| Pages in topic: [1 2 3] > | WordFast Classic vs. WordFast Pro Thread poster: Angel Llacuna
|
|---|
Is there available a list that compares the features of WordFast Classic and WordFast Pro ?
| | | | Dušan Ján Hlísta (X) 
Slovakia
Local time: 08:18
English to Slovak
+ ...
As far as I know - not now. But you can try to compare "the contents" from the both manuals and you can find the basic differences. I guess that principal difference is that WordFast Pro is designed for project managers and the cooperation of more translation sources which share the common server.
Dušan Ján Hlísta
| | | | wonita (X)
China
Local time: 04:18
| Difference in price politics | Jul 4, 2010 |
Once purchased, Wordfast Classic will be valid as long as you don't change your PC enviroment; whereas Wordfast Pro will be valid for only 3 years and the license must be renewed at the half price afterwards.
| | | | Jeff Whittaker
United States
Local time: 02:18
Spanish to English
+ ...
I believe you are thinking about Wordfast Anywhere. Both WF Classic and WF Pro are used by freelancers. Wordfast Classic runs in Word, while Wordfast Pro is a stand-alone program that works outside of Word. You get both programs for the same price. I would assume that eventually WC Classic may become superfluous and discontinued in favor of WF Pro.
skopko wrote:
As far as I know - not now. But you can try to compare "the contents" from the both manuals and you can find the basic differences. I guess that principal difference is that WordFast Pro is designed for project managers and the cooperation of more translation sources which share the common server.
Dušan Ján Hlísta
| | |
|
|
|
Heinrich Pesch
Finland
Local time: 09:18
Member (2003)
Finnish to German
+ ...
| Don't think so | Jul 4, 2010 |
Jeff Whittaker wrote:
I would assume that eventually WC Classic may become superfluous and discontinued in favor of WF Pro.
We will need a tool that is compatible to MS Word as long as customers use MS Word. There are tasks that can reasonably only be done in Word, for instance with files that need to be bilingual after translation.
But tools like Wf Pro allow us to translate files that are not compatible with MS Word. That is the difference.
Regards
Heinrich
| | | | Angel Llacuna
Spain
Local time: 08:18
English to Spanish
TOPIC STARTER | I wonder what are the reasons for these peculiar licensing policies | Jul 5, 2010 |
Bin Tiede wrote:
Once purchased, Wordfast Classic will be valid as long as you don't change your PC enviroment; whereas Wordfast Pro will be valid for only 3 years and the license must be renewed at the half price afterwards.
[Edited at 2010-07-05 14:43 GMT]
| | | | | WFC v WFP licensing clarification | Jul 6, 2010 |
The licensing policy for WFC and WFP is essentially the same. The idea is that for 3 years from date of purchase users have the right to a) relicense Wordfast to keep it running on their machine and b) upgrade to any new versions we release during that time period. After that 3 year licensing period is up, WF users should purchase a license renewal in order to keep their Wordfast version current. However, since Wordfast Classic is a Word macro that accepts a license number instead of a licens... See more The licensing policy for WFC and WFP is essentially the same. The idea is that for 3 years from date of purchase users have the right to a) relicense Wordfast to keep it running on their machine and b) upgrade to any new versions we release during that time period. After that 3 year licensing period is up, WF users should purchase a license renewal in order to keep their Wordfast version current. However, since Wordfast Classic is a Word macro that accepts a license number instead of a license file, it is my understanding that there is no way to practical enforce the license expiration. WFC will continue to run until the user reformats their disk or changes machines, at which point users will not be able to relicense or upgrade their version unless they purchase a renewal. Since Wordfast Pro is written in java and accepts an actual license file (instead of a license number like WFC) the license will expire at the end of the 3 year period, prompting the user to upgrade. In any event, the goal is that the user will purchase a renewal (for 50% of the retail price at the time of renewal) if they wish to keep their Wordfast version current.
Sincerely,
Kristyna ▲ Collapse
| | | | Angel Llacuna
Spain
Local time: 08:18
English to Spanish
TOPIC STARTER | what is the rationale for setting a 3 year period ? | Jul 7, 2010 |
Kristyna Marrero wrote:
The licensing policy for WFC and WFP is essentially the same. The idea is that for 3 years from date of purchase users have the right to a) relicense Wordfast to keep it running on their machine and b) upgrade to any new versions we release during that time period. After that 3 year licensing period is up, WF users should purchase a license renewal in order to keep their Wordfast version current. However, since Wordfast Classic is a Word macro that accepts a license number instead of a license file, it is my understanding that there is no way to practical enforce the license expiration. WFC will continue to run until the user reformats their disk or changes machines, at which point users will not be able to relicense or upgrade their version unless they purchase a renewal. Since Wordfast Pro is written in java and accepts an actual license file (instead of a license number like WFC) the license will expire at the end of the 3 year period, prompting the user to upgrade. In any event, the goal is that the user will purchase a renewal (for 50% of the retail price at the time of renewal) if they wish to keep their Wordfast version current.
