| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | New to Wordfast: Classic or Pro? 投稿者: Cristina Lo Bianco
|
|---|
Thanks for the explanation.
But ......... how do you create an acceptable preview in Word on the basis of a TXML file only? By mistake I once loaded such a file into Wordfast Pro. The preview was in Word, it is true, but as a table, not as a presentable text.
Looking forward to your experience.
Samuel Murray wrote:
An agency might send you a partially translated or a pre-translated TXML file, or an untranslated TXML file to translate, or perhaps a fully translated TXML file to proofread or review.
| | | | Eric Hahn (X) 
フランス
Local time: 23:13
フランス語 から ドイツ語
+ ...
Albert Stufkens wrote:
Thanks for the explanation.
But ......... how do you create an acceptable preview in Word on the basis of a TXML file only? By mistake I once loaded such a file into Wordfast Pro. The preview was in Word, it is true, but as a table, not as a presentable text.
Looking forward to your experience.
You simply save it as the translated file.
The stand alone version (Wordfast Pro) doesn't need MS Office at all, you can preview translated files with Star Office.
| | | | Samuel Murray
オランダ
Local time: 23:13
2006に入会
英語 から アフリカーンス語
+ ...
| Don't you... | Oct 28, 2009 |
Eric Hahn wrote: Albert Stufkens wrote:
How do you create an acceptable preview in Word on the basis of a TXML file only? You simply save it as the translated file.
Don't you need the original file along with the TXML file to do this, though?
Samuel
| | | | QUOI
中国語 から 英語
+ ...
| Open a TXML file | Oct 28, 2009 |
No. Double click a TXML file starts WFP or open it within WFP, then save translated file.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Don't you need the original file along with the TXML file to do this, though?
Samuel
[Edited at 2009-10-28 07:57 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for your support | Oct 28, 2009 |
Thank you all for your continual feedback and support of Wordfast products. I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate that both Wordfast Classic and Wordfast Pro are continuing to be developed and will coexist as a suite of products, known as the Wordfast Translation Studio. Wordfast Pro was not designed to replace Wordfast Classic. However, we recognized the benefits that certain customers stand to realize by working outside of the MS Word environment, and wanted to give our users the op... See more Thank you all for your continual feedback and support of Wordfast products. I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate that both Wordfast Classic and Wordfast Pro are continuing to be developed and will coexist as a suite of products, known as the Wordfast Translation Studio. Wordfast Pro was not designed to replace Wordfast Classic. However, we recognized the benefits that certain customers stand to realize by working outside of the MS Word environment, and wanted to give our users the option to do so. The standalone editing environment allows for more efficient batch processing, as well as the ability to work with file formats that cannot be easily handled inside MS Word. On the other hand, we are equally committed to maintaining Wordfast Classic's MS Word-based interface, as it is has been the TM tool of choice for freelance translators for many years.
Obviously, Wordfast Pro is in its infancy compared to Wordfast Classic. As a result, the two tools are sold as a software bundle, as opposed to being marketed as individual products. Additionally, we offer all existing Wordfast customers the ability to get Wordfast Pro for free, without having to pay any upgrade fees (something which is not necessarily customary in the CAT tool industry). We are working to continually improve both tools and enhance their interoperability in the future. As always, we appreciate the valuable feedback provided in this forum as we recognize that its key to helping us develop better and better software.
In regards to the specific questions about file formats in this post, I'd like to mention that Wordfast Pro does now handle Word and Excel 2007 without having to save down to 2003. Please download the latest version here - www.wordfast.com/store_download.html . Both Wordfast Classic and Wordfast Pro can be used to translate excel files; Wordfast Classic handles them inside the MS Word environment, while Wordfast Pro handles them in a standalone interface, and uses an excel column selection wizard to allow you to indicate what content needs to be translated.
Again, we welcome your feedback. Please keep it coming.
Sincerely,
Kristyna Marrero
Director, Sales & Marketing ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Loading Word 2007 Yes - Producing Word 2007 in preview No | Oct 29, 2009 |
I am using the latest version 2.2.3 and downloaded it on 19th October, 2009 (version released on 14th October, 2009). My findings are:
This version supports a docx file when loading but does not produce a preview in docx format.
