Re: Third-party books vs docs (Was: Good/bad docs)

[Tim Huddleston <thuddles -at- MINDSPRING -dot- COM>]

Not a joke, a typo. But thanks for pointing it out just the same. I'd
correct it but just feel too ashamed to speak up any more....

tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Friedman <bjf -at- wavefront -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Third-party books vs docs (Was: Good/bad docs)


>In our previous episode, Tim Huddleston said:
>> Third-party books won't go away any time soon, even though docs are
better
>> than ever and improving all the time. (Compare the docs for Word 3 to
Word
>> 97 and you'll see what I mean.)
>
>Was this intended as a joke?  There is no hard-copy documentation for
>Word 97; at least, not as packaged in Office 97.  The sole hard-copy
>documentation was _Getting Results With Microsoft Office 97_, which is
>task-oriented and essentially useless for figuring out how a specific
>function works.
>
>The on-line help isn't bad, but there's no shelfware to speak of.
>That doesn't bother me all that much for Word, but I would have liked
>a manual for Excel and Access.  Not to mention documentation for VBA,
>which doesn't seem to exist in any form.
>
>*********************************************************************
>Beth Friedman                                  How about those Cubs?
>bjf -at- wavefront -dot- com
>
>From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==
>
>
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=