>Nah, not a misunderstanding. Just a difference of viewpoints. People >underestimate the effort required to communicate with other people. This is sooo true. I for one think I always do my best to explain as clearly as "possible", and often realise that my messages arrive completely garbled to the receiver(s). English not being my native language doesn't help, of course - but thank you for bringing up this important aspect of the issue. If specifications and feature descriptions were clearer (=less marketing, more technical information), I suppose we'd all find it easier to understand beforehand whether a certain piece of software will meet our needs or not. But then maybe it's not in any vendor's interest to make sure their potential customers understand before buying.... (oops sorry - end of whinging!) >If you plan to SHARE your documents with other people so that they can >EDIT them (assuming that many of these other people are Windoze users), >use of lots of M$ Office features, and avoid as much as possible any >compatibility problems with 3rd-party Word .doc reading/writing, then >you might have the valid need to buy M$ Office v.X. I confess I am still stumped. Taking into account my "sharing" needs only - and I've had no problems, so far, sharing documents from my Mac with Windoz users - what exactly makes MS Office v.X a better choice than MS Office 98, which I already have and can run as a Classic app? I am sure I am missing something important here. Please bear with me! >But I think it's more important to >first find out your needs, current and future. Only after this step can >you look at what word processing apps that best fit your needs. Excellent point, and very well put. Sharing <complex documents> with Windowz users so that they can further edit is not a requirement. My requirements, as far as sharing documents with other people is concerned, are only limited to the following: 1. Opening custom Word style sheets created by Windoz users, and 2. Returning to these Windoz users, so that they can further edit, documents that are formatted using these style sheets. I call this "draft sharing", and the only complexity in this type of documents are "raw tables" (i.e., tab-delimited text, using one or more of the paragraph or inline styles of the template). So far, I have been able to achieve this very satisfactorily using Office 98 on Mac OS 9.2. More complex formatting requirements (headers/footers, page/section numbering, footnotes/endnotes, fully formatted tables etc.) only apply to documents where further editing is not required - so in a way, I believe I am in a privileged position here. What I am trying to understand, is whether I'll have to rely on Word for this, too, or whether other and better options are open. I beg to disagree with those who think "Word is the best option available", full stop. Having used it for many years, I find it a nerve-wrecking tool, which wants to "do everything for me" with no consideration for my real needs. For instance, I have files where I've had to re-apply styles for bulleted and numbered lists many times over, because Word had decided (on its own) to swap bullets and numbers. And uncountable times I've had to manually edit the text to leave enough space for footnotes. To me, these are serious defects for a professional word processor - and as far as I know, these defects are common across all versions of Word, both for Mac and for Windoz. So thank you for suggesting alternatives - I will check them out, and if some of you know of any "serious defects" that make any of these alternatives "not an option"... I would really appreciate to know :-) Thanks, marina