This is a very high quality collegiate dictionary. I am a member of a word puzzle organization (puzzlers.org) and this is our standard reference, along with the unabridged version, "Webster's Third New International Dictionary". Many very obscure words show up in puzzles, but it is relatively rare I find I have to go to the unabridged dictionary to look them up.

In addition to being thorough (with excellent sections on abbreviations, foreign words and phrases (such as "en plein jour" or "inshallah") it includes compressed but informative etymological data. For example, the entry on "spacious" has this - ME, fr. MF spacieux, fr. L spatiosus, space, room -- more at SPEED (14c)"; in a little over a single line you get the lineage, with a reference to yet more information. You may have to learn some of the abbreviations (Middle English, Middle French, 14th century) but I found them generally intuitive and didn't need to look them up much at all.

In addition, there are excellent usage paragraphs scattered throughout. These are of two types. One type compares the usage of different words with very similar meanings. For example, the entry on "satiate" provides a usage paragraph that compares "satiate", "sate", "surfeit", "cloy", "pall", "glut" and "gorge", identifying the precise differences of usage between them. The paragraph is cross-referenced at each of the other six words, so you don't have to just stumble across satiate to find it.

The other kind of usage paragraph discusses correctness. A good example is "hopefully", which in its sense "I hope that" is controversial. The dictionary asserts the validity of this controversial use, which is sure to annoy some purists, but it does acknowledge the debate and cite grammatical arguments for its position.

The dictionary is available online, and I strongly recommend you take a look at it. There is a CD-ROM for sale too, which is worth getting as it adds some fancy search features, though if you're like me you'll want the paper version to keep by the bed.

The name "Webster's" long ago passed into the public domain, but three dictionaries--and the Merriam-Webster brand--survive as the lineal descendants of Noah Webster's original nineteenth-century dictionaries, the first dictionaries of American English, which have been in print continuously for almost two centuries. The 215,000-word "Collegiate Dictionary," now in its tenth edition, is the conveniently abridged harback version of the brand-name standard. The other versions are the 445,000-word "Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged," which "Collegiate Dictionary" abridges; and the 70,000-word pocket-sized paperback, whose contents are a subset of this version.

If the unabridged version is too much, and the pocket-sized paperback is too little, this version is just right. I keep the paperback version handy on my desk for ready reference (along with a thesaurus, a style manual, and a usage dictionary). But on the shelf nearby, within easy reach, I keep a more extensive basic reference set, including the heftier hardbound "Collegiate Dictionary." When clear and simple communication is the goal, this version is a good check against writing that is getting too high and mighty; if a word does not appear here, I think twice about using it, keeping in mind the Fowler brothers' first "general principle" of good writing: "Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched."

If you are buying one and only one dictionary, go with this version: it is more complete than the paperback version, yet stays within the realm of familiar words. But if you can manage, I recommend also stocking the paperback version. Keep the hardbound version on the shelf, within reach, and consult it as necessary; and keep the paperback version at your fingertips for readier, more routine reference.

By updating Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary every
10-12 years, its publishers continue to provide wordsmiths, copy editors, students, teachers, and folks who simply love learning about the English language (American style) a great service and indispensable reference.

Though at heart, this certainly is a robust, up-to-date dictionary, the additional reference information proves valuable for a host of purposes. The histories, guides, and lists that span the opening section should not be regarded merely as the arcane turf of lexicographers and linguists. For the most part, these are great resources worth your attention. Likewise, there are appendices that delve into such varied subject matter as foreign words and phrases, chemical element, geographical names, and a style guide.

Do not be misled by the fact this volume is called a collegiate dictionary. It is also the dictionary favored by legions of copy editors charged with maintaining consistency and correctness in myriad publications of all sorts, from newspapers to newsletters. This dictionary has always been the most responsive to changes in the language, and each new edition swells by thousands of new entries. The standard features are all here of course: bold-face entries, pronunciation, economical but precise definitions and usage examples, and all the other details you need. In addition to the small, inset line drawings that grace every few pages, there are occasional half-page illustrations that expand certain terms.