Sincerely,
Kristyna
| | |
|
|
|
wonita (X)
China
Local time: 04:18
Kristyna Marrero wrote:
In any event, the goal is that the user will purchase a renewal (for 50% of the retail price at the time of renewal) if they wish to keep their Wordfast version current.
Sincerely,
Kristyna
a user is utterly satisfied with his Wordfast version even after 3 years?
| | | | NMR (X)
France
Local time: 08:18
French to Dutch
+ ...
Bin Tiede wrote:
Kristyna Marrero wrote:
In any event, the goal is that the user will purchase a renewal (for 50% of the retail price at the time of renewal) if they wish to keep their Wordfast version current.
a user is utterly satisfied with his Wordfast version even after 3 years?
Old WF versions stay on your computer. I still have a WF 4 on an old XP computer I use from time to time, and it works very well, no problem at all.
As for WF Pro, which continues to be developed, you'd better install new versions, because each version has new or adapted features.
@Heinrich: I keep WF Classic too for texts in Word, and especially if I have to deliver bilingual files (until tmxl will be the new standard...), but there may be reasons for treating Word files in WF Pro, for instance if you want to attach several TMs. There may be other reasons I didn't try yet (text boxes?). For all other formats (especially Powerpoint and Excel), WF Pro is more useful.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 08:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Let's create a list | Jul 7, 2010 |
galone_es wrote:
Is there available a list that compares the features of WordFast Classic and WordFast Pro?
Not that I'm aware of, but let's create one.
WFC: works on any computer that has Microsoft Word 97 or newer on it (with one or two exceptions).
WFP: works on any computer that has Java on it (with one or two exceptions).
WFC: works inside Microsoft Word, so anything you translate has to be converted to a format that can be opened in Microsoft Word.
WFP: is independent of Microsoft Word, so it can translate many more file types than WFC.
WFC: since you work inside Microsoft Word, all find/replace, spell-checking and other functions of Microsoft Word is available to aid you in your translation process.
WFP: only features that are specifically programmmed into WFP are available. Support for find/replace and spell-checking is, for example, much more limited.
WFC: source and target is above and below.
WFP: source and target is left and right.
WFC: very few built-in process control features (and the ones that are there are hacks).
WFP: mature process control features built in (which is why agencies may want to use it).
WFC: uses WF TM format.
WFP: uses WF TM format.
WFC: no intermediary format (unless you use Microsoft Word for that).
WFP: an intermediary format, TXML, that can be translated/edited/proofed without having the original source file available.
WFC: can't handle TTX unless you're a hacker and you have a demo Trados version handy.
WFP: claims to be able to handle TTX.
WFC: can't handle SDLXLIFF unless you're a hacker and you have a demo Trados version handy.
WFP: claims to be able to handle SDLXLIFF (as far as I'm aware).
WFC: can handle and produce uncleaned (styled) RTF files.
WFP: can't handle uncleaned (styled) RTF files.
WFC: until 2 years ago, developers very responsive to user wish lists.
WFP: since 2 years ago, the flag ship program of the WF product team.
WFC: price includes 3 year license for both WFC and WFP
WFP: price includes 3 year license for both WFC and WFP
Note: You can legally continue using both WFC and WFP after the 3 year license has expired, as long as your serial number remains the same (the serial number is based on your hardware and operating system configuration).
| | | | Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
Poland
Local time: 08:18
English to Polish
+ ...
| adding to the list... | Jul 7, 2010 |
WFC: has a host of additional tools, like TM merging/compacting etc.
WFP: doesn't.
WFC: no single list of shortcuts
WFP: a single list of shortcuts, all of which are configurable - also useful as a 'manual in a nutshell'
WFC: no remote TMs
WFP: compatible with remote TMs
The standalone nature of WFP has made a number of features more convenient, e.g.:
WFC: only one TM match is displayed at a time
WFP: numerous matches ... See more WFC: has a host of additional tools, like TM merging/compacting etc.
WFP: doesn't.
