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

From: Beth Rosengard (bethrosengard_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 03/24/04 

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:20:59 -0800

Okay JE (and Paul :-),

I take your various points.

Now, how about a compromise. Is there some good reason why Microsoft
couldn't or shouldn't designate (for instance) Word's current version number
as something like "Word 10.1.4 in Office 10.1.5" ? Adjustments would of
course have to be made for standalone applications or other exceptions if
necessary, but this seems like a perfectly workable alternative to me. And
there would be no need to do the same for every Office file installed since
it's only where the major applications are concerned that this is ever
called into question. (Besides, Entourage is already done differently than
the other apps so there's no point arguing that it *has* to be done the same
way everywhere; the point is to make life easier for the end user.) 

-- 
Beth Rosengard
Mac MVP
Mac Word FAQ:  <http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/WordMac/index.htm>
Entourage Help Page:  <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/toc.html>
On 3/24/04 1:32 PM, in article
jemcgimpsey-DD7729.14323424032004@msnews.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey"
<jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote:
> 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.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hi Play65Official Sheila Baker, I was Play65 user nicknamed SleepWalkerr in November 2006.
    ... I was Play65 user nicknamed SleepWalkerr in November ... Play65 closed my account with some funny reasons. ... I want to write here some laughable mails, received from Mr Paul one ... GE sent me a new reason to close my account. ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: OT: LOL! "Yoooo vill Explode!"
    ... Trying to reason with a bigot like you would be about as worthwhile as ... exception of Ron Paul has pledged allegiance to The Beast (yes this ... that Israel is worth defending. ... I think that defending a democracy is a worthwhile goal. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: DD(X) Costs
    ... We haven't done an opposed landing in over 50 years ... but that's the reason for the amphibious fleet's existance. ... it's about landing fifty miles up the coast where the defenders are spread thin and weak, and you have time to get a decent lodgement ashore with the enemy scrambling to react while still having a usable route to get to something the enemy _does_ care about, and being able to ensure that in the hopefully-decisive battle he runs out of men, munitions or munchies before you do. ... Paul J. Adam ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: more Access 07 thoughts, (censored by the Access Team Blog?)
    ... I tried to post the following in the Access Team Blog but ... applications, only a miniscule marginal fraction is build on the ... Maybe the reason for not attributing enough importance to this final ... of shareware applications in a platform other then Access. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: ATWT - Casting News
    ... Paul was the only ... I also am interested in what good reason Babs had for her kneejerk ... Hmm, okay, LOL, yeah, I know the snobbish reasons, but ... ... being judgmental, 'cos I don't see that, or the 'better than' attitude. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)