On Monday 18 October 2010 23:42, Wm Stewart wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 9:27 PM, Michael Adams wrote:
> > They change every time a new version of Microsoft Office is released.
>
> This common perception is not true.  The reality is that there have only
> been four Word formats in the last 20 years:
>
> - Word 6
> - Word 95
> - Word 97/2000/XP
> - Docx

Substantially i agree with you, but:
* The .DOC formats are not Word Formats - they are document formats.
* Whether you see each new Word version as a standalone or a point release the 
truth is the format is modified with each releases new features. Only the 
last in each series has all the features of the format. These mods are at the 
whim of the Single Company while development of the program using the format 
takes place. My point stands.


> As mentioned, user dissatisfaction with the last change will greatly impede
> any further changes.  OO has *almost* perfect compatibility with all of the
> above now, evidence on the ground that compatibility can be achieved,
> making all of the theoretical arguments that it cannot be done irrelevant.
>   If we go the last 2%, OO will be the standard very quickly, and the ODF
> format will then follow since the path will be greatly eased.

I repeat - the document format is the standard. The program one of many tools.

> >> Existing users could make more use of the software than many do now, and
> > they could spread the good news widely and with confidence new users
> > would have a good experience.
> >
> > True unvarnished evangelism. All hail the word processor ;) "The good
> > news" is a version of the Bible isn't it?
>
> I've noticed a pattern in the responses of those that don't want OO to be
> compatible with the de facto existing standard.  Emotion.  As a middle aged
> developer that took some time to learn this lesson, I pass on to you some
> invaluable advice - this kind of emotion is a distortion field that
> prevents your rational mind from accepting new information.  When having to
> change your mind becomes an emotionally painful event, you will
> increasingly become an ideologue - completely sure of your comfortable
> position, and unable to grow.  Fwiw.

Actually, my response was toned down quite considerably to what others could 
say. Your opinions would be dismissed without further though as another open 
source zealots rantings in some circles. I have chosen to discuss / 
balance "your opinions" with points i consider relevant. I have not attacked 
you directly. I do not intend to enter a meelee over whom is more middle 
aged. I will however withdraw before either of us are required to invoke 
godwins law, mainly because my points are not being accomodated at all. I 
feel i have added some balance to the conversation that others will see and 
can be better informed in this discussion.

Good luck

-- 
Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to