Sure there are going to be some errors that pundits and nitpickers will gleefully cite, but it you consider the how much information is packed into this hardback edition (I would never buy a paperback dictionary)...you can do no better.

Short of the 2,000-page volume of the Real Academia Española, this dictionary is the best on the market and, for its value, sells for an absolutely unbeatable price. I've used my copy for about five years and I have never encountered a dictionary that surpasses it.

Being a foreign-language tutor, I frequently thumb through some of the pathetic dictionaries my students bring in and I realize exactly why they have difficulty learning Spanish, or at least a big part of it -- their dictionaries don't provide adequate examples of how Spanish actually functions.

Very few people realize how to use a foreign-language dictionary effectively. You shouldn't regard it as just a "reference" to turn when you can't figure out what a word means. The dictionary is equally as important as the grammar -- that is, when you have the right one. A dictionary should be more than a list of words. It should include examples of how each word is used in different circumstances, illustrated by REAL SENTENCES.

This is something most dictionaries lack. If I wanted to say, for example, "Mercedes is not involved in this," the average dictionary would leave me in the dark. I look up the verb "to involve" and I find "involucrar" and "comprometer." Should I could conjugate one of these and say, "Mercedes no está involucrada con esto"? -- That'd be a clunky way to say it, if not in fact incorrect. Something more fluent and idiomatic like, "Este asunto no tiene nada que ver con Mercedes" might never occur to me. But that's the very example this dictionary gives to explain the verb "to involve."

Under each word heading, you find a wonderful list of how each word is used in different circumstances. You find this in all dictionaries to some extent. The number of examples this one gives is what distinguishes it from the rest. In fact, there are so many of them, organized so well, that when I started studying Spanish myself, I actually read the dictionary, or at least copied out some of the many entries, playing around with them, comparing related words and expressions. If I had done this with any other dictionary, my brain probably would have dried up!

If you're looking for an excellent German, Italian, or French dictionary, I recommend the other titles in the Webster's New World series -- all of them are organized along the same lines as this one. A pity Webster's doesn't release titles for some less popular languages!

Since I've been majoring in Spanish literture for more than five years, I've been using so many diffenent kinds of dictionaries to compare and understand the right meaning of the words and the expressions. Now I just can say Webster's was the best. The contents are imcomparable. It's just excellent. The only thing I want to say is the paper. This is the third time that i bought this dictionary. The copy falls aparts easily I think(or maybe it's just because of my habit) Anyway for average users webster's will give all the answers. (and Spanish doesn't need pronounciation signs)

This is by far the best Spanish-English dictionary I have ever used. It is the only dictionary I brought with me for my semester in Spain - I live with a Spanish family, and all my classes and homework are in Spanish! I previously owned an American Heritage Spanish/English dictionary, but I hated it so much that I went out and on the recommendation of a friend, spent [$] on Webster's New World pocket edition Spanish/English dictionary, which is slightly different than the one listed here (mine has an orange cover, only 90,000 words, only 611 pages, and is from 1991). I have never regretted it. The book has an easy to read font, relatively small size and lightweight, and includes nearly every word I have looked up, including (surprisingly) some random, very specific art terms.

Each entry has the word in bold, the pronunciation in English, the part of speech for each definition, the numerous definitions, phrases to clarify each use, phrases that include the word (under the entry for "house," you can find the words for "house plant"), and colloquial phrases. There is a prounonciation guide at the beginning of the book, which when reviewed should provide adequate direction for any beginning Spanish speaker. The phrases the dictionary provides are actually used by native Spanish speakers, and are not archaic ridiculous sentences that no one uses. If the phrase is out of date, it says so. Slang words and swears ("tacos") are also included, though like some other words, are sometimes not on both sides of the dictionary. For example, if you look up the word "idiot," it provides "idiota" y "tonto." However, the Spanish definition of the English word does include the also commonly used "gilípollas," which also means idiot. "Gilípollas" is defined on the Spanish side of the dictionary. I have found this to be true for some other words as well. This is a minor fault, especially considering it is the pocket edition.

