WFC: until 2 years ago, developers very responsive to user wish lists. WFP: can't handle uncleaned (styled) RTF files. WFC: can handle and produce uncleaned (styled) RTF files. WFP: claims to be able to handle SDLXLIFF (as far as I'm aware). WFC: can't handle SDLXLIFF unless you're a hacker and you have a demo Trados version handy. WFC: can't handle TTX unless you're a hacker and you have a demo Trados version handy. WFP: an intermediary format, TXML, that can be translated/edited/proofed without having the original source file available. WFC: no intermediary format (unless you use Microsoft Word for that).
WFP: mature process control features built in (which is why agencies may want to use it). WFC: very few built-in process control features (and the ones that are there are hacks). WFP: source and target is left and right. WFC: source and target is above and below. Support for find/replace and spell-checking is, for example, much more limited. WFP: only features that are specifically programmmed into WFP are available. WFC: since you work inside Microsoft Word, all find/replace, spell-checking and other functions of Microsoft Word is available to aid you in your translation process. WFP: is independent of Microsoft Word, so it can translate many more file types than WFC. WFC: works inside Microsoft Word, so anything you translate has to be converted to a format that can be opened in Microsoft Word. WFP: works on any computer that has Java on it (with one or two exceptions). WFC: works on any computer that has Microsoft Word 97 or newer on it (with one or two exceptions). Not that I'm aware of, but let's create one. Is there available a list that compares the features of WordFast Classic and WordFast Pro? In any event, the goal is that the user will purchase a renewal (for 50% of the retail price at the time of renewal) if they wish to keep their Wordfast version current.
Since Wordfast Pro is written in java and accepts an actual license file (instead of a license number like WFC) the license will expire at the end of the 3 year period, prompting the user to upgrade.
WFC will continue to run until the user reformats their disk or changes machines, at which point users will not be able to relicense or upgrade their version unless they purchase a renewal. However, since Wordfast Classic is a Word macro that accepts a license number instead of a license file, it is my understanding that there is no way to practical enforce the license expiration. After that 3 year licensing period is up, WF users should purchase a license renewal in order to keep their Wordfast version current. The idea is that for 3 years from date of purchase users have the right to a) relicense Wordfast to keep it running on their machine and b) upgrade to any new versions we release during that time period. You will need to close the ongoing translation session (Alt+End) and open a new one (Alt+Down) in order to use MT again.The licensing policy for WFC and WFP is essentially the same. Good to know: when in demo mode, Wordfast Classic will only let you use MT with 2-3 segments per translation session. The older 6.01g doesn't include provisions for the API key (Google Translate) and Client ID/Client Secret (Microsoft Translator) required by Google and Microsoft (the newer 6.03t does).Ħ.03t also support, MyMemory and Worldlingo. MT (Machine Translation) is evolving fast, and WF is keeping up-to-date.
As the what's new section of the download page states (about 6.03t): When it comes to the Classic segment, it says that version 6.02 or later is needed to use MT.Ħ.01g = June 2011, 6.03t = May 2012.
This video explains how to use MT with all types of Wordfast.