Text 5923, 390 rader
Skriven 2005-07-11 21:21:24 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Continuing Microsoft Office improvements
====================================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_02A6_01C5865E.7DFB0DA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You have to be careful how you judge whether someone is satisfied. =
gary didn't do so and I didn't question him on it because his claim is =
clearly made up.
Anyway, whether someone is satisfied can depend on whether the he is =
aware that something better is available. I'll use my father again. He = has
it in his mind that he needs a faster computer. His current = computer is
faster than his previous one which is faster than the one = before that. He
knows that faster computers are available and I believe = it is because of that
that his satisfaction with his current one has = decreased. I'll give another
example. A good friend of mine has been = watching TV for around 40 years.
Was he satisfied by his TV, yep. Then = he got a tivo. He is no longer
satisfied by a TV without a PVR. In = both cases, the user has something good
enough and in both cases the = user is no longer satisfied by what he had
before once he knows what he = is missing.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:42d335f8$1@w3.nls.net...
I don't know if I'd be satisfied with that version since I didn't =
start using office until Office 97. However I'm completely satisfied = using
Qpro version 5 from 1993 so I don't see why I should consider his = statement
false simply because I don't have a version that old.
For me it's not a question of which version was good enough, I like to =
keep current so the question is at which version does or did it become =
unacceptable. Typically becoming unacceptable is why I stop upgrading a =
product.
Geo.
"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_02A6_01C5865E.7DFB0DA0
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> You have to be careful how =
you judge=20
whether someone is satisfied. gary didn't do so and I didn't = question
him=20
on it because his claim is clearly made up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Anyway, whether someone is =
satisfied=20
can depend on whether the he is aware that something better is =
available. =20
I'll use my father again. He has it in his mind that he needs a =
faster=20
computer. His current computer is faster than his previous one = which
is=20
faster than the one before that. He knows that faster computers = are=20
available and I believe it is because of that that his satisfaction with =
his=20
current one has decreased. I'll give another example. A good =
friend=20
of mine has been watching TV for around 40 years. Was he satisfied = by
his=20
TV, yep. Then he got a tivo. He is no longer satisfied by a = TV=20
without a PVR. In both cases, the user has something good enough = and
in=20
both cases the user is no longer satisfied by what he had before once=20
he knows what he is missing.</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 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:42d335f8$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d335f8$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't know if I'd be satisfied with =
that=20
version since I didn't start using office until Office 97. However I'm =
completely satisfied using Qpro version 5 from 1993 so I don't see why =
I=20
should consider his statement false simply because I don't have a =
version that=20
old.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For me it's not a question of which =
version was=20
good enough, I like to keep current so the question is at which =
version does=20
or did it become unacceptable. Typically becoming unacceptable is why =
I stop=20
upgrading a product.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></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:42d32432@w3.nls.net">news:42d32432@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Irrelevant question =
and you fail=20
to fall ib gary's bogus 95% unless you would be satisfied with =
Office 5.0=20
for 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>>=20
wrote 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=20
of 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=20
know 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=20
in 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=20
words "I<BR>Suspect" that seem to so trouble your reading=20
comprehension. Quit being<BR>such a touchy ass about =
this. =20
Its not my fault nobody wants to upgrade<BR>their MS Office=20
software.<BR><BR>Your employer needs to build a business model =
that=20
doesn't rely upon full<BR>cost monopoly priced upgrades of =
products=20
every 9 months. That isn't my<BR>fault either. =
Eventually,=20
people say "wait a minute", again not my fault.<BR><BR>I guess =
Microsoft could get lots of office upgrades if they just=20
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"=20
<@> 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> =20
"Gary Britt" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> wrote=20
in 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=20
Office 5.0 to the later<BR> versions. I am saying =
those=20
*improvements* are meaningless to 95% of the<BR> market, =
and in=20
MANY 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=20
2000, have no plans to go above office 2000. Truth is,=20
I<BR> could easily stayed with Office 5. I suspect =
that=20
truth holds for 95% of<BR> the market within my=20
perspective.<BR><BR> 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 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=20
discounting a great deal of the people on this planet. =
Far more=20
than<BR> 5%. Western European language speaker are =
the=20
minority. Even you would<BR> have to be blind to =
not see=20
the clear improvements between Office 5.0 or<BR> even =
Office 95=20
and Office 2000.<BR><BR> I suspect you =
have no=20
clue what the improvements are in the =
two<BR>releases<BR> since=20
the one 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=20
with no intention on the horizon of<BR> =20
going<BR> higher.<BR><BR> =20
=
Gary<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLO=
CKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_02A6_01C5865E.7DFB0DA0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|