Text 5882, 128 rader
Skriven 2005-07-11 15:28:08 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 5880 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Continuing Microsoft Office improvements
====================================================
From: "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com>

It would be easier to get people to upgrade if:

1.  The upgrades and/or new licenses weren't too expensive;

2.  They didn't constantly futz with the interface by hiding/removing old
commands and moving them around to different places on the menus or taking them
off the menus completely and putting them only on buttons, etc etc.

3.  File format problems with the upgrade can sometimes apply, etc.

One reason for me not to upgrade was for sure that I didn't like the interface
changing.  I and my fingers know where everything is that I work with.  Go to a
copy of Office XP or higher and suddenly things I know how to use with Office
2K, like compare documents/track changes, isn't on the menus any more.  At
least its not on the menus where I know to look.   A couple of
frustrating things like that popping up in the first 5 minutes of looking at
the upgrade, and BINGO Office 2K still looks good to me.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42d2bf93@w3.nls.net...
> MS also has a problem in that while they are encouraging users to upgrade
to
> Office 2003 they are also blathering about the improvements in Office 12 (
> in 2006 ). MS evens admits to the 'good enough' problem
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1093&e=1&u=/pcworld/20050711/tc_pcwor
ld/121758
> We're a victim of our own success in that Office 97, Office XP, [and other
> earlier versions] are products people like," Capossela says. "But to
> convince someone that the newer version is much better is harder because
> people are quite happy with their current product, and that product never
> expires. Software doesn't perish ever."
>
>
> "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> news:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net...
> >I never said it wasn't.  What is it about the definition of the words "I
> > Suspect" that seem to so trouble your reading comprehension.  Quit being
> > such a touchy ass about this.  Its not my fault nobody wants to upgrade
> > their MS Office software.
> >
> > Your employer needs to build a business model that doesn't rely upon
full
> > cost monopoly priced upgrades of products every 9 months.  That isn't my
> > fault either.  Eventually, people say "wait a minute", again not my
fault.
> >
> > I guess Microsoft could get lots of office upgrades if they just make
> > Longhorn incompatible with every version of MS Office except <FILL IN
NAME
> > OF VERSION HERE>.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d28167@w3.nls.net...
> >   And I still think you have no clue.  The 95% you keep claiming is a
> > number you pulled out of thin air.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >  "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> > news:42d265b2$1@w3.nls.net...
> >  You are right that my perspective does not extend outside the USA.
> >
> >  I never said there weren't *improvements* from Office 5.0 to the later
> >  versions.  I am saying those *improvements* are meaningless to 95% of
the
> >  market, and in MANY or MOST situations those *improvements* are offset
by
> >  dis-incentives and negative changes that are more negative than the
> >  improvements are positive.
> >
> >  I like office 2000, have no plans to go above office 2000.  Truth is, I
> >  could easily stayed with Office 5.  I suspect that truth holds for 95%
of
> >  the market within my perspective.
> >
> >  Gary
> >
> >  "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d1b1ad$1@w3.nls.net...
> >     95% what market?  You surely do not mean people that speak many
> >  non-Western languages because Unicode support did not appear until
Office
> > 97
> >  and support for more languages and better support for existing ones
> >  continued to improve with successive releases.  With your broad brush
you
> >  are discounting a great deal of the people on this planet.  Far more
than
> >  5%.  Western European language speaker are the minority.  Even you
would
> >  have to be blind to not see the clear improvements between Office 5.0
or
> >  even Office 95 and Office 2000.
> >
> >     I suspect you have no clue what the improvements are in the two
> > releases
> >  since the one you use.  If I'm wrong feel free to tell us all which
> > Office
> >  2003 applications you use and what differences you perceived.
> >
> >  Rich
> >
> >    "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> >  news:42d194f6$1@w3.nls.net...
> >    The truth be told, Office for Win95 and Office 5.0 for Win3.1 was
good
> >    enough for 95% of the market.
> >
> >    I've stayed at the Office 2K level with no intention on the horizon
of
> >  going
> >    higher.
> >
> >    Gary
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)