I have never felt as though I compromised my Spanish by buying only the pocket edition. On the contrary, I think if I had bought the "college edition," I would have to search through words I would never use just to find the words I want, not to mention the college edition is too big to carry anywhere! I have also been known to sit down for an hour and literally read my dictionary because the phrases it provides are so useful. My fellow exchange students are all jealous of my dictionary; mine is the one we rely on when writing critiques of Spanish literature, it provides the most accurate translations in my vocab class, in grammer class I am rarely chastised for literally translating english to spanish because the phrases provided are so accurate. Webster's New World Spanish Dictionary Pocket Edition will always be a part of my Spanish library. I would highly suggest it to anyone who wants to complement and improve their own Spanish.

Note: This dictionary was not quite as useful in Nicaragua as it was in Spain, but then again, my spanish had already improved so much that maybe I just didn't need it as much! (June 2003)

Like all of you who read this review,you're Everest junkies who probably won't even get near this mountain, but are hooked on all books about it.
High; Stories of survival from Everest and K2 is NOT what you're looking for. This book is nothing but one-chapter excerpts from other books. It's like walking into a movie half way through: You have no idea what's going on. Also, there are no maps of either Everest or K2, so if writers of these chapters (and some of them are BORING writers!) describe trouble on Everest's north col or K2's Abruzzi ridge, we can't picture these places in our minds.
This book (unlike all the other Everest books I bought and immediately read) has been sitting on my bedstand for months. I only read it when I wake up at 3AM and can't go back to sleep. Just reading from this book puts me back to sleep reeeeeal fast!
Don't bother with this one. The Everest season is happening right now. Maybe more books will come from this year's hikers.

I very much enjoyed and highly recommend this book. I've read many of the books from which these chapters are selected, yet there was much fresh material for me. The editing was so masterful that even though the chapters are from different writers, mountains, and times, they flowed together seamlessly

High does for climbing what the movie The Thin Red Line did for combat: It explores not the details of the event, but the inner thoughts of the participants. You read what it feels like to have a climber dying in a tent next to you. You learn about the humilation of having frostbite while back at home. You are with the widows who trek in the paths of their husbands to glimpse the mountain graves of their loved ones.

While I can understand that some reviewers felt the selections dropped one into the middle of a big problem high on a mountain without the broader context of the expedition, I didn't feel this was a problem. I don't need the beginning, middle, and end to enjoy a brief tale. There are plenty of books that give all those details, yet few that are gripping to read from the first page to the last.

This is the first book i've read that was a collection of excerpts from other books. The only thing i didn't like was that the book itself was big and bulky. Well anyways, just buy it. you won't be disappointed.

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?

This is in response to the fellow who claims it to be a peice of junk. This is an excellent dictionary. I personally own the Random House dictionary (Unabridged) as well as the American Heritage dictionary and neither of these even come close to the breadth of information in this dictionary. It has many more entries defined and lot more usages explained. It has lots of obscure and interesting words you will not find defined in any other American dictionary besides probably the Websters 2nd international (1934) or Johnson's Dictionary. Granted that it is somewhat old (1961) and some of the definitions are a little outdated, but it's scholarship is unmatched by any other dictionary besides the great oxford English dictionary (20 volumes). If I were given the choice to own only 1 dictionary it would be this one. Hope this helps.

Webster's 3rd International is a terrific dictionary, but it becomes even better with this CD-ROM. The software starts up within 2 seconds of clicking the icon, and you can simply start typing the word you want to look up. "Of course," you say? Well...check out the OED, which I bought and subsequently returned. With that, it takes about 20 seconds to get started (assuming you already have the CD-ROM in your drive--otherwise it will take you longer), and then leaves you with a page full of options to choose. And then...but I digress. Let's just say the software for Webster's is just what you want--click on the icon, type the word, hit RETURN, voila. And you can double click on any word in the definition and you are instantly brought to that word's definition--which is REALLY nice. The software is good enough that it significantly enhances the value of the dictionary. And if you don't believe me, do what I did: buy the OED first, let the world's worst software package frustrate the heck out of you for a week, then return it and buy Webster's 3rd.

Content Studio would be a good book if it went into more depth on the topics detailed inside. Dynamic Studio tries to do too much. You will find that the book will give you a general understanding of a topic but this will then need to be followed up with some more detailed research (which to me defeats the purpose of buying the book in the first place!).

