>Another way to look at is this: If some one sends me a MS-WORD file,
>and I complain about the format, they can always tell me to go
>fetch the word viewer - after all it's free, so why complain? Hey,
>I've even heard people use this as an argument to allow sending
>Word formatted text to mailing lists (sic), arguing that a) everyone
>have Word (not true of course) b) thus its file format comprise a
>de facto standard (in part true, to long to get into here) and finally
>c) those who do not own a copy of Word can always go fetch the free
>viewers from MS (true but very annoying, since I would have to pay for
>the download and fire up the word viewer just to read my mail. Besides,
>they never made a Word viewer for DOS AFAIK)
Also the filesize would be a lot bigger - an empty Word 97 document took up
19KB on my cousins PC, I don't know if this is true for all versions. But
they are bigger than an .Txt file. Txt files are also a real standard,
except for when they stop and what characthers mean a linebreak.
IMHO if you need to let so many people as possible read an formated file it
should be made in HTML since there are viewers for almost all computers and
OS.
And there are some diffrence between Word 6 and 95, I couldn't open a file
made in 95 in 6 - but it worked OK in View :)
However I had to resave the document as RTF so I wouldn�t loose the
formatting when moving between my fathers portable PC and the familys PC
that my sister is working on.
//Bernie
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
