Good free word processor for 10.3 "Panther"

[kahlil88]

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.

 

[TattooedMac]

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

Cheers

 

[kahlil88]

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

 

[TattooedMac]

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

 

[louishen]

earlier versions are here

Index of /releases

 

[Jamie-Jamie]

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

 

[vansmith]

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.

 

[TattooedMac]

As poorly designed as this website is,

HAHA so true and such preddie colours to boot ;P

 

[Jamie-Jamie]

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.

 

[Jamie-Jamie]

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 O but it is so the last free app you should go with on a Macintosh. 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.

 

[vansmith]

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.

 

[chas_m]

No! No no no no!!

Everybody likes to suggest O but it is so the last free app you should go with on a Macintosh. 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."

 

[vansmith]

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.

 

[dtravis7]

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.

 

[vansmith]

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.

 

[dtravis7]

I have nothing against Open Office looks at all, especially since they changed it to look more like OSX a while back. Very solid application.

 

[vansmith]

Yeah, the move to port it to Cocoa and the move away from X11 has really made it a much better application on the Mac. They still have some work to do but it's nice to know that OOo is getting the same kind of attention that the Windows and Linux/Unix ports do.

 

[Jamie-Jamie]

Ooookay, I'm going to have to see this for myself. I'm downloading it now.

 

[kahlil88]

No! No no no no!!

Everybody likes to suggest O but it is so the last free app you should go with on a Macintosh. 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.

Personally, I'm a GNU/Linux user first and try to hook people up with as much free/libre software as possible. I stay away from OpenOffice/NeoOffice on the Mac because they are heavy programs and especially not ideal for such an ancient machine. It doesn't meet the CPU or RAM requirements for 10.4, otherwise I'd load that on and go with Bean.

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.

That website hurts my eyes, but it looks like a good solution.