| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 43 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 104:16:48 |
| Calls: | 290 |
| Files: | 905 |
| Messages: | 76,612 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 08:20:56 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
MS employees were commenting that customers had been buying the latest
releases for the new features ... but it had reached the point where the
releases they were running now had 98% of the features they wanted (and
the company wasn't sure what to do next).
Verity Stob once asked the question: “name one feature of Microsoft Office that you use daily, that was added this century”.
Think about it. ;)
On 20/09/2024 01:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 19:01:34 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
In particular, MS has not added anything I want in Office since
2003 and in the OS in particular since 2005. Windows 7 is still
better than windows 10 or 11 or 12...
Would you entrust mission-criticial business operations to obsolete, unsupported software?
His suggestion was to /continue/ the support and updates for existing systems, rather than making new ones.
But would /I/ trust mission-critical business operations to Windows 7
over Windows 11 ? Well, I wouldn't trust it to anything Windows, but
I certainly trust Windows 7 more than Windows 10 or 11. The more
useless crap added to the system, the more scope it has for failures
or security issues. (The only Windows systems I currently have are
Windows 7.)
I am not sure I can think of anything I want to do on Windows, and
which I can do with Windows 11 that I could not do with Windows 2000
- excluding running programs that refuse to run on earlier systems
without good reason, or hardware that does not have drivers for older systems. (In Mitch's dream world where MS continued to support old
systems, those would not be issues.) There are a few things that
newer Windows does better than older ones - it makes better use of
more ram and more cores, for example.
Open-source software is more responsive to community needs.
Absolutely. It is not perfect either, but it is a lot better in many
ways.
MS would make more money by allowing old OSs to keep running and
sent the employees home...
They’re going to charge businesses who want to stick with Windows
10 a steadily increasing support fee. Charging lots of money to
those who want to stick with old versions of your proprietary
software sounds like a business model with a much more promising
future, don’t you think?
MS can't make a business from supporting old software. While there
is a proportion of more technical people who are happy with "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it", a much larger proportion of potential
purchasers are in the "the latest is greatest" camp.
On 20/09/2024 01:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 19:01:34 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
In particular, MS has not added anything I want in Office since
2003 and in the OS in particular since 2005. Windows 7 is still
better than windows 10 or 11 or 12...
Would you entrust mission-criticial business operations to obsolete, unsupported software?
His suggestion was to /continue/ the support and updates for existing systems, rather than making new ones.
But would /I/ trust mission-critical business operations to Windows 7
over Windows 11 ? Well, I wouldn't trust it to anything Windows, but
I certainly trust Windows 7 more than Windows 10 or 11. The more
useless crap added to the system, the more scope it has for failures
or security issues. (The only Windows systems I currently have are
Windows 7.)
I am not sure I can think of anything I want to do on Windows, and
which I can do with Windows 11 that I could not do with Windows 2000
- excluding running programs that refuse to run on earlier systems
without good reason, or hardware that does not have drivers for older systems. (In Mitch's dream world where MS continued to support old
systems, those would not be issues.) There are a few things that
newer Windows does better than older ones - it makes better use of
more ram and more cores, for example.
Open-source software is more responsive to community needs.
Absolutely. It is not perfect either, but it is a lot better in many
ways.
MS would make more money by allowing old OSs to keep running and
sent the employees home...
They’re going to charge businesses who want to stick with Windows
10 a steadily increasing support fee. Charging lots of money to
those who want to stick with old versions of your proprietary
software sounds like a business model with a much more promising
future, don’t you think?
MS can't make a business from supporting old software. While there
is a proportion of more technical people who are happy with "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it", a much larger proportion of potential
purchasers are in the "the latest is greatest" camp.
On 20/09/2024 01:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 19:01:34 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
In particular, MS has not added anything I want in Office since 2003 and >>> in the OS in particular since 2005. Windows 7 is still better than
windows 10 or 11 or 12...
Would you entrust mission-criticial business operations to obsolete,
unsupported software?
His suggestion was to /continue/ the support and updates for existing systems, rather than making new ones.
But would /I/ trust mission-critical business operations to Windows 7
over Windows 11 ? Well, I wouldn't trust it to anything Windows, but I certainly trust Windows 7 more than Windows 10 or 11. The more useless
crap added to the system, the more scope it has for failures or security issues. (The only Windows systems I currently have are Windows 7.)
