Re: Word v.X doesn't print tables properly in Panther

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

From: JE McGimpsey (jemcgimpsey_at_mvps.org)
Date: 03/24/04

  • Next message: JE McGimpsey: "Re: Word v.X doesn't print tables properly in Panther" 
    Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:32:34 -0700

    In article <BC87257D.3A1F2%bethrosengard@earthlink.net>,
     Beth Rosengard <bethrosengard@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > Hi JE :-),
    >
    > On 3/24/04 1:06 AM, in article
    > jemcgimpsey-29E389.02065524032004@msnews.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey"
    > <jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote:

    > Anyway, that's the point, isn't it? Most people *don't* read "Read Me"s.
    > And even if they do (and here's where *my* problem is), they may not
    > remember what's in them a couple months later when they need the
    > information. It needs to be available within the applications or in an
    > Office-wide Help.

    I said at the beginning that I thought that the About box should match
    the version number.

    But having the information available within the application has zero to
    do with version control.

     
    > > This is one place I think MS does it right. If updater 10.1.5 doesn't
    > > touch Word, then why should the version number be updated? I want to
    > > know that it wasn't touched, instead of having to guess what might or
    > > might not have been done. I want to be able to definitively say that
    > > changed behavior or a "bug" that appears after updating *isn't* from
    > > anything that was done to Word, instead of guessing, trying to root
    > > around on MacTopia, or taking the word of an MVP.
    >
    > I disagree for two reasons. One has already been stated by Paul: Just
    > because the application hasn't been updated doesn't mean the updater
    > contains no alterations that might impact on that application. In his
    > words: "But several of the files in the Office subfolder which Word uses
    > (e.g. Microsoft Component Plugin, MS OLE Automation (Carbon), ShMem.bundle,
    > Visual Basic for Applications) are updated to 10.1.5, so there may in fact
    > be some differences even in Word."

    I strongly disagree with Paul. There might be (and assuredly are) "some
    differences even in Word", say, in going from OS X 10.2.8 to OS X
    10.3.3, too, but they don't change *Word*. Word is still the exact same
    pattern of bits on my hard drive. Should Word's version number change?

    A change in Photoshop's output format may "impact on that application"
    (Word). Should Word's version number change?

    Closer to home, a change in EndNote may "impact on that application".
    Should Word's version number change?

    And directly to the point, Entourage, Word, Excel and Powerpoint are all
    standalone products. You don't have to buy Excel if all you want is
    Word. If an update is made to Word, should Entourage's version number
    change, just because some people buy them bundled?

    What if Entourage then changes, should Word's version change too? Should
    people who only have Word update just to keep up with the numbers? How
    do you explain to someone that their version has been superceded by a
    product they don't even own?

    I'd answer all of these (except the last, which was rhetorical),
    emphatically, "No".

    Paul's argument is based on "there may in fact be some differences". To
    me, an update implies a definite change, not ignorance of change, or
    speculation. I think trying to get people to understand that "no,
    updating to 10.1.5 *isn't* the cause of your Word problem, because the
    10.1.5 update didn't do anything to Word (we think)" is at least as hard
    as trying to get them to understand that, yes, they really should look
    at the documentation!

    It's also far more likely to perpetuate conspiracy theories - "Gee, MS
    *says* they didn't change Word in update 10.1.5, but..."

    > The second reason isn't really a disagreement; it's a matter of expectation
    > and "majority rules" I guess. Based on the number of times this issue is
    > raised on the newsgroups, it seems pretty clear that most people expect
    > Office application version numbers to be in agreement. The fact that there
    > *may* be a good reason for variance does not change the expectation. I
    > think you're in a small minority here, JE: That doesn't make you wrong, of
    > course :-).

    Yeah, I don't think much at all of "majority rules" when it comes to
    technical issues. Being in the minority is often compensated for by
    being right. I'm also not sure how much in the minority I am - on these
    groups you only see the people who (a) can't figure something out, and
    (b) are motivated enough to try to do something about it. The vast
    majority of users don't have that combination, so I'm not sure that
    extrapolating from that subpopulation gives you much of a feel for the
    population as a whole.

    In the software industry, generally, a change in version *means*
    something. The gestalt is that there are definite differences in going
    from a 1.0 version to a 1.1 version. That shouldn't be abandoned just
    because some, even most, people can't read and understand the
    information that's put in front of them.

    Besides, it's easy to change expectations. WinOffice users don't give a
    flying fig about version numbers - they connect to Office Update and
    have MS tell them what they need to download. If they've really got an
    aversion to version numbers, they'll tell MS to update automatically.

    Apple has done this *incredibly* successfully with OS X. How many people
    know or care what version the Finder is? (heck, how many even know
    *what* the Finder is in OS X?) There are tens of thousands of components
    in OS X. They don't change their version numbers every time Apple puts
    out an update, even though they have an impact on the operating system.
    Safari's still at version 1.2, even though there've been far more
    frequent changes in the components that affect its performance.

    Hell, Apple's so successful that I just applied an iChat update even
    though I don't use it! (though I did force quit the installer after the
    installation completed, rather than restart - can't have these machines
    telling you what to do, after all...)

    Implement something like that, and those remaining that care about
    version numbers will almost certainly be technically savvy enough to
    figure it out.

  • Next message: JE McGimpsey: "Re: Word v.X doesn't print tables properly in Panther"