Re: A Good Word for Word 6

Subject: Re: A Good Word for Word 6
From: John Renish <John -dot- Renish -at- CONNER -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:49:04 PDT

Gee, Sue, if you're going to attack people publicly, you should at least
spell their names correctly. If you'd like, I can be really condescending,
but I didn't do it before. Let's take one point at a time:

We apparently differ on what constitutes "simple" formatting. My standard
template has 66 styles, and I routinely use Word's internal drawing package
to create graphics. My larger documents usually contain anywhere from 3 to
20 graphics, anywhere from 1 to 20 tables, and from 10 to 20 sections with
left and right pages. There is a graphic in each header. I cannot process
them at all as single files but usually *can* get away with processing them
in a master document, albeit with many problems.

I don't control the printer selection, but I don't output to the HPLJIII,
either. I clearly said the problem was in spooling (to the network print
server, or to Print Manager when I use my Tektronix Phaser 200e), *not* in
printing. No, I don't use any add-on utilities. My 486-33 has 20 MByte of
RAM and a 360 MByte hard drive dedicated to Windows virtual memory (Windows
gives me 120 MByte of dynamically-allocated virtual memory). We are not
talking about Mickey Mouse hardware here, and I *do* know a little about the
subject. Oh, yes: I have had our desktop service people confirm my settings,

Knowing what you now know about *my* hardware, software, and needs, do you
maintain (as you implied) that my experiences are due to my errors? If not,
my recommendation (trashing, as you characterize it) is based on fact and
objective observation, not opinion. Would you not also admit that I
restricted my negative recommendation to "*larger* projects" (emphasis
added)? A small blanket, indeed. In fact, I *like* Word for smaller
projects. As for whether one should trash a product that is widely used, can
I presume you endorse cigarets? Alcohol? Cocaine?

Now, I will admit that I am using Word 6.0a and will install the 6.0c as
soon as I receive it. But just yesterday, one of Word's mysterious general
protection faults repeatedly occurred in a contractor's 10-page file. She is
using Word 6.0c and has 12 MBytes of RAM and 25 MBytes of virtual memory on
a 486-33.

Here's a blanket statement: Microsoft routinely sells broken versions of
Word. Examples include Word 5.0 (Mac), Word 6.0a, and Word 6.0b (were it not
so, we would not have had the patch for 5.0 or Word 6.0c so quickly after
the initial release). To tell the truth, I'm not too sanguine about what
I've seen of 6.0c, either. To add insult to injury, Mr. Bill's minions have
the audacity to call a bug fix an upgrade.

Perhaps, Sue, you hold the match that lit your fire.

John -dot- Renish -at- conner -dot- com
My statements are my own and do not represent Conner Peripherals, Inc.
Original Text

Previous by Author: Re: More on Oxymorons
Next by Author: Re: Spelling inquiry: Cacheable? Cachable?
Previous by Thread: Re: A Good Word for Word 6
Next by Thread: Humor: Safety warnings for outdoor recreation

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads