While the cost vs. gain of text-analysis CALL programs has been discussed (e.g., Brock, 1990) and major drawbacks of commercial packages such as Grammatìk for specific learner groups were pointed out (Liou, 1991), few research studies on integrating available text-analysis programs into realistic writing classroom activities have been formally conducted so far. This research report addresses the issue by documenting the college EFL writers' revision process in which human teachers' feedback, students' own revision, and the use of two commercial packages, Grammatìk and Complete Writer's Toolkit, were incorporated. A small-scale quasi-experimental study was conducted to examine the effect of the packages while assessing the writing performance of 39 subjects placed in either the control group or the experimental group. In addition, an interview was conducted to elicit the subjects' response to this CALL strategy. A comparison was made regarding (a) the performance of the two-group subjects, (b) the effects of the programs vs. subjects' peer comments (peer editing), and (c) the differences between the effects of critiquing of Grammatìk and Complete Writer's Toolkit. Other factors which may affect the gain while using the program were qualitatively documented. Results showed that each of the two packages has a role to play for students of various proficiency levels and that weak subjects benefited more from Writer's Toolkit and liked such programs better. No group difference in writing quality was found regarding students who used or did not use the programs. Attitudes toward the use of such programs tend to be positive. It seems that text-analysis programs may be beneficial to learners in writing revision given careful classroom design and individual attention to learners' writing proficiency. Several pedagogical implications are raised.