I am not sure I can think of anything I want to do on Windows, and which
I can do with Windows 11 that I could not do with Windows 2000 -
excluding running programs that refuse to run on earlier systems without
good reason, or hardware that does not have drivers for older systems.
(In Mitch's dream world where MS continued to support old systems, those would not be issues.) There are a few things that newer Windows does
better than older ones - it makes better use of more ram and more cores,
for example.
Open-source software is more responsive to community needs.
Absolutely. It is not perfect either, but it is a lot better in many ways.
MS would make more money by allowing old OSs to keep running and sent
the employees home...
They’re going to charge businesses who want to stick with Windows 10 a
steadily increasing support fee. Charging lots of money to those who want
to stick with old versions of your proprietary software sounds like a
business model with a much more promising future, don’t you think?
MS can't make a business from supporting old software. While there is a proportion of more technical people who are happy with "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it", a much larger proportion of potential purchasers
are in the "the latest is greatest" camp.
- I don't know if
MS Office can yet make good pdfs (with table of contents, clickable
links, etc., but if so, it's recent).
On 9/20/2024 5:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
- I don't know if
MS Office can yet make good pdfs (with table of contents, clickable
links, etc., but if so, it's recent).
Yes, it can. I don't know in which version it was added, but you're
right, it was post 2000.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:44:17 +0000, Stephen Fuld wrote:
On 9/20/2024 5:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
- I don't know if
MS Office can yet make good pdfs (with table of contents, clickable
links, etc., but if so, it's recent).
Yes, it can. I don't know in which version it was added, but you're
right, it was post 2000.
It is present in "Student Office 2003"
... the new formula editor is better than the old one,
especially since you can paste LaTeX source into it.
MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 23:44:48 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 08:20:56 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
MS employees were commenting that customers had been buying the latest >>>> releases for the new features ... but it had reached the point where the >>>> releases they were running now had 98% of the features they wanted (and >>>> the company wasn't sure what to do next).
Verity Stob once asked the question: “name one feature of Microsoft
Office that you use daily, that was added this century”.
I bought a hammer in 1977, I can still use it today...
As far as I know, the only feature I use (and an unnecessary one) is
the coloring of URL text blue and underlining it, that was added this
century.
I don't use it daily (that would be Saturdays and Sundays, too)
but often enough - the new formula editor is better than the
old one, especially since you can paste LaTeX source into it.
To make up for it, the new method of writing equation references
is braindead.
But bricking the old formula editor... that was Not Nice (TM).
On 20/09/2024 07:53, Thomas Koenig wrote:
MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 23:44:48 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:I don't use it daily (that would be Saturdays and Sundays, too)
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 08:20:56 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
MS employees were commenting that customers had been buying the latest >>>>> releases for the new features ... but it had reached the point where the >>>>> releases they were running now had 98% of the features they wanted (and >>>>> the company wasn't sure what to do next).
Verity Stob once asked the question: “name one feature of Microsoft
Office that you use daily, that was added this century”.
I bought a hammer in 1977, I can still use it today...
As far as I know, the only feature I use (and an unnecessary one) is
the coloring of URL text blue and underlining it, that was added this
century.
but often enough - the new formula editor is better than the
old one, especially since you can paste LaTeX source into it.
To make up for it, the new method of writing equation references
is braindead.
But bricking the old formula editor... that was Not Nice (TM).
To me, the answer is just to use LaTeX.
On Sa 21 Sep 2024 at 12:19, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 20/09/2024 07:53, Thomas Koenig wrote:
MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 23:44:48 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:I don't use it daily (that would be Saturdays and Sundays, too)
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 08:20:56 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
MS employees were commenting that customers had been buying the latest >>>>>> releases for the new features ... but it had reached the point where the >>>>>> releases they were running now had 98% of the features they wanted (and >>>>>> the company wasn't sure what to do next).
Verity Stob once asked the question: “name one feature of Microsoft >>>>> Office that you use daily, that was added this century”.
I bought a hammer in 1977, I can still use it today...
As far as I know, the only feature I use (and an unnecessary one) is
the coloring of URL text blue and underlining it, that was added this
century.
but often enough - the new formula editor is better than the
old one, especially since you can paste LaTeX source into it.
To make up for it, the new method of writing equation references
is braindead.
But bricking the old formula editor... that was Not Nice (TM).
To me, the answer is just to use LaTeX.
+1