| Pages in topic: [1 2] > |
Classic / Pro Thread poster: Yaotl Altan
|
|---|
Yaotl Altan 
Mexico
Local time: 14:44
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
+ ...
Hello, dear colleagues.
Could you be so kind to explain me the differences between Wordfast Classic and Wordfast Pro?
I would like to use this tool, but don't know now which is better. I've also read that there's a version called Wordfast Studio...
| | | |
as far as I know the main differnece betwwen them is that Wordfast Classic is for MS Word type of documents (docx, doc), whereas Pro also work with pdf etc...
| | | |
| refer to the official website | Dec 27, 2013 |
Yaotl,
I think the best is to start with the official Wf website http://www.wordfast.com/
- the main difference is Wf Classic is an "MS Word-based interface", while Wf Pro is a "standalone translation memory tool for any platform" (so for Macs as well).
Wf Studio is simply a bundle of Wf Classic and Wf Pro bought together.
Good luck!
Marcelina
| | | |
MikeTrans
Germany
Local time: 22:44
Italian to German
+ ...
| Wordfast Classic seems to have more features | Dec 27, 2013 |
Hi Yaotl,
as said above the main difference is that WF Classic will only work with documents that can be opened with MS OFFICE.
Wordfast Pro has its own interface and can open a lot of different file formats, and of course you don't need all these applications installed on your computer in order to work on their files (Adobe InDesign, Framemaker, etc.)
I haven't taken an extensive look on Wordfast Pro, I only have tryed the demo version, but I dare to say that WFC has a... See more Hi Yaotl,
as said above the main difference is that WF Classic will only work with documents that can be opened with MS OFFICE.
Wordfast Pro has its own interface and can open a lot of different file formats, and of course you don't need all these applications installed on your computer in order to work on their files (Adobe InDesign, Framemaker, etc.)
I haven't taken an extensive look on Wordfast Pro, I only have tryed the demo version, but I dare to say that WFC has a lot more features. Other than the main interface in Word, there is an add-on called PlusTools that you can download and it does quite a lot of useful things, one of them is to tag documents to be delivered in Trados format. Also an aligner and extraction tool is included.
There are quite a lot of videos on YouTube about WFC done by CatGuru a.k.a Dominique Pivard. I recommend you take a look at them.
Greets,
Mike ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 22:44
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Yaotl Altan wrote:
Could you be so kind to explain me the differences between Wordfast Classic and Wordfast Pro? ... I've also read that there's a version called Wordfast Studio.
The product called "Wordfast Studio" is simply a bundle that contains both Wordfast Classic (WFC) and Wordfast Pro (WFP). If you buy either WFC or WFP separately, you pay EUR 400, but if you buy them both (then it is called "Wordfast Studio"), you pay EUR 500. They are two completely different programs that work in two entirely different ways. The only thing they have in common is that they use roughly the same TM and glossary format.
WFC works inside Microsoft Word, so you can't use it unless you also have Microsoft Word. WFC can only translate file formats that you can open in Microsoft Word (with one or two exceptions). In WFC, the source text is above the translation.
WFP is a separate Java program. It can translate many, many different formats. In WFP, the source text is to the left of the translation.
WFP is easier to begin with, but WFC is better in the end.
| | | |
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 22:44
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
MikeTrans wrote:
There is an add-on [for Wordfast Classic] called PlusTools that you can download, and it does quite a lot of useful things, e.g. to tag documents to be delivered in Trados format.
I'm not sure if that is entirely accurate, unless you're referring to a very old Trados format.
WFP comes with a "toolkit" built-in -- it is called the "PM Perspective".
| | | |
MikeTrans
Germany
Local time: 22:44
Italian to German
+ ...
yes indeed: the tagger included in the PlusTools is for bilingual word docs which is a legacy format of Trados 2007 (Tageditor). The new standard format for SDL Studio is SDLXLIFF, but the older format can be imported without problems in Studio.
