InfoWorld in 1983 described PFS:Write as "inexpensive, simple to use and uncluttered by seldom-used features". The magazine approved of its ease of use ("If you can use a typewriter and know how to turn on your computer, you can use PFS:Write"), built-in help, good documentation, and ability to import data from spreadsheets and other PFS: software.
InfoWorld concluded, "A word processor should allow you freedom of expression. This one can".
Byte magazine in 1984 described pfs:Write 1.1 as "an elementary program for users who don't have time to major in word processing or who have basic needs". It cited "major deficiencies", however, including the inability to easily justify or delete text, poor printed and built-in documentation, and very slow file saving.
PC Magazine in 1985 named pfs:Write and
DisplayWrite 1 the Editor's Choice among six inexpensive word processors, approving the former's ease of use. The magazine in 1987 named pfs:Professional Write an Editor's Choice among low-cost word processors, stating that it added many features users of pfs:Write wanted.
PC praised its ease of use, stating that the manual "is excellent, though much of it may be superfluous" because of
pull-down menus and
context-sensitive help.
II Computing in late 1985 listed pfs:Write fourth on the magazine's list of top Apple II non-game, non-educational software, based on sales and market-share data. A 1988
PC reader survey found that 4% used PFS:Professional Write. A 1990
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants member survey found that 6% of respondents used pfs:Write as their word processor. ==References==