| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Trados vs. Wordfast Thread poster: Violeta Leon Herrero
|
|---|
Marc P (X) 
Local time: 17:01
German to English
+ ...
| Trados vs. Wordfast | Oct 18, 2007 |
I take your point about off-topic posts, Samuel. But the original poster provided virtually no information on their reasons for limiting the choice to Trados and Wordfast, nor was it in fact stated explicitly that they had done so. Under these circumstances, it isn't realistic IMO to expect others to make the choice for them.
What struck me as strange was that one should shortlist products on their appearance. In any case, Trados is now a suite of products with a range of different ... See more I take your point about off-topic posts, Samuel. But the original poster provided virtually no information on their reasons for limiting the choice to Trados and Wordfast, nor was it in fact stated explicitly that they had done so. Under these circumstances, it isn't realistic IMO to expect others to make the choice for them.
What struck me as strange was that one should shortlist products on their appearance. In any case, Trados is now a suite of products with a range of different interfaces, and it is arguably no longer appropriate to say that "Trados is like Wordfast".
As far as merely suggesting - not even advocating - something that the OP may not have thought of themselves is concerned, no, I don't think that's bad manners, nor a "me too" reply.
Marc ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 17:01
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Some points... | Oct 18, 2007 |
Marc P wrote:
...nor was it in fact stated explicitly that they had done so.
The subject line of this tread is "Trados vs Wordfast". How much more explicit would you like?
What struck me as strange was that one should shortlist products on their appearance.
I was simply trying to think about things that Trados and Wordfast have in common (so that I could compare them), and how these things compare to other CAT tools. One of the things that Trados and Wordfast have in common, is appearance. The appearance they have in common is not shared by the other CAT tools mentioned.
As far as merely suggesting ... something that the OP may not have thought of themselves is concerned, no, I don't think that's bad manners...
I have no objection to suggesting other CAT tools in a thread like this, but then at least it must be relevant (or made relevant) to the thread. Neither the OmegaT nor the MemoQ poster made any attempt to compare their CAT tool with Trados or Wordfast.
| | | | | Comparison with Trados | Oct 18, 2007 |
Neither the OmegaT nor the MemoQ poster made any attempt to compare their CAT tool with Trados or Wordfast.
I think Martin (the MemoQ poster) basically said that:
- MemoQ was compatible with Trados,
- MemoQ was cheaper than Trados,
- MemoQ was far easier to use than Trados,
- MemoQ was better than Trados,
- MemoQ did not screw up the formatting like Trados...
David
[Edited at 2007-10-18 12:28]
| | | |
I have been using wordfast for quite some time now and it is a good solution for me:
1) Most of my work is delivered in microsoft word, excel or powerpoint and Wordfast can handle all of them.
2) I like the fact it is easy to get started, it's quite intuitive and it doesn't "crash" as it is not a programme (as far as I know) and doesn't slow down your system
3) the user manuals (which I printed out) are quite easy to use as and when you need to do something "new" (like ... See more I have been using wordfast for quite some time now and it is a good solution for me:
1) Most of my work is delivered in microsoft word, excel or powerpoint and Wordfast can handle all of them.
2) I like the fact it is easy to get started, it's quite intuitive and it doesn't "crash" as it is not a programme (as far as I know) and doesn't slow down your system
3) the user manuals (which I printed out) are quite easy to use as and when you need to do something "new" (like back to source)
4) It is useful to have 3 glossaries running in the background as you work
5) it costs a lot less than Trados
Another useful thing is the "try before you buy" option - with a 500 TU limit (but no limits to how many TM's you have). If you like it, you simply buy a licence key over the internet and "unlock" the 500 TU limit.
Yes, it does have the "align" function.
You can import TM's generated by Trados into wordfast.
Hope that helps you decide!
Isabel ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for positive replies | Oct 18, 2007 |
Well, I see this topic has got many replies, and I'm very thankful to those of you who actually have tried to help me with your experiences and advises in different CAT tools, and didn't convert this forum into a quarrel!!!
Yes, i was (am) more interested in the two I mention in the first place, doesn't mean that I don't apreciate any other comment/experience on any other CAT tool.
Still, the experiences and explanations concerning Wordfast and Trados have given me so... See more Well, I see this topic has got many replies, and I'm very thankful to those of you who actually have tried to help me with your experiences and advises in different CAT tools, and didn't convert this forum into a quarrel!!!