My answer "more features" is a bit too enthusiastic in favor of WFC, I think. WF Pro has a separate Aligner and can also extract frequent terms in a project. (the demo didn't allow me to try these).
Cheers,
Mike
| | | |
| Answers to your questions | Dec 28, 2013 |
Yaotl Altan wrote:
Could you be so kind to explain me the differences between Wordfast Classic and Wordfast Pro?
I would like to use this tool, but don't know now which is better. I've also read that there's a version called Wordfast Studio...
Many people who hear about "Wordfast" as a brand are indeed confused by the many versions (same with "Trados" as a brand, by the way). There's Classic, Pro, Studio, but also Anywhere and Server.
As already stated, Wordfast Studio is just the bundle of Classic and Pro, when purchased together (you can also purchase them separately).
About Classic vs. Pro: one cannot say one is better than the other. They are different and cater for different needs and preferences. Some people like MS Word as a working environment, and if so, they may prefer Classic as a tool. Other people may prefer a dedicated environment, which is what Pro provides. Both are try-before-you-buy-software and (unlike with most competing products) there's no limitation to the length of the trial period: you can run them in demo mode forever if you want.
As already stated, Classic is primarily aimed at translating Word documents. If you need to translate other file formats, you can use Pro or Anywhere. The advantages of Anywhere for a Classic user are that 1) it is free and 2) its interface is very similar to that of Classic. Anywhere also has a better aligner than Pro and its PDF conversion facility is more versatile than that of Pro.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray wrote:
The only thing they have in common is that they use roughly the same TM and glossary format.
Well, they also share the same price, the same terms of use, the same support & renewal policy.
Samuel Murray wrote:
WFC can only translate file formats that you can open in Microsoft Word (with one or two exceptions).
These exceptions probably refer to PowerPoint and Excel: they no longer apply to the latest version of Office (2013 on Windows, 2011 on Mac). In other words, you cannot translate PPT/X and XLS/X files in Classic with these versions of Office (due to changes made by Microsoft). And there are several important drawbacks in translating them with older versions of Office, so the official recommendation is to use Pro or Anywhere for those formats.
Samuel Murray wrote:
In WFP, the source text is to the left of the translation.
It can also be above if you want (text mode vs. table mode), like in Classic and Anywhere.
Samuel Murray wrote:
WFP is easier to begin with, but WFC is better in the end.
Although Classic was often touted as an easy to learn/use tool (that was mostly when it was compared to Trados), I'd agree it has a steeper learning curve than Pro, but can be more rewarding in the longer term.
| | | |
Yaotl Altan
Mexico
Local time: 14:44
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
skopko, Marcelina, Samuel, Dominique, Mike:
Thank you very much for your opinions about the different versions of Wordfast. Your detailed points of view will be very useful to me when evaluating the demo versions
Much appreciated!
| | | |
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 22:44
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Classic for me | Dec 30, 2013 |
Since I'm very wary of anything "cloud-based", I prefer WF Classic, the most basic, for its wonderful attribute of not being dependent on internet. I am quite happy with it and I don't even use many of its functions.
My advice is to try it out first, before deciding whether you need or want the other versions. And unlike big "T", you can learn to use it in a very short time.
I've just noticed Mike's comment about formats. I tend to work mainly with Word, Excel and Powe... See more Since I'm very wary of anything "cloud-based", I prefer WF Classic, the most basic, for its wonderful attribute of not being dependent on internet. I am quite happy with it and I don't even use many of its functions.
My advice is to try it out first, before deciding whether you need or want the other versions. And unlike big "T", you can learn to use it in a very short time.
I've just noticed Mike's comment about formats. I tend to work mainly with Word, Excel and Powerpoint, and I find that Classic handles them all pretty well. If I ever have to deal with PDFs (grrr) I simply convert them to more workable formats.
[Edited at 2013-12-30 15:08 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 22:44
Spanish to English
+ ...
