Rating: 
Summary: WNID3 software for Mac users
Review: As a Mac owner and editor, I was delighted to learn that WNID3 was available in CD-ROM form for the Macintosh. However, my delight turned to disappointment after using the dictionary for the first time. Though the installation was effortless, the dictionary is too outdated for users who need current information, and the search interface (on the Mac, at least-maybe the Windows version is okay) is less than ideal. For example, the program didn't recognize "Russia" as a viable word, probably because Russia was the USSR back in 1971, the year (I believe) WNID3 was last updated. When I used the more advanced search option of searching through definition entries for occurrences of "Soviet Union," the program listed "3 entries found," (3 entries with definitions containing the words "Soviet" and "Union") but provided no way to access those three entries! In a comparison between Merriam-Webster's excellent on-line dictionary and their WNID3 software, it took 9 seconds to get a definition of "zoology" on-line, and a whopping 30 seconds to get the same definition using the software. The time delay might be solved by being able to run the dictionary straight from the CD-ROM, but that isn't an available option. Not the ideal choice for professional use, though it's probably just fine for personal reference needs.
Rating: 
Summary: W3 excludes proper nouns; names such as Russia
Review: As reply to the reader from Brooklyn, I would point out that W3 discusses at length, in its explanitory notes, that this reference work defines no proper nouns. Names of people, such as George W. Bush, places such as Russia, and things, such as the Hope diamond, are not included among its entries. The editors explain that the printed version could not have been contained in a single volume if such encylopedic terms had been included. If you frequently need to reference such terms, you will need to supplement this specialized language reference with a geographical or biographical dictionary, or an encyclopedia.Our reader from Brooklyn is quite correct in his assertion that W3 is dated. Apart from adding new words, this work has not had a major revision since it was first published in 1963. Many of its definitions are dated. The work reflects the mood and spirit of the 1950's more than of the new millenium. Still, its scholarship is unassailable, and the work, as a whole, is still invaluable. Until the folks at Merriam-Webster can update it--no easy task--this dictionary is still the standard for American English. Rumor has it that a new edition is being planned. These mammoth dictionaries take about a decade to refurbish, so this one is it, for the nonce. Regarding performance, 30 seconds access time sounds very slow. I suspect this reflects an older and slower Mac. Are any other folks experiencing this?
Rating: 
Summary: cd rom edition is great
Review: Don't hesitate to buy the cd rom edition. It makes a million times more sense than buying the paper version. You can search by text in the definition, etc. Can't do that in the paper version. Also, I think this is more useful than the OED online dictionary in certain cases as well.
Rating: 
Summary: buggy from the start
Review: From the very start I had problems with the CD. Before it would work, I had to download 2 patches. I emailed MW tech support, and by the end of the first week, had not received a reply. There are a number of features, meant to enhance, that actually work in reverse. I would have preferred a simple thesaurus addition, rather than a crossword puzzle solver. Buy the book instead!
Rating:
Summary: Good, but needs a revision
Review: I bought one new in 2003 - this edition has an addenda section of new words in the front (89 pages) with a 2002 copyright and then the main text of the dictionary with a 1961 copyright. The new words in the addenda are not listed in the main text, so if you look up a word in the main text and can't find it, you then have to double check the addenda section. The layout of the text looks like it remains the same as the 1961 template, and it is not easy to read. In contrast, the layout of the Shorter OED is quite nice and a pleasant alternative. The words and definitions of the Webster's Third New International Dictionary are extensive, authoritative, and a slight bit dated. In addition to the hard copy, I also have a subscription to the online version, which I have found to be very user-friendly and very useful. I find that if I'm online, I'll use the online version of this dictionary as my first choice (followed by OneLook Dictionaries). If I use a print dictionary, my first choice is usually "The New Oxford American Dictionary" for a quick sense of core meanings and related senses. My second choice is usually the 2 volume "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" for a more historic sense of the word. My third choice is the 20 volume OED. My fourth choice is usually this dictionary.