I have also noticed that all the 'Friends of Ed' publications are rather repetitive of each other. If you buy the whole set of books you will see recurring examples, explanations and ideas frequently, especially in regards to the Action Scripting Topics. Again, as detailed in my review on 'Foundation Actionscripting' by Sham Bhangal in the same series, I would suspect they are selling more on appearance rather than content.

Do not even attempt to buy Dynamic Studio if you think it will help you design a fully functional dynamic Flash site. All the book will do will introduce technologies that you could use to build such a site and give brief examples on their use.

While the idea behind the Friends of Ed series is admirable and useful - that is, to cover the broad and expansive areas of Flash development that are not so well documented elsewhere - the books so far have been spoiled by the inconsistent quality of their ActionScript.

Too often, I get the feeling that authors that have been invited to contribute have simply re-worked a pre-existing project - and this all too often includes (the usual) hacks and workarounds which all of us use when faced with deadlines. Bits and pieces of Flash4 ActionScript creep in every now and again - and occassionally the authors seem to be entirely unaware of new methods introduced in Flash5 that make their workarounds obsolete (the onClipEvent for loaded data is one example - see Chapt 9 of this book to learn how to do it the *old* way).

Furthermore, the tutorials often lack focus - as though the editors can't decide where to pitch the level of instruction: so that some hard-core ActionScript is often mixed-in with superfluous detail about how to build the interface for the tutorial example.

Anyway, my advice if you really want to *learn* ActionScript for yourself - and also avoid the mistakes, hacks and workarounds that plague the Friends of Ed books - put Phillip Kerman's excellent "ActionScripting in Flash" together with Colin Moock's "ActionScript: The Definitive Guide" on your desk - you'll never look back.

I am a graphic/web designer by design. Programming of any type is a struggle for me. Just as I started getting Flash 4 ActionScripting down pat they went and changed the syntax on me. Ive been through the whole collection of "Friends Of Ed" books yet none have been as clear and easy to understand as Dynamic Content Studio. This book covers all the important topics in a way that makes it easy for the logically challenged, such as myself, to understand. The examples are, for the most part, simple but offer a lot in the way of showing you what can be done and how to do it.

I have been using ASP to create dynamic Flash content for about a year now, and have struggled the whole way. This book makes everything a little clearer and offers you logical solutions for common procedures to help streamline your code, making life a little easier.

Great book, I highly recommend it!

The Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, 3rd edition (OSPD3) is more valuable as a list of acceptable words for use when playing Scrabble than it is as a dictionary. That being said, it is not totally useful as a list of words. The 3rd edition updates the word list from the 2nd edition, but leaves out offensive words, to allow the dictionary to be used when playing with children. If you don't mind not having offensive words in your Scrabble word arsenal, then this book is fine for you.

However, if you want your word list to be complete, then you need the Official Tournament and Club Word List (OWL), which is available only from the National Scrabble Association. Unfortunately, you need to become a member before they will sell you the book. It doesn't contain definitions, either, only a list of 2- to 9-letter words. And, you still need Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition to get the longer words.. ..

Now that you know how to collect all the words allowable in Scrabble tournament and club play, know this: Your friends and family will complain when you try to use many of these words! The official word list is a compilation of all the words from the 10 most popular dictionaries that satisfy the conditions listed in the Scrabble rules for acceptable words. So, some dictionary has defined ED to mean "education" (presumably from phrases like "special ed" or "driver's ed"). However, it's not considered an abbreviation because that dictionary didn't specifically mention that it's an abbreviation. Also, foreign words are unacceptable, but there are a lot of words of foreign origin that are acceptable (CHEZ, CIAO, CASA, etc.), and spellings of foreign letters (ALPHA, BETA, XI, QOPH, etc.). And good luck explaining that KUE is "the letter Q".

So, if you need a list of a lot of words that are appropriate for school or family play, get the OSPD3. If you want definitions, (What the heck is a JNANA, anyway?) get the OSPD3. If you want to use lots of swear words and derogatory names, don't get the OSPD3. If you want an official word list, get the OWL and MW's Collegiate Dictionary, or find a word list online. If you want to tick off your opponents with your immense vocabulary of useless words, any of these word lists will work great.