Yaotl Altan wrote: skopko, Marcelina, Samuel, Dominique, Mike: Thank you very much for your opinions about the different versions of Wordfast. Your detailed points of view will be very useful to me when evaluating the demo versions Much appreciated!
The only drawback I'd mention, and one that I feel should be dealt with by those responsible, is that the relicensing procedure is a hassle. This morning I tried to get to work on a translation only to receive a message telling me that I had to relicense WF. I paid the money to do so immediately, but have not yet been able to get back to work with my relicensed WF some hours later. This is because the instructions for relicensing are not very clear - and any help available is not forthcoming quickly. All I want to do is to get back working as soon as possible with my newly relicensed and paid for WF, preferably without downloading any updated or "improved" versions. Am now waiting for the "hot line" to get back to me, but if I don't find out how to get back up and running soon, I may just have to do the job without WF. This is REALLY [expletive deleted] annoying, especially on the last day of the year...
PS: Having posted the above, Dominic got back to me within a few minutes to explain that all I had to do was reboot Word and hey presto! it's back again!
[Edited at 2013-12-31 19:12 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 22:44
Spanish to English
+ ...
| How to relicense | Dec 31, 2013 |
[quote]Dominique Pivard wrote:
Samuel Murray wrot. Samuel Murray wrote:
WFP is easier to begin with, but WFC is better in the end.
Although Classic was often touted as an easy to learn/use tool (that was mostly when it was compared to Trados), I'd agree it has a steeper learning curve than Pro, but can be more rewarding in the longer term.
Hi, Dominic.
Do you think you could have a word with the powers that be about the relicensing procedure? I'm finding it rather difficult and time-consuming today and I'm under a lot of pressure....
TIA.
PS: Having posted the above, Dominic got back to me within a few minutes to explain that all I had to do was reboot Word and hey presto! it's back again!
Thanks for that and ... a Happy New Year in 2014 to all prozers out there!
[Edited at 2013-12-31 19:11 GMT]
| | | |
| Relicensing Classic | Dec 31, 2013 |
neilmac wrote:
Do you think you could have a word with the powers that be about the relicensing procedure? I'm finding it rather difficult and time-consuming today and I'm under a lot of pressure....
Very easy:
http://www.wordfast.net/wiki/How_to_license_Wordfast_Classic
neilmac wrote:
PS: Having posted the above, Dominic got back to me within a few minutes to explain that all I had to do was reboot Word and hey presto! it's back again!
If you're a registered user, it's better/faster to contact the hotline than posting to ProZ (which is not very high on my priority list).
| | | |
Yaotl Altan
Mexico
Local time: 14:44
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
neilmac wrote: Yaotl Altan wrote: skopko, Marcelina, Samuel, Dominique, Mike: Thank you very much for your opinions about the different versions of Wordfast. Your detailed points of view will be very useful to me when evaluating the demo versions Much appreciated! The only drawback I'd mention, and one that I feel should be dealt with by those responsible, is that the relicensing procedure is a hassle. This morning I tried to get to work on a translation only to receive a message telling me that I had to relicense WF. I paid the money to do so immediately, but have not yet been able to get back to work with my relicensed WF some hours later. This is because the instructions for relicensing are not very clear - and any help available is not forthcoming quickly. All I want to do is to get back working as soon as possible with my newly relicensed and paid for WF, preferably without downloading any updated or "improved" versions. Am now waiting for the "hot line" to get back to me, but if I don't find out how to get back up and running soon, I may just have to do the job without WF. This is REALLY [expletive deleted] annoying, especially on the last day of the year... PS: Having posted the above, Dominic got back to me within a few minutes to explain that all I had to do was reboot Word and hey presto! it's back again! [Edited at 2013-12-31 19:12 GMT]
neilmac:
Sorry for not mentong you before. I appreaciate your words too and consider the issues you have stated, my friend.
Thank you!
| | | |
| Pages in topic: [1 2] > |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to Wordfast