Rating: 
Summary: Indispensable online--but inadequate
Review: I bought the CD version. I keep it on my hard drive and use it many times a day, not least for Boggle. This is the only online unabridged dictionary I know of. [The OED is impossible to use on a hard disk] It works quickly and well. The complaints I have regard the outdated and inadequate listings. The New Oxford English Dictionary [not online] has far more contemporary words, and many, many more Canadian, Austalian and other non American English words. Again and again I am forced to go online to dictionary.com to find words that are missing in this so called 'unabridged' dictionary. Also missing is an audio program that would pronounce the words out loud. This feature does appear on the Merriam Webster website, so why not on the CD version?
Rating:
Summary: What a piece of junk!
Review: I don't think any of us would be on this page, reading these reviews, unless we shared an all-consuming interest in words. As an author, speaker, and editor, I am no exception. For about a decade now, I have been using Random House's Unabridged, which is equally weighty and was minted in 1987. I've been looking for something newer, and I thought the time had come when Webster's came out with this puppy, late in the fall of 2000. Although I was intent on buying the book, standing in the checkout line, I asked if I might not be permitted to open and examine it, just for larks. Imagine my suprise on discovering that this book was actually printed in 1961, and is in fact almost entirely the same text! The typeset hadn't been touched since then! Folks, it's merely a re-issue of their 1961 edition. Yes, they did add a "Special Addenda Section of New Words" toward the front of the dictionary (80-100pp, I'm guessing), but they didn't bother to include these neologisms in the main text, presumably because resetting the 1961 proofs would have been too much work for Webster & co. And if Webster & Co. couldn't be bothered to alphabetize these news words into the main body of this dictionary, they obviously were too busy to correct errors and typos in the main text, either! Why? What is Webster's doing now? Do they own a chain of hotels or something? I SOOOOO wanted to buy and love this book, and was SOOOOO angry to find it a con. I couldn't believe it! Admittedly, the neologism section was VERY interesting, but you're basically paying $... for that, you should understand. Perhaps you should buy the book, photocopy this section, then return the book for a full refund the next day. Although this would be unethical, it was equally unethical, I feel, for Webster's to have let on like they had drafted a completely new dictionary, when in fact they had done nothing of the kind. Another consideration for the prospective buyer is that ideas about readability (i.e. the use of fonts, boldface, and italics to make the text more negotiable) were a lot more primitive in 1961, and, naturally, nothing has been done about that, either. In other words, the columns are very hard on the eye. Until somebody comes along with another giant dictionary like this, but one that reflects true work and revision, I'm sticking with my old Random House. What are you guys using?
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Dictionary
Review: I found this dictionary outstanding quality. As a person who's english is not a first language, I love the unlimited variety words and the detailed descriptions of each words. I hoped if the book isn't so big and heavy but I guess it's impossible for this dictonary. I like to recommend to evrybody and I have so. For new buyers, you won't regret. People might think this dictionary is not much different from the oxford but THIS is quiet an extraordinary...
Rating:
Summary: Missing pages
Review: I love my Webster's and have used it for several years. However, my eleven year old just discovered I'm missing 19 pages - pages 1353-1372. Don't know if that's just my volume or if anyone else discovered a similar problem. I plan to buy the 2 vol Oxford English Dictionary set to compliment my Webster's; however, one OED reviewer mentioned he found several pages printed upside down!
Rating:
Summary: The biggest I have....CD VERSION
Review: I'm an avid collector of Webster dictionaries and this one is definetely the biggest one available, but it has serious drawbacks too.Firstly, the layout is very bad.When I click it, it seems to me that everything is a bit messy.It lacks geographical names, colloquial terms and the usage notes are rare and not very clear as well. This dictionary includes many dialectical words like"mud clerk" that are not included in other unabridged dictionaries.This book is helpful with pronunciation (there are usually several variants included)and etymology (for those who need it)
Still, I would highly recommand Random House Webster's Unabridged instead, for those who need detailed and absolutely perfect usage notes and regional varations. Random House has only 320 000 words, but includes geographical names and proper nouns.
4 stars overall for being the biggest and for some helpful option available on this CD
| 