Kristyna Marrero wrote: In regards to the specific questions about file formats in this post, I'd like to mention that Wordfast Pro does now handle Word and Excel 2007 without having to save down to 2003. Please download the latest version here - www.wordfast.com/store_download.html . Both Wordfast Classic and Wordfast Pro can be used to translate excel files; Wordfast Classic handles them inside the MS Word environment, while Wordfast Pro handles them in a standalone interface, and uses an excel column selection wizard to allow you to indicate what content needs to be translated. Again, we welcome your feedback. Please keep it coming. Sincerely, Kristyna Marrero Director, Sales & Marketing
| | | | | Pro still has some bugs... | Oct 31, 2009 |
I use Wordfast Pro daily because it is the choice of one of my clients. I have to admit that I can't wait until the kinks are ironed out! Since this thread is being monitored by the developers, in a nutshell:
1) When you active a cell by clicking on it it changes size or something but the words are no longer wrapped the way they were. Say I'm reviewing and I've noticed a missing "s" at the end of a word, I place my cursor where I wish to insert the letter and click on the cell to ac... See more I use Wordfast Pro daily because it is the choice of one of my clients. I have to admit that I can't wait until the kinks are ironed out! Since this thread is being monitored by the developers, in a nutshell:
1) When you active a cell by clicking on it it changes size or something but the words are no longer wrapped the way they were. Say I'm reviewing and I've noticed a missing "s" at the end of a word, I place my cursor where I wish to insert the letter and click on the cell to activate it and the text below wraps itself differently and I have to read the sentence again to find where I wanted to insert the letter - not a big deal for a 5 word sentence, one that is 100 words long on the other hand...
2) When you spellcheck you can't change the word yourself - if the spellchecker doesn't suggest the right word you're out of luck... you can't correct it, you have to note down the cell and go back to it later. Oh and a lot of words are missing - I mean the provinces of Canada aren't there
3) When you insert a tag but the wrong one is highlighted you get an error message but instead of the system highlighting the 2nd tag, the 1st one stays highlighted and on top of that the cell you were working on has deactivated and you have to go click on it to activate it to keep working in it.
4) If you want to do a concordance search you have to click on the source cell to activate it first (again, whole deal with words all shifting over so nothing is where it was) and then highlight and search - if you type the words in the bar below you have to mess around with boolean and I haven't quite figured it all out yet.
5) The "matches" are often very bizarre. Often if you have a short sentence with a number in it it will fuzzy match to a phone numbers for some reason and it is hard, especially with large cells, to determine the source differences for the matches - extra words are highlighted in the TU but not in the source cell so you don't know what is missing and what you should be inserting :-S
6) When using the glossary, a fuzzy option would be nice to accommodate typos, plurals, etc.
Lastly documentation would be nice I still don't know what the stars mean in the outline and I've kind of figured out the colours but not quite...
If these get resolved by the next update it would definitely make me a happy camper! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | New bug found | Nov 2, 2009 |
A PDF file converted into a Word file is not always accepted ("Invalid document format detected") whereas the Classic version effortlessly handled the same file. I seems that Pro cannot handle exotic lettering or fonts in the file.
Like Arianne, I am looking forward to the bugs being sorted out as it seems that outsourcers increasingly require the use of Pro.
| | |
|
|
|
Anna Haxen
デンマーク
Local time: 23:13
2005に入会
英語 から デンマーク語
+ ...
| Learn to use both | Nov 9, 2009 |
I've been using Wordfast Classic for years and hadn't gotten around to upgrading to Pro.
Last week I received three PowerPoint presentations full of pictures, bright colours and hidden notes for translation and began working on them in WFC.
The formatting was all over the place in the final result.
In a panic I upgraded to Pro, opened the TM created in WFC and retranslated the whole thing. Everything looks perfect now.
Conclusion: I'll still... See more I've been using Wordfast Classic for years and hadn't gotten around to upgrading to Pro.