Yes, i was (am) more interested in the two I mention in the first place, doesn't mean that I don't apreciate any other comment/experience on any other CAT tool.
Still, the experiences and explanations concerning Wordfast and Trados have given me some grounds in which to base my decision.
lila
[Edited at 2007-10-18 13:50] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | They are NOT the same. | Oct 18, 2007 |
Wordfast, as the name suggests, is based on Microsoft Word.
The same used to be true for earlier versions of Trados, but with the advent and lately the refinement of TagEditor, Trados has become entirely independent of MS Word.
This enables Trados to support a vastly wider range of source file formats, albeit with the typical troubles caused first by the Trados company's and now SDL's poor software engineering and testing especially in the area of file filters that ha... See more Wordfast, as the name suggests, is based on Microsoft Word.
The same used to be true for earlier versions of Trados, but with the advent and lately the refinement of TagEditor, Trados has become entirely independent of MS Word.
This enables Trados to support a vastly wider range of source file formats, albeit with the typical troubles caused first by the Trados company's and now SDL's poor software engineering and testing especially in the area of file filters that have been plaguing Trados users for years (decades?) now.
There are ways to make just about any file format compatible to Wordfast somehow, but the effort required is on an entirely other level than with Trados, where the translator receives a file that is ready for opening with TagEditor, and that's that.
Wordfast comes with a number of really nifty macro-based features for advanced users and even I use PlusTools sometimes although we have the LSP version of Trados here.
Regarding the quality of the manuals:
I have never had a problem understanding the instructions in the Trados manuals & online help or finding the information I required. IMO, the documentation (not the knowledge base, which is atrocious!) is actually one of the best parts of the whole package. CAT technology as a whole is a complex subject matter, and I don't find it surprising that the manuals for one of the most feature-rich CATs make for complex reading.
Wordfast is basically a "Trados light" with a reduced feature set, which obviously limits the translator's options in terms of the projects he/she can handle, but makes for easier learning as well - and at a much lower price. In that sense, I totally agree with Isabel's posting.
Experienced, technology-savvy translators, on the other hand, may be able to find ways to customize and expand upon Wordfast and its technology to achieve a level of format compatibility & functionality that rivals that of its "big cousin", Trados. But at that point, Wordfast is no easier to handle than Trados, au contraire. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ulf Samuelsson
Mexico
Local time: 09:01
Member (2007)
English to Swedish
+ ...
| Trados or Wordfast, that's the question | Oct 21, 2007 |
It is my opinion that Wordfast is better to use than Trados, if there is a choice. But as that is an opinion, I'll try to explain my reasoning below.
Many agencies demand that Trados is used in situations where it really wouldn't make a difference if Wordfast was used. And you might even say that all jobs that require Trados can be translated with Wordfast – all you need is the demo version of Trados and a little bit of extra work.
This is what you do:
1. Creat... See more It is my opinion that Wordfast is better to use than Trados, if there is a choice. But as that is an opinion, I'll try to explain my reasoning below.
Many agencies demand that Trados is used in situations where it really wouldn't make a difference if Wordfast was used. And you might even say that all jobs that require Trados can be translated with Wordfast – all you need is the demo version of Trados and a little bit of extra work.
This is what you do:
1. Create an empty Trados memory if you do not already have one.
2. Use this empty memory and run an analysis on the files (.rtf, .doc, .xls, .ttx, etc.).
3. In the analysis results window, click on Export Unknown Segments and save the file with the file type "Word (*.rtf)".
4. Open a new empty Word document and insert the rtf file (menu Insert -> File) and save as a .doc file. (This step is because the *.rtf file created by Trados is unstable and can easily make Word crash, and also because you can use the shortcut Shift+F5 in .doc files to quickly get back to where you left off if you reopen the file after having closed it.)
5. Use the segmentation rule "Segmentation method: Paragraph" to ensure that you get the segments as they are seen by Trados (each separate segment is a paragraph in the exported file).
6. Now translate the file with Wordfast as usual.
You then end up with a file that you can clean up with Trados to create a memory for your job.
If your version of Trados only is the demo version, then you have to estimate how much of the file that fits in a Trados Demo memory and split the file in equal parts that can be cleaned and run, one by one, on the files. (Open one segment at a time in Trados until you get the message that the memory is too large for demo mode, then you can see, roughly, how many segments you can have per memory.)
