Of All Things Why Aren't Microsoft Products Fully Compatible With Each Other???

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

 

try moving files between different versions of MS Publisher

The other common problem is moving database data between MS Works and MS
Access.


Peter

 

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.

 

Hardly any excuse for it to purposely create such incompatibilities between
products which Microsoft had created in the first place.

No doubt they'll make sure any old XBox game will play the next version of
the XBox even though they don't to make sure similar PC products are fully
compatible.

Somehow it must go against the anti trust laws for Microsoft to making sure
that similar products aren't even compatible.

There's something about ULA (or whatever) for other products of software
from other companies to be able to work on XP OS, while Microducts doesn't
worry if their own products are conpatible with each other or not.
It's hardly the way to help link most PCs together when they can't even
understand the files created on very similar Microsoft products.
Of course the problem goes right to back to MS HQ in the US which do all the
designing of the products in the first place.

E. Scrooge

 

Actually, Works could be a buy-in - the Mac version certainly was
(Productivity Software)

 

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.

And why don't they communicate? Because they don't need to. Obviously
Microsoft's marketing department has determined that Works users rarely
upgrade, and hence each version can effectively be considered to be a
different product, while there are no large Microsoft customers running a
mixture of versions of Works, with the buying clout to insist that they
interoperate properly.

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.

 

So, though they intended to produce a software 'horse' they produced a
software 'camel'.

 

I had a version of Claris Works years ago. It was great what could be done
with it.

E. Scrooge

 

I can't believe this is still happening. I had MS Works 3 ages ago

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.

 

Funny thing is, as far as Word goes at least, there's hardly any difference
in the look and use of them between the early ones and Word 8. Instead
Microsoft has made damn sure that they're not compatible, as far as any file
sharing goes even if the files have the same "WPS" extensions.

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.
And that's exactly what the nonsense with these Microsoft Works products is
like.

E. Scrooge

 

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

 

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).

 

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

 

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


Bling Bling

 

.... 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

 

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

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-opendocument-won.html

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

So is Open Office 2

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.