On Nov 14, 2010, at 6:46 PM, John Sessoms 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$ofts well known monopoly market > manipulations. > > And the "formatting capabilities" are what makes me condemn Micro$oft to the > nether regions of hell. Auto-format should be off by default and anyone who > needs it can turn it on. > > 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. > > Why should I have to fight the software to write what *I* want to write the > way *I* want to write it? > Simple answer: To make it easy for those of us who work with the same kind of document every day -- writers. One inch margins and 12 point Times New Roman will do fine thank you. Click on Word and get to work. It's a word processor. It's software for writers. Works fine. Paul
> > -- > 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. -- 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.