Then run Translate in Trados Translator's Workbench with each memory and proofread to verify that all text now is translated correctly.
But why would anyone go through all this to use Wordfast instead of Trados?
I suppose that is the question that the original poster wanted to have answered.
I have a fully licenced version of Trados, but I prefer to use Wordfast for a number of reasons, not only because it makes me work faster as a Wordfaster:
1. In Wordfast, there is a quality control function that you can customize (it can warn you for double spaces, deviation from a customer-specific glossary, certain style errors or changed numbers/tags, and you can even set it to check the spelling before moving to the next segment). You can also use a list of unwanted terms as a blacklist so Wordfast will warn you if these words are found in the text. This is useful when a client has made changes in the terminology - just put the old term in the blacklist, and you'll be warned if it is still in the text when you try to go to the next segment.
2. You can use two memories at the same time, e.g. a customer-specific main memory and a general background memory, and receive suggestions from both (and you can decide which of these memories which is to take precedence if the same matching is found in both memories. You can also add a third memory that is only used for 100% matching and searching.
3. You can use three different glossaries (in text format) with direct automatic translation of these terms, and you can copy these translations to the target segment with the same funktion that you use for copying of tags and numbers. It is very useful to set Glossary 1 to a glossary with customer-specific terms that have to be translated in a certain way (and then also activate the quality control function for that glossary so that Wordfast will warn you if a term in that glossary hasn't been translated correctly). Glossary 2 can then be a subject glossary and Glossary 3 a general glossary.
4. You can link to your favourite dictionary program and press Alt+Ctrl+D to look up a term directly in Webster's, WordFinder or Oxford, depending on which dictionary you have linked to.
5. You can use Alt+Ctrl+F to start any program of your choice – another dictionary or e.g. Internet Explorer to start searching directly in Google (or any Internet site with a search box).
6. You can search in several reference files at the same time with the keys Alt+Ctrl+N. These files don't necessarily have to be memory files, but can be glossaries or other references in various formats (.doc, .rtf, .xls, .txt, .bak, .htm). You can even set several different folders to be searched.
7. You can set Wordfast to automatically correct the quotation marks to the style used in your language (you don't have to change it manually every time).
8. You can (and should) save each project setting as a separate .ini file, which means that you can have a separate .ini file for each client, with all customer-specific settings (memories, glossaries, reference files, quality control, etc.). This also means that you can easily do a small job while working on a large job. You just switch .ini file while doing the smaller job and then switch back again to resume your large assignment, without worrying about changing memory and other settings.
9. If no matching is found in the memory for a complete segment, then a partial match can be proposed (five or more words in a row that is found in the same sequence in a segment in the memory). Very useful if a manual have been re-written and large sentences been broken up or shorter ones been joined.
10. You can easily select any text as a segment and press Alt+Shift+Down to use that selected text as a segment (it is useful if you want to use a longer or shorter segment than what is opened when you go to the next segment as usual).
11. You can mark any text that should not be translated with a temporary text attribute (e.g. marching red ants or double strikethrough).
12. It is possible to delete the suggested segment from the memory (Alt+Ctrl+Backspace) if you notice that it contains errors (you then do not have to make a note of the error so that you can edit the memory afterwards manually).
13. The memory file is in text format (*.txt) and this means that it is very easy to make changes in a memory if you find that you need to change the terminology (or if the client requests that certain changes is to be done to earlier translations). You can either open the memory in any text editor or use the included memory editor (it is recommended that you use the memory editor as it has many useful maintenance functions and it is possible to search and replace only in the translation if you change untranslated terms into a new translation).
I've probably forgotten something, but these are my main reasons for preferring to use Wordfast instead of Trados.
Ulf ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Why go to the extra work? | Oct 22, 2007 |
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
Many agencies demand that Trados is used in situations where it really wouldn't make a difference if Wordfast was used.
And you might even say that all jobs that require Trados can be translated with Wordfast
That's very true...
– all you need is the demo version of Trados and a little bit of extra work.
But why would anyone go through all this to use Wordfast instead of Trados?
... but I don't see why you need steps 1 to 5. I would go straight to step 6 "Translate the file with Wordfast as usual". For all practical purposes, TWB and Wordfast use the same segmentation rules. Any exceptions (abbreviations, etc.) can easily be added to Wordfast.