If you are serious Scrabble player you need this dictionary. If you play any computer scrabble games most are based on this dictionary. It does not have some new terms such as the word Zen, but if you are playing with friends you can decide what words and dictionaries to use. At home we all have our own copy and have worn out more than one copy of the paperback. We tried a hardback and it does have longer wear but we found it cumbersome. It is also helpful to buy can additional scrabble resource that identifies 2 letter words and consonant only words. This book is a definite need for scrabble playing and it is sure to increase your vocabulary.

I am an English tutor, and several times students will ask questions that just aren't available from modern dictionaries. Worst yet, are times when they are looking for 9-letter words with no vowels! Having known about and used the Scrabble Players Dictionary for years, I strongly encourage my students to keep a copy on their desks, right next to their word books and dictionaries. Since I strongly advocate playing Scrabble for students all the way from first grade on up, it is important that they be aware that certain letter combinations ARE words .. something they would not know without blindly searching their dictionaries. What's more, I have come across several instances where words were in the Scrabble Players Dictionary and weren't in the students' dictionary. Because of this, the Scrabble Players Dictionary always supersedes my decisions; if a word is in there, I let it stand, as long as it's used correctly (as noted in the Scrabble Players Dictionary). This is a book that no student (or household) should be without. I will continue to advocate this book as a standard for all students - children and adults alike, and will forever stress the importance of playing Scrabble, to increase the vocabulary and spelling (and reading) skills, as well.

This volume exposes that much of the teaching of the Roman 'Catholic' teaching is not complementary to the thinking of the church fathers and that in fact much of it contradicts their doctrine. I admire William Webster for taking a humble and loving approach to this work. It is not an offensive polemic like so many works against Roman Catholicism. He simply states the facts and documents them. He includes 7 appendices that are direct quotations from Roman documents: quotes from church fathers, the Council of Trent, Vatican I and II and various other declarations. These alone are worth the price of the book. The topics that Webster examines are, the Apocrypha, the relation of Scripture to tradition, the papacy, Marian dogma, the Sacramenatal System, the Eucharist, and faith and justification. He challenges Rome's claim's "not by debating texts of Scripture but by a straight appeal to the very area where the Church of Rome believes her case is strongest, the facts of history". I would suggest this book for anyone who is examining Roman 'Catholicism'. Polite and informative.

Having abandoned any hope of finding justification for their belief system in the Bible, Roman Catholics have turned to their perception of the beliefs of the early church fathers. It now appears that they will have to abandon those as well and retreat completely to some sort of theory of development that doesn't rely on history and is unfalsifiable. William Webster cites and documents the opinions of many prominent early church fathers with regards to several uniquely Roman Catholics views, and convincingly demonstrates that their opinions are quite dissimilar to modern Roman Catholicism.

In addition to providing devastating critiques of Rome's claims, I feel Webster's book also serves as a wake up call to sleepy Protestants that are ignorant of church history. Many of us are aware of the inability of Roman Catholic apologists to exegete Scripture and their tendency to proof text to make their point, so it should come as no surprise that Roman Catholics treat church history the same way, picking and choosing those quotations that seem to support their view, while ignoring context and the author's true intent. The problem is, most Protestants don't seem to be aware of this. This book will inspire you to learn more about church history. I recommend Roger Olson's The Story of Christian Theology, which is available here at amazon. It is not Protestant polemic, however, it will help you better realize the incompatibility of the facts of history with the "truths" of Roman Catholicism. Armed with the knowledge that Rome's final justification attempt for its claims is invalid, God may be able to use you to bring Roman Catholics back to the gospel of grace.

