| Pages in topic: [1 2] > |
To what extent do you find Wordfast Pro/classis a good choice to fulfill your translation needs? Thread poster: ahmadwadan.com
|
|---|
Hello,
I am a CAT user many years ago till date and now I am seriously considering migration from my current CAT tool to Wordfast:
My reasons for such migration are as follows:
- Wordfast reasonable EULA: http://www.wordfast.net/index.php?whichpage=agreement
- My current CAT tool vendor seems like a vampire who is making good of users at e... See more Hello,
I am a CAT user many years ago till date and now I am seriously considering migration from my current CAT tool to Wordfast:
My reasons for such migration are as follows:
- Wordfast reasonable EULA: http://www.wordfast.net/index.php?whichpage=agreement
- My current CAT tool vendor seems like a vampire who is making good of users at each new release + very annoying locked features that were open/enabled in previous versions and I get surprised that they became locked/unavailable now!
Well, my question to Wordfast users is:
To what extent do you find Wordfast Pro/classis a good choice to fulfill your translation needs?
In other words, I seek valuation of Wordfast from actual users with focusing on irritating bugs, if any.
Thank you ▲ Collapse
| | | |
| WF offers a comparatively good cost/benefit ratio | Mar 8, 2012 |
... which doesn't mean I think it is any good. Its user interface looks, feels, and works like typical $19.99 shareware, yet you know its license costs many times that. Nevertheless, I've been using WF for some 7 years already, and it pays off to have it.
Yet... what are the other options? I see about as many complaints about your present software's blood-sucking, must-upgrade-to-worse-once-a-year developer. No idea on the others, I don't see any of them blossoming as the new leader... See more ... which doesn't mean I think it is any good. Its user interface looks, feels, and works like typical $19.99 shareware, yet you know its license costs many times that. Nevertheless, I've been using WF for some 7 years already, and it pays off to have it.
Yet... what are the other options? I see about as many complaints about your present software's blood-sucking, must-upgrade-to-worse-once-a-year developer. No idea on the others, I don't see any of them blossoming as the new leader.
Another point to consider is that many translation agencies post jobs on Proz and elsewhere saying that We don't care much about your language skills nor your experience in translation; the only important thing is that you MUST have the latest version of Trados, otherwise please **** off!
So, check thoroughly your options and needs before you switch, and don't forget to include the time it will take you to learn to use a new CAT tool. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
| Transition from Trados Workbench to Wordfast Classic is very smooth | Mar 8, 2012 |
ahmadwadan.com wrote:
I am a CAT user many years ago till date and now I am seriously considering migration from my current CAT tool to Wordfast:
I assume you come from a Trados Workbench background. If so, you will find the transition to Wordfast Classic very smooth. Wf Classic does everything TWB does, plus a lot more. And unlike TWB, it's still actively developed and supported.
ahmadwadan.com wrote:
To what extent do you find Wordfast Pro/classis a good choice to fulfill your translation needs?
In other words, I seek valuation of Wordfast from actual users with focusing on irritating bugs, if any.
Speaking as a Classic user, it has been working very well for me.
| | | |
| About cuteness of user interface | Mar 8, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Its user interface looks, feels, and works like typical $19.99 shareware
Sure, the various Trados tools have cute little flags that are meant to represent the languages of your TM: does that make them any better than Wordfast, which only have dull language codes like EN-GB?
I couldn't care less about the looks of the user interface. What matters is that it gets the job done, which it does (at least for me).
| | |
|
|
|
Heinrich Pesch 
Finland
Local time: 10:46
Member (2003)
Finnish to German
+ ...
I use both WFC and WFP regularly, even using the same TMs. Up to this moment no one of my customers has required the use of SDL Studio, all are satisfied with Trados/SDLX 2007. I use both regularly too.
| | | |
| User friendliness, not looks | Mar 8, 2012 |
Dominique Pivard wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Its user interface looks, feels, and works like typical $19.99 shareware
Sure, the various Trados tools have cute little flags that are meant to represent the languages of your TM: does that make them any better than Wordfast, which only have dull language codes like EN-GB? I couldn't care less about the looks of the user interface. What matters is that it gets the job done, which it does (at least for me).
