself. If research has led you to conclude this, then instead of just saying "this is a port," present the evidence that suggests it may be port to the reader. Evidence against it being a port include the fact that Pages for NeXTstep -wasn't- a product of NeXT the company. What's the evidence _for_ it other than "This word processor has the same really common name as this other one from 15 years ago?" I appreciate that you've done research, but unless you can actually show the sources that research uncovered, all we've got is your personal word for it, which isn't good enough. Nandesuka 16:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical praise?

I am puzzled why this article gives the impression that Pages drew critical praise. In fact, if one checks around, you'll see that the general scuttlebutt is that Pages has a LONG ways to go before it is a quality program.

[edit] OpenDocument support?

Can Pages import and export OpenDocument Text files? --Hhielscher 16:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Pages can't open *.odt files. 160.39.175.200 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent caps

In the list of Word features that Pages lacks was the point: "Intelligent caps formatting (upper case of first letter in the sentences)." It has been removed twice with little explanation.

Actually, I think few people care, but here are the details. Where Pages menu item says: Format > Font > Capitalization there are three options: "None", "All Caps", "Small Caps".

Word gives a full window called "Change Case" with the options "lowercase" (not in Pages), "UPPERCASE" (Pages' "All Caps"), "Title Case" (not in Pages), "tOGGLE cASE" (not in Pages) and "Sentence case". The last one you only get in Pages if you have Auto-correction on, as far as I can tell. So it cannot be applied to already entered text or text pasted from other applications. Auto-correction of initial in sentences exists in Word as well as a separate function.

Pages' option for "Small Caps" exists in the Font window in MS Word.

Please, correct me if I am wrong in any of the points above. Mlewan 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold and italic fonts, Arabic support

In the Pages vs Word section, Pages is said not to have support for "Italics and bold in fonts with no built in support for it."

I'm not sure about what "no built in support for it" but Pages really does support italics and bold in fonts, accessible via the Fonts button. The reason why there are no Bold/Italics/Underline buttons in the toolbar is that the preferred way of using them is via paragraph styles, which is considered to be more meaningful.

The other issue I'm concerned with is Arabic support. I haven't tried it myself, since I cannot read or write using the Arabic alphabet, but has anyone actually tried to use Pages like this? As far as I know, support for right-to-left scripting is embedded in OS X itself, thus not being listed as Pages feature anywhere (since it's expected to have anyhow). The same goes about vertical Japanese scripting -- which is not supported directly in OS X (can you imagine a dialog box where everything is displayed vertically?).

As a sidenote, I'm half disagreeing with the comparison there. It gives the impression that Pages is not a quality program and lacks many of Word's features Pages *does* miss a lot of Word's features indeed, but many features are of questionable relevance for a word processor. This is the case of Word Art for example -- as far as i've seen, most users who need anything fancier than a background picture and a meaningful font resort to using a drawing tool, simply because Word Art is not very flexible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.126.206 (talk • contribs)

Each font has type faces. You can see that in the Font dialog of OS X. For example Helvetica has Regular, Oblique, Bold, Bold Oblique. Some fonts have only one type face. For example Gulim has only Regular. If you use Gulim in Pages, there is no way you can italicize it, as it lacks an Oblique type face. In MS Word there is no problem to do it.
There is a good reason for Pages not to italicize Gulim - the result is ugly. However, in some cases there are reasons to do it nevertheless, like when you make notes to yourself and want to emphasize part of the text. This is a common source of confusion brought up in the Pages discussion forum.
People have tried using both Arabic and Hebrew in Pages, and the only way to make it work is with copy and paste from other applications. It works less well than for example TextEdit for some reason. Your Multilingual Mac has more information on Arabic in MacOS X applications.
Even though I wrote most of it, I agree that the comparison may look like it is biased against Pages. However, it contains the kind of information a lot of people look for in the discussion forum. Some people miss a Word Art module, whether than logically should be part of a word processor or not. Besides, MS Word actually has more functionality - something which is reflected in its higher price. Not all of it is useful functionality for everyone, but it is there. Mlewan 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Now I got it :-). I didn't understand what you meant by lack of built-in italics/bold support. It's a fair point indeed. Thanks a lot for the reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.231.126.206 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

So basically what is being said is: Pages cannot create a bold typeface from a font which does not supply a bold version of that typeface, nor can it oblique a typeface in that same manner.

