Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- From: CyberTaz <onlygeneraltaz1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:40:28 -0500
And from the other side of the proverbial coin... Perhaps all the sources
you refer to are publishing from the same MS press release/leak/plant:-)
When's the last time you actually saw a "news item" presented from exactly
the same perspective by multiple reporters at the same time other than when
they have been handed prepared press releases? There's very little
*investigative* reporting done any longer. Their cushy offices are too comfy
to do much more than snag stuff off the 'net and - if their golf schedule
permits - reword things a bit so it sounds somewhat more "original". The
only research most of them do is by way of their built-in thesaurus.
Don't you find it just a little interesting that the "vulnerability" of the
earlier file formats wasn't serious enough to be addressed in such a severe
manner until *after* Vista & Office 2007 (sporting a new XML-based file
format) were released & ran up against intense resistance in the
marketplace???
Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac
On 1/5/08 5:29 PM, in article uBZhnp#TIHA.5980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Phillip Jones" <pjones1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I hate to break it to You all But I am subscribed to computerworld, cNET
news and ZDnet News as well and they al three reported at about the same
time the same thing. Now I can't refuter what either you or Elliot or
the other know as the Truth. But fact is it was reported by all the
Major online News feed at about the same time.
And It would not surprise me if its so.
John McGhie wrote:
Hi John:
This is just alarmist. Actually, the Computer World article is a terrible
beat-up, one of the worst pieces of rabble-rousing journalism I have seen
for a while.
I would suggest that you might want to be very careful not to diminish your
own reputation by quoting Computer World again.
They have found someone with an impressive title, but who has no clue about
the technical issues involved, and is being very economical with the truth
in order to push their particular agenda. What the hell is an "Evangelist"?
Last I heard, that was a kind of religious preacher who was paid to get
people to believe stuff that cannot be proven correct.
In this case, the man they are misquoting is a Windows Vista marketing droid
working for Microsoft, whose main purpose in life is to sow fear,
uncertainty and doubt about products that compete with Microsoft products.
His purpose is to scare corporate customers into purchasing new versions
that they do not need of Microsoft Products, and to scare them away from
alternative products. He may be from Head Office, but trust me, he is NOT
"here to help us" :-)
They have quoted this ignoramus extensively, rather than doing their own
research. Computer World is obviously suffering a down-turn in circulation.
I wonder if that could be because the rest of the world has discovered they
have one or two problems with accuracy and comprehension in the stuff
they're writing about?
Of course, it may be that Microsoft PAID Computer World to publish this
rubbish. Naaah, they wouldn't do that, would they? You bet your bippy they
would... Microsoft is getting utterly desperate over Vista's "failure to
launch" and they will try anything at this stage...
They obviously needed to inflame the hell out ("beat-up" in industry jargon)
the story in order to attract attention to Computer World. Had they spent
five minutes carrying out a simple test, they would have discovered that
what their article says is not true. Chances are, they DID conduct this
test, but they have avoided correcting the article because that might hurt
their advertising sales.
The TRUTH is: Word 4 and 5 for Macintosh are the only file versions
affected, and they can easily and safely be re-enabled by the Windows user
if they need them.
If Computer World or anyone else is saying something different, we need to
ask WHY they would be saying something that the simple source checks they
should have learned in Journalism 101 would so easily discover is wrong :-)
John, I know that you mean well, and I am very sorry that these dishonest
low-lifes have caused you so much embarrassment. I bet you are too.
Cheers
On 6/01/08 2:52 AM, in article
jfoh-E5DF64.10522505012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "John Halloran"
<jfoh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Computerworld posted an article about Office 2003 SP3 dropping support
for a number of file formats. Here is a quote that is of interest to
Word 2004 users:
"Word 2003 with SP3, in fact, blocks a staggering 24 former formats,
according to Microsoft, including the default word processing file
format for Office 2004 for Mac, the currently available edition of
Microsoft's application suite for Mac OS X."
The Computerworld article can be seen read here:
http://tinyurl.com/2cw52e
The referenced Microsoft KB article can be read here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938810/en-us
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- From: Phillip Jones
- Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- From: Elliott Roper
- Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- References:
- Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- From: John Halloran
- Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- From: John McGhie
- Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- From: Phillip Jones
- Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- Prev by Date: Re: How to Change View of Excel Created in a Word Document?
- Next by Date: Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- Previous by thread: Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- Next by thread: Re: Word 2004 compatibility with Word 2003 SP3
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
