On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Adam Maas > >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM, paul stenquist <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > On Nov 14, 2010, at 3:39 PM, John Francis wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>> >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 08:10:29PM -0000, Bob W wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Odd. I use Word all day, every day. Save all manuscripts as docs >>>>>> >>>> and have >>>>>> >>>> never had a problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I think it can get its panties stuck up its crack if the document >>>>> >>> template >>>>> >>> gets messed up. I've been using it day in, day out for donkeys' >>>>> >>> years and in >>>>> >>> most situations it seems to be ok if you can keep things simple. At >>>>> >>> the >>>>> >>> place I'm working now, though, they have it set up so that users >>>>> >>> can't set >>>>> >>> up and use their own default template and I find that the file >>>>> >>> sizes inflate >>>>> >>> really quickly for some reason which I haven't discovered yet. >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> That's usually because history versioning is turned on. ?Turn it off >>>> >> and >>>> >> document sizes revert to something a lot more reasonable. >>>> >> >>>> >> That said, however: a .doc file (or a .pdf) is *not* the way to store >>>> >> plain >>>> >> text, which is a concept that I struggle to get across to some >>>> >> people. ?I don't >>>> >> want a 2MB binary email attachment that I have to open in an external >>>> >> program, >>>> >> and I don't want a .doc file attached as a "comment" in a project >>>> >> tracker. >>> >>> > >>> > Then you're different than all the publishers out there. I have never >>> > encountered >>> > a magazine or newspaper that didn't want .doc files. They're the >>> > industry standard. >>> > Yes, they may suck, but they're the industry standard. >>> > Paul >>> > >> >> Industry standard for a reason, much of which is the assists you get >> with a good Word Processor. For smaller chunks of text I like text >> editors just fine (as well as larger chunks of code), but when I want >> to write anything serious I use Word for the combination of spelling & >> grammar checks, the Thesaurus and the formatting capabilities. > > "Industry standard" because of Micro$ofts well known monopoly market > manipulations.
Industry standard because WordPerfect couldn't see the writing on the wall about WYSIWYG. Word caught on because it was simply damned good back then. It's gone downhill since Word 97 but WP and AmiPro never caught up. Note that Word developed its original dominance in the Mac market, where MS's monoploy practices were irrelevant. > > And the "formatting capabilities" are what makes me condemn Micro$oft to the > nether regions of hell. Auto-format should be off by default and anyone who > needs it can turn it on. Autoformat is pretty good 90% of the time. The other 10% can be over-ridden or turned off. > > Micro$oft's programmers don't know what they're doing, how the hell they > going to know better than I do what I want to do? I don't really mind them > putting all the gew-gaws in there, but I do mind them making it so difficult > to turn that crap off. The programmers behind MS Office are the cream. And they do a damned good job (including Access, which is mostly about maintaining compatibility with the awful original product and that's not easy) > > Why should I have to fight the software to write what *I* want to write the > way *I* want to write it? Because the software is designed to produce stylebook-compatible output and force it on the vast majority of idiots who just can't do anything right. The rare few who want to do it differently for good reason get stuck in the middle. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
