Re: [WinMac] Re: Office version terminology question
John Nurick(j.nurick[at]dial.pipex.com)
Thu, 03 Sep 1998 07:31:35 +0100
At 09:51 02/09/98 -0000, Jeff wrote:
>>As for stupid: the high degree of compatibility between Office 4.x and
>>Office 95 did a lot to ease the transition from Win3.x to 32-bit systems. I
>>would not have enjoyed supporting users through Win95 teething troubles and
>>Office 97 ones *simultaneously*!
>Paying for this is stupid.
I suppose so. Certainly the differences in the software didn't warrant
changing incrementing version numbers by more than a decimal or two.
>Claiming this is NEW software is stupid.
Cunning?
>And
>the high degree of compatibility actually caused more misunderstanding
>about which system and version of Office users were using than it eased
>the transition for them. That's why this thread was started. I still sit
>and listen to people tell me they are sending me a file in Windows 97
>format. Perhaps you had a much better transition than most of us.
The 4.x to 95 transition really was easy, in my (limited) experience (in
fact we're still using both indiscriminately). I entirely agree about the
confusing numbering; if there's any doubt I get the user to do Help|About
and tell me what it says, which at least gives me the major version number.
I'm currently planning our transition to Office 97/98. Wish me luck!
John
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
* FAQ: <http://www.darryl.com/winmacfaq/> *
* Archives: <http://www.darryl.com/winmac/> *
* Subscribe: <mailto:winmac-on@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
* Subscribe Digest: <mailto:winmac-digest@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
* Unsubscribe: <mailto:winmac-off@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Wed Sep 02 1998 - 23:38:12 PDT
|