In the Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster demonstrates that Protestant ideas were not invented in the 16th century as some would suggest. Webster deals with four major concerns in his book: the authority of Scripture, church government, the Lord's Supper, and justification by faith alone; he quotes the church fathers on these important issues.To begin with, William Webster shows how Scripture is authoritative because of its intrinsic value as God's Word, as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture derives its authority from the Church. After all, Scripture was authoritative before any church council. From here, he shows that the first infallible council to determine the canon did not come until The Council of Trent (Webster lays out a multitude of reasons why The Council of Carthage was not considered "infallible," and how the Apocrypha was not canonized until the Council of Trent. A fact that even the New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests). After this, Webster goes on to show that Scripture alone is our sole rule of faith. He quotes many of the church fathers. St. Augustine stated: "What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." He also examines the church fathers use of the term "tradition," and compares and contrasts it with the way the term came to be used in the Medieval Church. In the area of church government, Webster shows that no bishop had supremacy in the early church. He includes writings from the fathers on the meaning of the word "rock" in Matthew 16 showing that many believed the term was speaking of "faith" or "Christ". Even those who believed that Peter was the "rock" did not apply the term to his succesors in an exclusive sense until later on. Webster also looks at beliefs about the eucharist in the early church. Although some of the church fathers said things that are irreconciliable wtih the Reformed position, there is also a tradition in the early church that is in blatant opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation. He provides quotes from the church fathers using the word "symbol" to describe the bread and wine. For example, Clement states, "The Scripture accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood." He also provides Augustine's homily on John 6, in which Augustine interprets the passage figuratively: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." Webster goes on to show the development of Marian dogma within Roman Catholicism and how the Protestant view of justification has support in the writings of the church fathers. This book is definitely the most thorough Protestant apologetic available in the area of church history in the last decade. In it, he shows that Protestant ideas were present in the early church, yet he doesn't try to turn every church father into John Calvin (he doesn't look at the past with rose colored glasses). In the back of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, Webster includes about 50 pages of primary source material from authorities in the chruch. This book is also "Catholic friendly" in that Webster, who was once a Roman Catholic, is not rude, sarcastic, or mean. I thank God for such a needed book.

I already had the Random House Dictionary in hardcover and found it has all the words I want to know but it's time-consuming to search words in the book. So I ordered CD-ROM, which dramatically reduced the time to search as expected. But there are several problems and failures I didn't expected. First, it doesn't contain all the contents the original dictionay has and it says Entry count 221444 on the menu bar though the cover says it has over 300,000 words. It hardly shows examples. Second, every time I boot my computer, there appears a message on my Windows Me screen that Are you really sure to delete all the contents and folders related with Random House Dictionay. What's wrong with this? How can I eliminate the wrong sign? I'm looking forward to the editor's reply from Korea, the far East Asia.

I have the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, the Encarta World English Dictionary, and the American Heritage Talking Dictionary - all on CD. This one is the best. I've encountered several words ("stare decisis" is the most recent) that can only be found in this dictionary. Also, the pronunciation is the best on this CD. The Encarta sounds extremely robotic. And while the American Heritage sounds more human, it's not quite as clear (or as cheerful) as the Random House. If you're trying to decide which CD dictionary to buy among the three that I mentioned, I recommend this one.

The reason that I have three dictionaries is that I'm looking for a particular feature that I have not yet found. I want to construct my own dictionary with my own selected words in hard copy. So, I'd like to maintain a list of words - add them as they are new to me, remove them as they become familiar. Then I'd like to print the complete list with definition, etymology, etc. so that I can have my own custom dictionary. If anyone reading this has any suggestions, please email me at johnwilk@earthlink.net. Thanks.

This dictionary is of course very complete and easy to you. It gives you a number of ways to find a word including wildcards, Boolean searches, definition searches, and of course a good old A-Z search. What I found particularly useful was the 120,000+ audio pronunciations. Frankly, phonetic spelling has always given me a headache, especially with words like "ennui". I also found the spot maps and illustrations helpful. What's more, you can run this dictionary without the CD-ROM in the drive. (providing you are willing to give up a couple of the bells and whistles)

The only thing I really don't like about this software is that it is a full on pain in the neck to get it to function as your Word Dictionary. (even thought it is supposed to) This could possibly been alleviated by at least some rudimentary instructions. There are some on the CD, but they are vague at best. Oh well, not a perfect world.

All in all a good product for what it does, although I must admit I do miss the weight of a hardcover unabridged dictionary..

