Text 5906, 363 rader
Skriven 2005-07-11 19:33:48 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5904 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Continuing Microsoft Office improvements
====================================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C5864F.75681160
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Which is why george's question is irrelevant. Your bogus claim is =
"The truth be told, Office for Win95 and Office 5.0 for Win3.1 was good =
enough for 95% of the market." George's irrelevant question has no = bearing
on your bogus made up claim.
It is interesting to note that no one here, not even you, is using =
the ancient versions with which you claim 95% of them would be = satisfied.
Rich
"Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message =
news:42d32636@w3.nls.net...
I never said 95% of people used Office 5. Go back and re-read the =
messages.
Gary
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d32432@w3.nls.net...
Irrelevant question and you fail to fall ib gary's bogus 95% unless =
you
would be satisfied with Office 5.0 for Windows 3.1.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42d30077$1@w3.nls.net...
Ok time for a survey.
I run Office 2000, what versions do the rest of you run?
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d29689@w3.nls.net...
If you truly expect 95% than I believe you are full of it and =
just
making up junk to sound as if you know something. Use "some" if you =
mean
some.
Rich
"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
------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C5864F.75681160
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Which is why george's =
question is=20
irrelevant. Your bogus claim is "The truth be told, Office = for
Win95=20
and Office 5.0 for Win3.1 was good enough for 95% of the market." =
George's=20
irrelevant question has no bearing on your bogus made up = claim.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> It is interesting to note =
that no one=20
here, not even you, is using the ancient versions with which you claim = 95%
of=20
them would be satisfied.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Gary Britt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d32636@w3.nls.net">news:42d32636@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>I =
never=20
said 95% of people used Office 5. Go back and re-read the=20
messages.<BR><BR>Gary<BR><BR>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d32432@w3.nls.net">news:42d32432@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
Irrelevant question and you fail to fall ib gary's bogus 95% unless=20
you<BR>would be satisfied with Office 5.0 for Windows=20
3.1.<BR><BR>Rich<BR><BR> "Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d30077$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d30077$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
Ok time for a survey.<BR><BR> I run Office 2000, what versions =
do the=20
rest of you run?<BR><BR> Geo.<BR><BR> "Rich" =
<@>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d29689@w3.nls.net">news:42d29689@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
If you truly expect 95% than I believe you are full of it and =
just<BR>making=20
up junk to sound as if you know something. Use "some" if you=20
mean<BR>some.<BR><BR> =20
Rich<BR><BR> "Gary Britt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
I never said it wasn't. What is it about the definition of the=20
words<BR>"I<BR> Suspect" that seem to so =
trouble=20
your reading comprehension. =20
Quit<BR>being<BR> such a touchy ass =
about=20
this. Its not my fault nobody wants=20
to<BR>upgrade<BR> their MS Office=20
software.<BR><BR> Your employer needs to =
build a=20
business model that doesn't rely=20
upon<BR>full<BR> cost monopoly priced =
upgrades=20
of products every 9 months. That=20
isn't<BR>my<BR> fault either. =
Eventually,=20
people say "wait a minute", again not=20
my<BR>fault.<BR><BR> I guess Microsoft =
could get=20
lots of office upgrades if they just =
make<BR> =20
Longhorn incompatible with every version of MS Office except <FILL=20
IN<BR>NAME<BR> OF VERSION=20
HERE>.<BR><BR> =20
Gary<BR><BR> "Rich" <@> wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d28167@w3.nls.net">news:42d28167@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
And I still think you have no clue. The 95% you keep claiming is =
a<BR> number you pulled out of thin=20
air.<BR><BR> =20
Rich<BR><BR> "Gary Britt" =
<<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d265b2$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d265b2$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
You are right that my perspective does not extend outside the=20
USA.<BR><BR> I never said =
there=20
weren't *improvements* from Office 5.0 to=20
the<BR>later<BR> =
versions. I=20
am saying those *improvements* are meaningless to 95%<BR>of=20
the<BR> market, and in MANY =
or MOST=20
situations those *improvements* are<BR>offset=20
by<BR> dis-incentives and =
negative=20
changes that are more negative than=20
the<BR> improvements are=20
positive.<BR><BR> I like =
office=20
2000, have no plans to go above office 2000. Truth<BR>is,=20
I<BR> could easily stayed =
with=20
Office 5. I suspect that truth holds for<BR>95%=20
of<BR> the market within my=20
perspective.<BR><BR> =20
Gary<BR><BR> "Rich" =
<@> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d1b1ad$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d1b1ad$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
95% what market? You surely do not mean people that speak=20
many<BR> non-Western =
languages=20
because Unicode support did not appear=20
until<BR>Office<BR> =20
97<BR> and support for more=20
languages and better support for existing=20
ones<BR> continued to =
improve with=20
successive releases. With your broad<BR>brush=20
you<BR> are discounting a =
great deal=20
of the people on this planet. Far=20
more<BR>than<BR> 5%. =
Western=20
European language speaker are the minority. Even=20
you<BR>would<BR> have to be =
blind to=20
not see the clear improvements between Office<BR>5.0=20
or<BR> even Office 95 and =
Office=20
=
2000.<BR><BR> =
I=20
suspect you have no clue what the improvements are in the=20
two<BR> =20
releases<BR> since the one =
you=20
use. If I'm wrong feel free to tell us all=20
which<BR>Office<BR> 2003=20
applications you use and what differences you=20
perceived.<BR><BR> =20
Rich<BR><BR> =
"Gary=20
Britt" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>>=20
wrote in message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d194f6$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d194f6$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
The truth be told, Office for Win95 and Office 5.0 for Win3.1=20
was<BR>good<BR> =
enough=20
for 95% of the=20
market.<BR><BR> =
I've=20
stayed at the Office 2K level with no intention on the<BR>horizon=20
of<BR> =20
going<BR> =20
higher.<BR><BR> =20
Gary<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C5864F.75681160--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|