Dominique,
I don't mean ornate fireworks, just practical user-friendly menus and dialog boxes, instead of memorizing countless (and often meaningless, non-mnemonic) key combinations, having to adjust settings by editing cryptic program variables lists directly, and its having no interactive help screens... one must manually log to their web site and search for (usually peer-user-generated) information with keywords.
I use a lot of excellent freeware (sic! - not shareware, which I buy now and then) for video. One such author mentioned - among other things - that freeware implies that a user-friendly interface should not be expected. Yet the skimpy interfaces found on most freeware are usually much, much user-friendier than WordFast's (both Classic & Pro). Considering the WordFast current license prices, it's just a case of lazy programming.
[Edited at 2012-03-08 13:01 GMT]
| | | |
Heinrich Pesch
Finland
Local time: 10:46
Member (2003)
Finnish to German
+ ...
| Sorry but you are wrong this time | Mar 8, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Dominique Pivard wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Its user interface looks, feels, and works like typical $19.99 shareware
Sure, the various Trados tools have cute little flags that are meant to represent the languages of your TM: does that make them any better than Wordfast, which only have dull language codes like EN-GB? I couldn't care less about the looks of the user interface. What matters is that it gets the job done, which it does (at least for me). Dominique, I don't mean ornate fireworks, just practical user-friendly menus and dialog boxes, instead of memorizing countless (and often meaningless, non-mnemonic) key combinations, having to adjust settings by editing cryptic program variables lists directly, and its having no interactive help screens... one must manually log to their web site and search for (usually peer-user-generated) information with keywords. I use a lot of excellent freeware (sic! - not shareware, which I buy now and then) for video. One such author mentioned - among other things - that freeware implies that a user-friendly interface should not be expected. Yet the skimpy interfaces found on most freeware are usually much, much user-friendier than WordFast's (both Classic & Pro). Considering the WordFast current license prices, it's just a case of lazy programming. [Edited at 2012-03-08 13:01 GMT]
Wordfast has been since at least 10 years the most intuitive and easy to use piece of software for translators. If you look at the size of the add-on (it used to be only 1.5 Mbyte when I looked last time) it is a masterpiece of programming. The creator of Wordfast, Yves Champollion, is probably one of the best software programmers on the European continent.
Less is often more in software. Beginners get a grip on Wordfast in no time at all (I have been teaching once) and get always fast feedback when they encounter problems.
Regards
Heinrich
| | | |
| Personal Advice | Mar 8, 2012 |
Ahmad Wadan wrote:
I am a CAT user many years ago till date and now I am seriously considering migration from my current CAT tool to Wordfast
Knowing that Mr. Ahmad Wadan is a Trados expert who has been competent to assist everyone for years, my advice here focuses on an important point other than friendliness, namely functionality.
So, I recommend considering two options:
1- Wordfast Classic: The best for those who like working on MS Word directly. I hope my lessons and tutorials in Arabic help: http://tr-ar.com/wordfast/
2- Kilgray memoQ: Very good for those who require translating advanced file formats. Enhanced interchangeability, as if it were (at least) six CAT tools in one.
Kind regards,
Yasmin Moslem
| | |
|
|
|
Drew MacFadyen
United States
Local time: 03:46
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Consider purchasing through ProZ.com TGB | Mar 8, 2012 |
Just wanted to remind readers of this thread that ProZ.com does offer most CAT Tools at a good discount through our Translator Group Buying program at http://www.proz.com/tgb
Whichever product you chose, certainly check our TGB before you buy.
