«

"GraB" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:54:30 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <_zealand> wrote:
>
>>*sling wrote:
>>
>>> Only trouble is MS Works 2000 (Word) could no longer make any sense of
>>> MS
>>> WPS files that were created and saved by MS Works 8 (Word).
>>>
>>> Problems with software running on products from completely different
>>> companies are hardly too surprising, but MS Works 2000 and MS Works 8
>>> are
>>> identical products both from the same very outfit.
>>>
>>> That's just crazy that 2 Word processors from the same company can't
>>> even
>>> understand the files that each of them has created.
>>
>>Remember Conway's Law: any piece of software reflects the organizational
>>structure that produced it.
>>
>>The fact that different versions of Works have so much trouble exchanging
>>documents obviously reflects the fact that they are produced by different
>>groups at different times within Microsoft, with little or no
>>communication
>>between them.
>
> So, though they intended to produce a software 'horse' they produced a
> software 'camel'.

You can take it to same waterhole but don't expect the fussy bugger to drink
out of it, especially if the camel's older brother has already had a drink
from the waterhole only a few days earlier.

E. Scrooge

GraB wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:56:38 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
> (*sling)> wrote:
>
>
>>Small problem for starters on brand new PC was despite having MS Works 8 the
>>spell checker in OE wouldn't work. A search of the Net suggested making
>>sure a certain file or 2 was in Proof and Outlook Express.
>>
>>Soon fixed the OE spell check by uninstalling Works 8 (Works 7 has the same
>>problem going by what's on the Net about it), and then installing Works
>>2000.
>>
>>Only trouble is MS Works 2000 (Word) could no longer make any sense of MS
>>WPS files that were created and saved by MS Works 8 (Word).
>>
>>Problems with software running on products from completely different
>>companies are hardly too surprising, but MS Works 2000 and MS Works 8 are
>>identical products both from the same very outfit.
>>
>>Fortunately it only involved 3 files, but if anyone is sharing Word WPS that
>>they've created with other Word users, then they're completely stuffed if
>>they're not all using exactly the same version instead of versions which are
>>only a few years apart.
>>
>>That's just crazy that 2 Word processors from the same company can't even
>>understand the files that each of them has created.
>>
>>The small stuff up of the spell checker not working in OE6 with Works 7/8 is
>>a backwards step or 2 as well, and not a sign of a damn update to fix it.
>>
>>E. Scrooge
>>
>
> I can't believe this is still happening. I had MS Works 3 ages ago
> and found that Word couldn't open a Works document. Installed
> ClarisWorks instead.
>
> I wonder if the latest OpenOffice will open both those files? Would
> be interesting to find out.

It doesn't; I just tried (using OOo 2.0 and Works 3.0). Sun's version
might - I think it may have more conversion plugins. The only migration
path for documents is to convert to an intermediate format that OOo can
read (usually .doc and xls).

GraB wrote:

>>> I can't believe this is still happening. I had MS Works 3 ages ago
>>> and found that Word couldn't open a Works document. Installed
>>> ClarisWorks instead.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the latest OpenOffice will open both those files? Would
>>> be interesting to find out.
>>
>>I had a version of Claris Works years ago. It was great what could be
>>done with it.
>>
> I have kept the discs with ClarisWorks 1, 3, and I think I might have
> version 5 somewhere. Good to install on low-end PCs for people who
> just want a simple word processor that is light on resources.

http://www.abiword.org/ is way lighter than openoffice.
Its native XML
Its simple and free and works on Windows (95b onwards) OSX and Linux distros
Its got import export filters for most old file formats, claris,
wordperfect, word, rtf, palm, html

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:08:51 +1300, Peter wrote:

> *sling wrote:
>> Problems with software running on products from completely different
>> companies are hardly too surprising, but MS Works 2000 and MS Works 8 are
>> identical products both from the same very outfit.
>
> try moving files between different versions of MS Publisher
>
> The other common problem is moving database data between MS Works and MS
> Access.

