Text 5902, 285 rader
Skriven 2005-07-11 19:05:20 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5889 av Geo (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Reality Check
=========================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0242_01C5864B.7C628DF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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_0242_01C5864B.7C628DF0
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> Irrelevant question and =
you fail to=20
fall ib gary's bogus 95% unless you would be satisfied with Office 5.0 = for=20
Windows 3.1.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d30077$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d30077$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ok time for a survey.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I run Office 2000, what versions do =
the rest of=20
you run?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d29689@w3.nls.net">news:42d29689@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> If you truly expect =
95% than I=20
believe you are full of it and just making up junk to sound as if =
you know=20
something. Use "some" if you mean some.</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:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d292af$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>I=20
never said it wasn't. What is it about the definition of the =
words=20
"I<BR>Suspect" that seem to so trouble your reading =
comprehension. =20
Quit being<BR>such a touchy ass about this. Its not my fault =
nobody=20
wants to upgrade<BR>their MS Office software.<BR><BR>Your employer =
needs=20
to build a business model that doesn't rely upon full<BR>cost =
monopoly=20
priced upgrades of products every 9 months. That isn't =
my<BR>fault=20
either. Eventually, people say "wait a minute", again not my =
fault.<BR><BR>I guess Microsoft could get lots of office upgrades =
if they=20
just make<BR>Longhorn incompatible with every version of MS Office =
except=20
<FILL IN NAME<BR>OF VERSION HERE>.<BR><BR>Gary<BR><BR>"Rich" =
<@> wrote in message <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=20
a<BR>number you pulled out of thin air.<BR><BR>Rich<BR><BR> =
"Gary=20
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 weren't *improvements* from =
Office=20
5.0 to the later<BR> versions. I am saying those=20
*improvements* are meaningless to 95% of the<BR> market, and =
in MANY=20
or MOST situations those *improvements* are offset by<BR> =20
dis-incentives and negative changes that are more negative than=20
the<BR> improvements are positive.<BR><BR> I like =
office 2000,=20
have no plans to go above office 2000. Truth is, I<BR> =
could=20
easily stayed with Office 5. I suspect that truth holds for =
95%=20
of<BR> the market within my perspective.<BR><BR> =20
Gary<BR><BR> "Rich" <@> wrote 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 because Unicode support did =
not=20
appear until Office<BR>97<BR> and support for more languages =
and=20
better support for existing ones<BR> continued to improve =
with=20
successive releases. With your broad brush you<BR> are =
discounting a great deal of the people on this planet. Far =
more=20
than<BR> 5%. Western European language speaker are the =
minority. Even you would<BR> have to be blind to not =
see the=20
clear improvements between Office 5.0 or<BR> even Office 95 =
and=20
Office 2000.<BR><BR> I suspect you have no =
clue=20
what the improvements are in the two<BR>releases<BR> since =
the one=20
you use. If I'm wrong feel free to tell us all which=20
Office<BR> 2003 applications you use and what differences =
you=20
perceived.<BR><BR> Rich<BR><BR> "Gary =
Britt"=20
<<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 was=20
good<BR> enough for 95% of the=20
market.<BR><BR> I've stayed at the Office 2K =
level with=20
no intention on the horizon of<BR> =
going<BR> =20
higher.<BR><BR> =20
Gary<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0242_01C5864B.7C628DF0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|