Regards,
Drew
| | | |
| The problem with Wordfast | Mar 8, 2012 |
The problem with Wordfast, as I see it, is that they keep adding more and more half-baked products to their portfolio and, as a result, the translator can't pick one tool and do all of his work with it.
When Wordfast Pro was released, I was excited, because I thought that it would be able to do everything Classic could do with the benefit of supporting many more file formats. But this was not the case: it was more like an alpha-version product. Since then, several years have passed ... See more The problem with Wordfast, as I see it, is that they keep adding more and more half-baked products to their portfolio and, as a result, the translator can't pick one tool and do all of his work with it.
When Wordfast Pro was released, I was excited, because I thought that it would be able to do everything Classic could do with the benefit of supporting many more file formats. But this was not the case: it was more like an alpha-version product. Since then, several years have passed but Wordfast Pro still can't work in a straightforward manner with XLIFF files or do other essential things. Instead of constantly improving it, the Wordfast team decided to release yet another product, Wordfast Anywhere, which is equally half-baked but comes with some unique capabilities (OCR for PDF files, for example).
So, now, you have three different products, all with a ton of weaknesses but each with one or more unique features (hence the need for a "Wordfast Studio" bundle). The question, therefore, is: Do I really want to learn and use three programs? My answer is no; that's why I've decided to use memoQ, which is what I advise you to do, as well.
[Edited at 2012-03-08 17:52 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 09:46
Spanish to English
+ ...
I use Wordfast Classic and am happy with it. It does everything I have wanted it to so far, and I haven't gotten round to exploring all its possibilities (although I don't demand much anyway). I tried Pro but didn't like the interface (vertical columns) as I am used to Classic and didn't want to have to get used to a new appearance or way of working after the "upgrade".
I have always had prompt and satisfying technical support from them too. No complaints here.
| | | |
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 09:46
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Time is of the essence | Mar 8, 2012 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
Beginners get a grip on Wordfast in no time at all ... and always get fast feedback when they encounter problems.
This is what sold me on it. Being able able to install WF and start working with it the same day rather than buying into the arduous learning required (and lockstep virtual drudgery IMO) with the BIG T was the clincher.
| | |
|
|
|
Diana Coada (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:46
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| With Wordfast you get to work in no time... | Mar 8, 2012 |
and technical support is great.
Epameinondas Soufleros wrote:
So, now, you have three different products, all with a ton of weaknesses but each with one or more unique features (hence the need for a "Wordfast Studio" bundle). The question, therefore, is: Do I really want to learn and use three programs? My answer is no; that's why I've decided to use memoQ, which is what I advise you to do, as well.
I do get your point and I agree with you to a certain extent, but I bought the ''studio bundle'' in a TGB and still ended up paying half of what I would have paid for MemoQ.
| | | |
Oksana Weiss
Germany
Local time: 09:46
Member (2011)
German to English
+ ...
| Wordfast PRO is OK:) | Mar 9, 2012 |
I use version 2.4.2 and think about buying version 3.0. It is a reliable tool, easy to master. As soon as you remember the hotkeys, entering new terms into the termbase is simple. I find it similar to memoQ and much better than Trados.
| | | |
| No need to buy 3.0! | Mar 9, 2012 |
Oksana Zoria wrote:
I use version 2.4.2 and think about buying version 3.0. It is a reliable tool, easy to master. As soon as you remember the hotkeys, entering new terms into the termbase is simple. I find it similar to memoQ and much better than Trados.
Oksana: there is no need for you to buy version 3.0. As long as your license is valid (and it is valid until June 2014), you are entitled to use whatever version of Wordfast you please. Unlike many other tools, Wordfast licenses are not linked to a specific version: they are linked to a period of time (3 years). During that period, you can always use the latest version available. In your case, I would advise you upgrade to 2.4.4. You can then upgrade to 3.0 (at no cost) when it becomes publicly available (hopefully very soon).
| | | |
| Pages in topic: [1 2] > |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to Wordfast