That incompatibility is deliberately done - to force people to "upgrade"
to the most recent versions of Micro$oft' software.


Bling Bling

--
Pamela Jones: "Linux will continue to grow, and open formats and standards
will continue to be adopted in part because we don't trust Microsoft."

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:54:30 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Remember the rule with closed-source vendors: you either do things the way
> they want you to do them, or you don't do them at all.

.... unless, like the Commonwealth of Massitucits (sorry for phonetic
spelling) you're not threatened or bullied by Micro$oft and have specified
what software suppliers need to do in order to be elligible to win your
contract.


Bling Bling

--
Pamela Jones: "Linux will continue to grow, and open formats and standards
will continue to be adopted in part because we don't trust Microsoft."

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 11:29:26 +1300, Bling Bling wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:54:30 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Remember the rule with closed-source vendors: you either do things the way
>> they want you to do them, or you don't do them at all.
>
> ... unless, like the Commonwealth of Massitucits (sorry for phonetic
> spelling)

Massachusetts, Mass a chu etts. Okay the sits/etts is open for debate

> you're not threatened or bullied by Micro$oft and have specified
> what software suppliers need to do in order to be elligible to win your
> contract.

There is a heck lot more at stake than this. MS is claiming that it's XML
is open but then they plan to charge you for doing things with it unless
you have paid them $US.

Read the URL below, for it is interesting.

I care not which OS platform you may chose, or otherwise run, but if you
send me a file from it I *expect* that I shall be able to read it easily.

The Open Document format/cursade is picking up speed like an idea whose
idea has come.

All right ASCII, American Standard Code of Information **Interchange**,
you rule okay until now, and I guess you will always will. Okay URL tell
it to them,

http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/why-o...ument-won.html

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:51:00 +1300, E. Scrooge wrote:

> Other products get along a damn sight better. Imagine if saved jpeg images
> created on PSP won't work on any other product from any other company other
> than on PSP.

Joint Pictures Expert Group, jpeg for short. A *group* of people who had
the aim of making a picture format first, not money.

Jpeg is an open standard and thus everyone/anyone can use it, freely.

I am glad you see the advantages of open standards.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:19:26 +1300, GraB wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:54:30 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <_zealand> wrote:
>
>>*sling wrote:
>>
>>> Only trouble is MS Works 2000 (Word) could no longer make any sense of MS
>>> WPS files that were created and saved by MS Works 8 (Word).
>>>
>>> Problems with software running on products from completely different
>>> companies are hardly too surprising, but MS Works 2000 and MS Works 8 are
>>> identical products both from the same very outfit.
>>>
>>> That's just crazy that 2 Word processors from the same company can't even
>>> understand the files that each of them has created.
>>
>>Remember Conway's Law: any piece of software reflects the organizational
>>structure that produced it.
>>
>>The fact that different versions of Works have so much trouble exchanging
>>documents obviously reflects the fact that they are produced by different
>>groups at different times within Microsoft, with little or no communication
>>between them.
>
> So, though they intended to produce a software 'horse' they produced a
> software 'camel'.

No, NO. Two departments in the aircraft industry of the same company
produced a fighter jet and a mass people mover and then expected their
customers to move/travel freely between them.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:55:32 +1300, E. Scrooge wrote:

> You can take it to same waterhole but don't expect the fussy bugger to drink
> out of it, especially if the camel's older brother has already had a drink
> from the waterhole only a few days earlier.

Ah, I rest my case. (Yes, there is no Smiley icon)

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:32:53 +1300, shannon wrote:

>
> http://www.abiword.org/ is way lighter than openoffice.

As it is only a word processor. Nothing wrong with that *nix* philisophy
says that every programme should do one thing, but do it *very* well.

> Its native XML

So is Open Office 2

> Its simple and free and works on Windows (95b onwards) OSX and Linux distros
> Its got import export filters for most old file formats, claris,
> wordperfect, word, rtf, palm, html

Ah, as a word processor only, it can "afford" to drill down into history.
Still there we go people doing what they think is important; not what
their wallet says.