This is one of those books that will or will not work for you depending on who you are. If you're trying to study for an all-important standardized test, then this book will be perfect for you. If, however, you're just a regular Joe Shmoe just wanting to expand his everyday speaking vocabulary, then this book will be a flop. There are just too many words introduced in this book that have no practical use in normal life. "Coeval's" a nice word, but who's going to use this in typical conversation?

Another problem is the way the book is organized. It's done so in terms of "latin roots." Let's face it-- sometimes this strategy works, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's better to group words in a "practical sense"-- like in Funk's book where he divides words according to their function (like descriptions of personalities; names of medical professions, etc.). Introducing people to new words using latin roots will only be helpful to people who first know what the latin roots mean. But what if you don't? Must you first learn all the latin roots first before you learn what lycanthropy means? That's just too much work for some people who just want to polish up their vocabulary a little. I suggest that if you are, in fact, just a regular person who's only trying to fill up the gaps in his vocabulary, that you check out Funk's classic, more practical vocabulary building book. Otherwise, don't bother with this one.

This is an excellent book. There are thousands of words that you will see and read everyday. there're quizzes to test progress your english. There is an example for every word you learn inside for you to understand easily. I always carry this book everywhere I go. this book teach the most useful of the classical word building roots to help me continue expanding my vocabulary in the future.

I just bought this book and read 5 pages so far. And I love it! I can speak English, my second language, very well. But I want my vocabulary to be as good as a native speaker, so I was looking for a book that only includes high-level vocabulary and shows how to use them in phrases. This book is the answer and more! It groups words by their roots, and gives a little story of the roots at the right level. Under each root, there are usually 3 or 4 words, which I think is a good quantity. I found this effective in learning similar words quickly. Each word is followed by abundant yet short phrases to illustrate its meanings and connotations. The phrases are informative and fun to read. After several roots, you can take quizzes to see how much you have learnt or forgotten. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to build a powerful vocabulary in an effective way.

I work best with hardback dictionaries at my work location. The cover finally fell off the old dictionary. I saw this one and it was cheep and available. I paid for it while the wrapper was still on.

Well I may have made a mistake. First this one has no index tabs. I looked up some well-used words such as "kine" and got just two word definition cow and cattle. The previous dictionary "Webster's II New revised University Dictionary", described even the word history and covered the changes in history. I show that the word came from Middle English as "ku". And that it persisted until the 17th century. This word is used in an Ayn Rand book and would not make sense if you only had the "New World College Dictionary" I also looked up acetylene and found a fair definition but it had room for the formula and did not display it.

The definitions are squeezed out to make room for pictures. On the next page is a portrait of Martin Luther King. There are all kinds of pretty pictures of people. If you are interested in people and not spelling or anything in-depth, then this dictionary for you

In the mean time I will suffer with this until I have time to find a real dictionary. However it may do for you.

Practical info:

Nearly 7,500 entries for today's world.

4 color world atlas and numerous tables and charts.

Thousands of Geographical and Biographical Entries.

Helpful notes, examples and Synonyms.

Includes unique Americanisms.

This Webster's Fourth Edition-2001, has 1716 (two column) pages; an index; a highlighted synonym box under certain words; and no wasted space along the vertical margins. The dictionary is so easy on the eyes to read, that I eagerly anticipate having to look up a word. The grayscale synonym text-boxes are printed (not more than), one to a column, which is just enough to give your eyes a reference-anchor as you scan. Their 50th anniversary revision (and most other dictionaries), are shrink-wrapped; so you won't know how reader-friendly this book is unless someone tells you. And go ahead and use yellow highlighter to mark every single word you look up. I give you permission. Chances are, you'll be looking up the same word again in the future.
... Kirk Perry 2002

There are lots of dictionaries available, and many of them call themselves "Webster's" -- it a generic name. But Webster's New World stands out from the rest. It's very much up to date and also very user friendly; you won't have to keep looking up definitions of definitions. Furthermore, it's authoritive. This is the dictionary chosen by many prestigious media organizations -- including the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times -- as their authority of choice. So if you want to get an up to date, easy to use dictionary that's widely-recognized as authoritive, look for the name Webster's New World.