03-20-2010, 04:52 AM

I'm trying to sell my old iBook clamshell, which is now running a recent install of Mac OS X v10.3.9 "Panther" but it doesn't have a word processor other than Text Edit. Can anyone recommend a good free word processor that will run on such an old system? I've considered OpenOffice/NeoOffice, but they might be a bit heavy for this ancient laptop.

03-20-2010, 04:56 AM

Mate i would go for BEAN might not be such a resource hog

Cheers

03-20-2010, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by TattooedMac

Mate i would go for BEAN might not be such a resource hog

Bean is a good one, but I don't remember it ever supporting 10.3 and a 300MHz iBook clamshell couldn't really handle 10.4

03-20-2010, 05:36 AM

Yep it does

Bean 1.1

But all the downloads come from the 1.1 link., but will automatically dl v2.4.3.
Try it as its only a 5.2MB dl

Cheers

03-20-2010, 07:17 AM

earlier versions are here

Index of /releases

03-20-2010, 10:57 AM

I went and checked several of those, and they all require 10.4

03-20-2010, 11:30 AM

As poorly designed as this website is, it was linked to from the Bean website and is the home of a word processor that is 10.3 compatible.

03-20-2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by vansmith

As poorly designed as this website is,

HAHA so true and such preddie colours to boot

03-20-2010, 12:42 PM

I'm going to try iText Express... hopefully it's not as hodgepodge as the site!

Edit: Gave it a shot, and it looks really solid! I'd say it'll be good enough to get nearly any job done that doesn't need advanced page layout or DTP features.

03-20-2010, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Chasingu

You could try using a old version of OpenOffice.org. Although, I don't know if they have one for 10.3.

No! No no no no!!

Everybody likes to suggest OO.o but it is so the last free app you should go with on a Macintosh. OO.o is like inviting an island of Linux and Windows onto your Macintosh.

There are so many other, better options! I'd suggest using XPostFacto to install 10.4 on that clamshell before I'd suggest running OpenOffice.

03-21-2010, 11:47 AM

Hey, there's nothing wrong with Linux.

OOo is an open source app and a fine one at that. I used it through four years of university and it did just fine. The only problem with it in this circumstance is that it is a relatively "heavy" (memory and CPU) app. If you do find a version old enough, it will likely be one of the X11 versions and will likely be missing some great features.

03-21-2010, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Jamie-Jamie

No! No no no no!!

Everybody likes to suggest OO.o but it is so the last free app you should go with on a Macintosh. OO.o is like inviting an island of Linux and Windows onto your Macintosh.

I am so totally with you on this.

Bless OO for being free and all, but there's a reason I bought a Mac instead of a PC. It was to get away from "fugly software."

03-21-2010, 01:18 PM

If the software works, do aesthetics really matter? The only time aesthetics should matter is when it affects functionality. Form should never come before function - if it did, software would be increasingly frustrating yet nice to look at. Who cares what software looks like if it's no good? Now, don't get me wrong, you can have both but when software is free and it works, who cares what it looks like?

It could be argued (as I do) that Firefox is ugly. It's inability to integrate well with OS X in terms of aesthetics is disappointing. Yet, it is my primary browser along with Opera because it works. Sure, it looks out of place but it does a good job of doing what I want a browser to do.

03-21-2010, 02:01 PM

Van, if an application looked like that web page you linked us to, I don't care how well it ran! It would drive me away in 1 minute! Maybe less!

I do get your point but there is a limit at least with me.

03-21-2010, 02:18 PM

Touché my good man.

Aesthetics do play a role in application design but in this specific instance, OOo is not the end of the world. I agree that it isn't the prettiest application on the Mac but hardly an eye sore to the point where it detracts from the quality of the program. It is very possible that aesthetics can make an application unusable but it could be argued that if an application looks like that website I pointed to earlier, it probably works with the same level of quality.