WFC: no single list of shortcuts
WFP: a single list of shortcuts, all of which are configurable - also useful as a 'manual in a nutshell'
WFC: no remote TMs
WFP: compatible with remote TMs
The standalone nature of WFP has made a number of features more convenient, e.g.:
WFC: only one TM match is displayed at a time
WFP: numerous matches are displayed in a separate window
WFC: no confirmed/unconfirmed status
WFP: user is able to confirm/unconfirm segments, which affects TM
WFC: not able to jump between distant segments
WFP: has a clickable, coloured list of all segments available in a separate window
The list could go on and on...
[Edited at 2010-07-07 12:57 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 08:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:
WFC: has a host of additional tools, like TM merging/compacting etc.
WFP: doesn't.
Let's make the list more useful by actually mentioning the additional tools instead of just saying "etc". WFC does have a TM editor of sorts (I've never found it particularly helpful, though).
WFC: no single list of shortcuts
WFP: a single list of shortcuts, all of which are configurable - also useful as a 'manual in a nutshell'
WFC does create an extra menu item in MS Word where most of the features are listed (along with their shortcuts). And since WFC consists of macros, one can change these shortcuts by changing the shortcuts to the macros, just like one would change shortcuts for any of MS Word's features.
WFC: no remote TMs
WFP: compatible with remote TMs
Are you sure? What do you mean by "remote TM"? I'm sure WFC can use a remote TM...
WFC: no confirmed/unconfirmed status
WFP: user is able to confirm/unconfirm segments, which affects TM
This is part of what I meant by process control.
WFC: not able to jump between distant segments
WFP: has a clickable, coloured list of all segments available in a separate window
On the other hand, one can copy/paste text to/from non-current segments without closing the current segment. In WFP, the active segment is the segment you clicked in. In WFC, the active segment is the segment that you have opened and not yet closed.
| | | | | Some clarification on WFC v. WFP | Jul 7, 2010 |
Hi all,
Thanks for compiling this feedback. Here is some clarification on a few points below:
Samuel Murray wrote:
WFC: source and target is above and below.
WFP: source and target is left and right.
Actually, WFP offers a customizable interface. Users can choose the traditional text view where source and target are above and below or the table view where source and target is left and right. Choose the Text or Table tab at the bottom of the TXML editor window.
WFC: can't handle TTX unless you're a hacker and you have a demo Trados version handy.
WFP: claims to be able to handle TTX.
TTX support (in beta mode) has recently been added to WFC version 5.90v, which was released yesterday. Please note: support for any tagged file format in WFC is for experts and we recommend that WFP be considered for use on these file types.
WFC: can't handle SDLXLIFF unless you're a hacker and you have a demo Trados version handy.
WFP: claims to be able to handle SDLXLIFF (as far as I'm aware).
Neither WFC or WFP can handle SDLXLIFF files at the present time.
WFC: price includes 3 year license for both WFC and WFP
WFP: price includes 3 year license for both WFC and WFP
Note: You can legally continue using both WFC and WFP after the 3 year license has expired, as long as your serial number remains the same (the serial number is based on your hardware and operating system configuration).
Actually, this is not the case. Since WFP is based on an installed license file, the license actually expires after the 3 year period, regardless of whether your install number changes. WFP will not continue to run after the 3 year licensing period. WFC will continue to run beyond the licensing period since there is no practical way to enforce the license expiration inside of MS Word.
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:
WFC: has a host of additional tools, like TM merging/compacting etc.
WFP: doesn't.
WFP has a TM administration module which enables *some* of these functions. Search for “using the TM Administration Perspective” in the WFP online help.
WFC: no single list of shortcuts
WFP: a single list of shortcuts, all of which are configurable - also useful as a 'manual in a nutshell'
There is a list of shortcuts that can be found on page 16 and 17 of the WFC user manual.
WFC: no remote TMs
WFP: compatible with remote TMs
Wordfast Classic can be used to connect to remote TMs. Go to the VLTM tab and enter the URL and workgroup ID provided by your client.
The standalone nature of WFP has made a number of features more convenient, e.g.:
WFC: only one TM match is displayed at a time
WFP: numerous matches are displayed in a separate window
WFC is able to recognize multiple TM matches. When WFC finds multiple matches for a source segment, you are able to cycle through all proposed matches using Alt+Right/Left
I hope this is helpful.
Sincerely,
Kristyna
| | | | Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
Poland
Local time: 08:18
English to Polish
+ ...
Thanks for correcting whatever I got wrong. Regarding the last point, that's what I was trying to say.
| | | | | Pages in topic: [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » WordFast Classic vs. WordFast Pro | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to Wordfast