Last week I received three PowerPoint presentations full of pictures, bright colours and hidden notes for translation and began working on them in WFC.
The formatting was all over the place in the final result.
In a panic I upgraded to Pro, opened the TM created in WFC and retranslated the whole thing. Everything looks perfect now.
Conclusion: I'll still be using Classic for straightforward translation af Word files, but will definitely use Pro for ppts and other more exotic formats. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
ポーランド
Local time: 23:13
英語 から ポーランド語
+ ...
| have used it for several months now | Feb 15, 2010 |
Now that I know PRO a bit better:
+ It looks good, like a bona fide application, and has a clear interface. Nothing like the mid-nineties feel of Classic.
+ All the seventy million key shortcuts that it has (being a CAT tool) are listed in one place, sortable (by keys, description) and searchable. To me, it is a huge time saver.
+ You can save projects with preferences regarding TMs and glossaries, less cumbersome than .ini files in Classic.
... See more Now that I know PRO a bit better:
+ It looks good, like a bona fide application, and has a clear interface. Nothing like the mid-nineties feel of Classic.
+ All the seventy million key shortcuts that it has (being a CAT tool) are listed in one place, sortable (by keys, description) and searchable. To me, it is a huge time saver.
+ You can save projects with preferences regarding TMs and glossaries, less cumbersome than .ini files in Classic.
+ The Transcheck function alerts you of untranslatable text, numerical errors, omitted/redundant/corrupted placeables, double spaces, etc. (see also: the minuses list)
+ The outline makes it easier to navigate the file.
+ Segments you are unsure of can be marked as unverified (hence the weird stars in the outline, Arianne) in which case they won't be saved to memory; also makes it easy to jump back to them later on.
+ You don't have to worry about formatting. Produces clean files formatted exactly like the source.
+ You don't SEE the formatting so you can focus on the content.
- You don't see the formatting - gets annoying when you have nested bulleted and numbered lists and you're clueless as to the structure (need to peek at original files or references).
- Doesn't like long sentences. On the upside, at least when it comes to target text, translators who produce sentences a hundred words long should not be translators, so they get what they deserve.
- The "untranslatable" filter of Transcheck absolutely sucks.
- Transcheck and other warnings (i.e. "you are leaving the segment without saving to memory") are annoying. Too many of them. Each can be turned off ("do not show this again")... until you've closed the current file. Get a job of 30 files 100 words each and it becomes a problem.
- It is generally less customizable than Classic. A lot less. For example, Transcheck can only be turned on and off.
- Does not have a number of tools that Classic does, e.g. reverse glossary.
- Last but not least - does not produce unclean word files, which is a major limitation when working for an agency that does not use PRO. Right now I'm working on a job in Classic just because of this.
[Edited at 2010-02-15 11:34 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Try PCG Metadata Assistent for cleaning Word files | Sep 28, 2011 |
- Last but not least - does not produce unclean word files, which is a major limitation when working for an agency that does not use PRO. Right now I'm working on a job in Classic just because of this.
[Edited at 2010-02-15 11:34 GMT] [/quote]
Try PCG Metadata Assistant. I use it for years.
| | | | | Removing metadata is not the same as "cleaning" a bilingual DOC! | Sep 29, 2011 |
- Last but not least - does not produce unclean word files, which is a major limitation when working for an agency that does not use PRO. Right now I'm working on a job in Classic just because of this.
Jose Mariano wrote:
Try PCG Metadata Assistant. I use it for years.
Krzysztof referred to Pro being unable to produce an "uncleaned" Word document, that is a bilingual document such as those you get when translating with Wordfast Classic or Trados Workbench.
The software you mention (http://www.payneconsulting.com/products/metadataretail/) serves another purpose: removing metadata from a Word document.
Besides, Krzysztof didn't miss the ability to produce a cleaned Word document, he wanted to be able to produce an *uncleaned* Word document, which many agencies still expect translators to deliver.