Is that right?

If so, many a typography teacher would be happy that the user is only allowed to work with the type in its "natural state", or such was my experience. Crocadillion 13:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Give MS Word to an inexperienced user, and the result will be a typographer's worst nightmare. With Pages it is much more difficult to go wrong. However, not all users care, and not all texts are written for a context where typography matters. (Think early drafts, outlines, todo-lists, etc.)
I think we may have tried to give a point to Pages as well for this in a previous version of the article. Something like "Protecting inexperienced users from bad typefaces". However, it was very difficult to express so people understood it. Besides, without any clear message in Pages' UI, a lot of users perceive this feature as a simple bug, so they do not feel protected at all. (See the Pages discussion forum.) Mlewan 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many examples?

The list of differences between Word and Pages is not just a list of examples. It is a fairly exhaustive list of the major differences. The question Word vs. Pages is one of the more common ones in Apple's forum, and this list is the one usually pointed to when the question arises. It is in other words perhaps the most useful part of this Wikipedia article.

Unless anyone objects, I will remove the tag in a few days. Mlewan 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I object. This is an encyclopedia, not a median for comparisons. At minimum it needs to be combed through to make sure it's all relevant and possibly organised in a table. Wikipedia:Lists Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been combed through several times. All the items are relevant. All the items are things people have asked about - directly or indirectly. I agree that a table format would look nicer, but the drawback with a table is that it is more difficult to edit. It would exclude Pages enthusiasts who do not know how to edit Wikipedia tables. Mlewan 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MS Word and images

It would really clutter the comparison list Word vs. Pages if one listed all the image functions in the two programs. However, for the benefit of the curious, here is a non-exhaustive list of Word image functionality:

  • Rectangular, Oval, Lasso, Polygonal Lasso and Magic Lasso selection tools.
  • Cut out from selection. Crop.
  • Red-eye correction.
  • RGB and Saturation adjustment controls.
  • Scratch removal.
  • Change to grey-scale, black and white or "watermark" colour modes.
  • Brightness and Contrast adjustments.
  • 48 different customizable effects like "Stained Glass", "Texturizer", "Ripple" and so on.
  • Transparent colour (just one, though, in contrast to Pages smooth expansion of transparent areas).
  • Fill colour to fill in transparent areas.

Etc.

It may not be implemented in a very elegant way, but it is there. When it comes to the number of graphical tools, MS Word 2004 in no way lays behind Pages 3.0. When it comes to the elegance of the actual implementation, one could argue for the opposite.

To the best of my knowledge, no one in Apple's discussion forums has complained about the lack of any of the above functionality. For that reason, I think it is not vital information, and it should not be added to the article.

[edit] Lack of references

I do not deny that the article could be improved, but please, specify where references are needed, when a tag is added. Remember that references are needed only when there is reason to doubt the content. Mlewan 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison

Just wanted to point out: this article needs to be updated to compare Pages to the new version of Office for Macs, 2008. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.129.250 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Maybe in addition to the Comparison of word processors page there should be a Comparison of OSX word processors page, or the addition of a table to this article comparing features. 160.39.175.200 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Word Processor

Is Pages really a word processor? I would have likened it more to a basic DTP package like Pagemaker. I'm not sure all the stuff in the article comparing it to MS Word is very meaningful. 195.172.215.82 (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is "useful" as it is information people often ask for at Apple's forums and presumably elsewhere too. Whether it is a "real" word processor or not is of course open for discussion. The border is sometimes blurry. Mlewan (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)