BR,
David
| | |
|
|
|
Ulf Samuelsson
Mexico
Local time: 09:01
Member (2007)
English to Swedish
+ ...
| Segmentation differences | Oct 22, 2007 |
David Turner wrote:
... but I don't see why you need steps 1 to 5. I would go straight to step 6 "Translate the file with Wordfast as usual". For all practical purposes, TWB and Wordfast use the same segmentation rules. Any exceptions (abbreviations, etc.) can easily be added to Wordfast.
I'm sorry, David, there are some segmentation differences, but they are most noticeable in tagged files.
If I remember correctly, Trados doesn't segment after a number and a tag, but Wordfast does. In normal texts, there should be no differences, but it is better to make sure that the same segmentation is used if the client states that the job should be made in Trados.
Ulf
| | | | | That won't make any noticeable difference | Oct 22, 2007 |
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
I'm sorry, David, there are some segmentation differences, but they are most noticeable in tagged files.
If I remember correctly, Trados doesn't segment after a number and a tag, but Wordfast does. In normal texts, there should be no differences, but it is better to make sure that the same segmentation is used if the client states that the job should be made in Trados.
That sounds like a pretty minor difference to me Ulf and in any case translators are going to expand or shrink segments to make sensible sentences or to suit their individual translation styles (splitting a long sentence into 2 or vice versa) so segmentation "rules" will vary from one translator to another whether they use WF or TWB.
User lists of abbreviations or ordinal followers are likely to have a much greater effect on segmentation than any slight differences between Wordfast and TWB. Very few clients know anything about this anyway and are very unlikely to detect any difference if the translation is segmented "normally" (as it will be if you use Wordfast).
BTW, you're stuck with the default segmentation rules with the TWB demo version (you can't access Setup to change them) but you can change these rules with the Wordfast demo.
BR,
David
| | | | | A few more questions to wizards | Oct 29, 2008 |
Both Trados TWB and Wordfast install templates with Visual Basic macros into MS Word. Several years ago, I tried Wordfast (I think it was version 4.0) and had to switch to Trados because this VB code in Wordfast was much less stable (e.g. threw exceptions much more often) and consumed a lot more CPU. At that time, I was translating huge lists with lots of repetitions, so saving 200 milliseconds per segment did matter to me a lot.
What is the situation at the current version level? In part... See more Both Trados TWB and Wordfast install templates with Visual Basic macros into MS Word. Several years ago, I tried Wordfast (I think it was version 4.0) and had to switch to Trados because this VB code in Wordfast was much less stable (e.g. threw exceptions much more often) and consumed a lot more CPU. At that time, I was translating huge lists with lots of repetitions, so saving 200 milliseconds per segment did matter to me a lot.
What is the situation at the current version level? In particular:
- Has Wordfast's VB code caught up with Trados in terms of speed and stability?
- Is segmentation in Wordfast less prone to "misfiring" (which is quite frequent in Trados)?
- Is Wordfast less prone to screwing up the text format when lots of styles are used?
(same questions for MemoQ, if applicable) ▲ Collapse
| | | | Hinara
United States
Local time: 08:01
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Question about ttx files | Aug 31, 2012 |
[quote]Samuel Murray wrote:
Martin Bruckmann wrote:
MemoQ ... also produces Translation Memory files compatible with Trados, those some agencies expect you to send to them...
I have never had a Trados client expect me to send them the TM. What the Trados client wants, is not the TM, but the bilingual file (be it an uncleaned file or a TTX file).
How can one create an unclean files from a ttx file translated using OmegaT?
Any suggestions?
| | |
|
|
|
| This thread is five years old | Sep 1, 2012 |
You can see when each post was made by the date at the top right hand corner.
A lot of water has run under the bridge since this discussion was started.
Although the advice was sound at the time, CATs have developed a long way since then.
It might be an idea to start a new thread, and certainly to look into the CATs that are on the market today.
Studio and Wordfast PRO are not even mentioned, and I suspect MemoQ then was a pale shadow of what it can d... See more You can see when each post was made by the date at the top right hand corner.
A lot of water has run under the bridge since this discussion was started.
Although the advice was sound at the time, CATs have developed a long way since then.
It might be an idea to start a new thread, and certainly to look into the CATs that are on the market today.
Studio and Wordfast PRO are not even mentioned, and I suspect MemoQ then was a pale shadow of what it can do now!
[Edited at 2012-09-01 22:32 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Trados vs. Wordfast | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