[Edited at 2011-09-29 06:15 GMT]
[Edited at 2011-09-29 06:17 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
オランダ
Local time: 23:13
2006に入会
英語 から アフリカーンス語
+ ...
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:
+ All the seventy million key shortcuts that it has (being a CAT tool) are listed in one place, sortable (by keys, description) and searchable. To me, it is a huge time saver.
You can see most shortcuts in WFC by using the WFC menu. In WFC, there is a toolbar at the top of MS Word but there is also a WFC menu, which contains the same functions as the toolbar, plus some extra functions, so you can see what the shortcut is for a certain action.
  
 
+ You can save projects with preferences regarding TMs and glossaries, less cumbersome than .ini files in Classic.
Yes, but in WFP the settings for any new project is inherited from the previously selected project. With WFC, you can control this inheritance by using INI files that you set up as templates for specific types of projects.
+ The Transcheck function alerts you of untranslatable text, numerical errors, omitted/redundant/corrupted placeables, double spaces, etc. (see also: the minuses list)
You can do real-time QC and post-translation QC in WFC too.
It doesn't warn you of unsegmented text (but then, neither does WFP), but it can warn you of untranslated text using the length check.
+ The outline makes it easier to navigate the file.
Personally I find the outline view of very little use, particularly if the file is very long. In WFC's typically WYSIWYG mode, however, I can quickly find what I'm looking for by scrolling in the document.
+ Segments you are unsure of can be marked as unverified (hence the weird stars in the outline, Arianne) in which case they won't be saved to memory; also makes it easy to jump back to them later on.
It is called "provisional segments" in WFC.
+ You don't have to worry about formatting. Produces clean files formatted exactly like the source.
Sure, but you also have no *control* over formatting -- you are at the mercy of the source text's formatting.
[Edited at 2011-09-29 08:54 GMT]
| | | | | The biggest plusses are however | Sep 29, 2011 |
+ WFPro translates without any problems Powerpoint, Excel and InDesign files. (of course you can use WFC, but as a regular user of both I don't want to go back to WFC for these).
+ WFPro translates 'readable' PDF files and converts tehm into a formatted Word file, in such a way that in most circumstances they are fine for the client and can be converted in a new PDF using the print to disk feature.
+ WFPro can handle several TMs at the same time, WFC is limited to 1 TM and 1 BTM.... See more + WFPro translates without any problems Powerpoint, Excel and InDesign files. (of course you can use WFC, but as a regular user of both I don't want to go back to WFC for these).
+ WFPro translates 'readable' PDF files and converts tehm into a formatted Word file, in such a way that in most circumstances they are fine for the client and can be converted in a new PDF using the print to disk feature.
+ WFPro can handle several TMs at the same time, WFC is limited to 1 TM and 1 BTM.
But, in my opinion:
- for Word files WFC is still better.
- I am not convinced of the glossary feature in WFPro. It's buggy.
- the txml format, although fine for 'internal' use, is unacceptable for most clients. I don't hope anymore that WF will set a new standard here.
- xliff? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | What about Studio? | Nov 2, 2013 |
I am pretty new to WF, but I have used the Anywhere version for a couple projects and now am looking to upgrade to a paid license. I think we can all agree that is Word is better with Classic and Excel, PPT, etc with Pro. Most of the time I translate with Word files and rarely with other files (which is the part where I'm doubting the need of using Pro), but then this could change once I get into CAT World further. Given this, I am deciding between Classic and Studio. Since there is a $50 differ... See more I am pretty new to WF, but I have used the Anywhere version for a couple projects and now am looking to upgrade to a paid license. I think we can all agree that is Word is better with Classic and Excel, PPT, etc with Pro. Most of the time I translate with Word files and rarely with other files (which is the part where I'm doubting the need of using Pro), but then this could change once I get into CAT World further. Given this, I am deciding between Classic and Studio. Since there is a $50 difference in cost between the two (Via Proz 15% discount for Proz members), I am considering Studio as a long-term investment. My main concern is how steep the learning curve could with Studio in comparison to Classic. What do you think of this? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 » New to Wordfast: Classic or Pro? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to Wordfast
