Re: Service Release 2 does not fix font problem
- From: Pierre Tissot <ptissot@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:19:14 +0200
On 22.09.2005 16:48, in article
jemcgimpsey-12CC13.08480222092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "JE McGimpsey"
<jemcgimpsey@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <2005092117012822503%loren@hotnospammailcom>,
> Loren <loren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> You seem to be operating under assumptions that I haven't seen
>>> validated. Among them...
>>>
>>> 1) The problem is singular, or at least has a small number of
>>> manifestations.
>>
>> certainly true
>
> ??? I've read through threads and haven't seen enough information
> presented to constitute demonstrable evidence that this is true, though
> it is likely, IMO.
>
>>> 2) The problem has a known method to reproduce it, so that it is well
>>> understood.
>>
>> maybe not true but pooling people who have this would get it known
>> quickly if there were a will.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. Serendipity happens, but you can't be sure it will
> be any more successful than carefully controlled experimentation. It
> could just as easily lead to utter confusion unless everything about the
> systems that report is known. There's no guarantee that examining a file
> will tell you what caused its corruption, any more than examining a
> puddle of water will tell you what shape the ice sculpture was before it
> melted. You're using magical thinking, here.
>
>>>
>>> 3) The problem is caused by something under the control of either Apple or
>>> MS.
>>
>> it is.
>
> Don't see any evidence this is anything other than just your assertion.
> I didn't see any reports of stock Tiger installs with only Office loaded
> displaying the problem. Perhaps I missed them.
>
>>>
>>> 4) That the problem can either be fixed by MS, or that it can be worked
>>> around without setting themselves up for failure when Apple fixes the
>>> problem.
>>
>> it can, and can be fixed easily enough.
>
> You can't even begin to know that. Repeated assertion doesn't make it so.
>
>>>
>>> 5) That fixing or working around the problem doesn't break something
>>> else, or require a prohibitive architecture/code base change.
>>
>> then the program is horribly bad.
>
> That's likely true. It's millions of lines of code originating 20 years
> ago. That alone may prevent dealing with a problem. But if you wish to
> have Office on the Mac, that's one of the realities that has to be dealt
> with.
>
>>> 6) That the problem affects enough users that it's cost effective for
>>> Apple or MS to spend significant resources on (while it's been
>>> discussed a lot by a relatively small number of folks in these groups,
>>> the only time I had a severe font problem like this was in beta testing
>>> a long while ago, and I support over 1500 Mac desks in a school
>>> environment, none of which, AFAIK, have this problem).
>>
>> cost effective? i spent $400 on this suite and i should expect it launches.
>
> What does your cost have to do with anything? It launches for the vast
> majority of thousands of users. That means your system is unusual, even
> if others share that difference. Technically, MacBU has zero liability
> for that, other than to allow you to return it for a refund if it
> doesn't work. If enough users have the problem, it has both a business
> and a PR incentive to get the problem fixed, regardless of whose fault
> it is.
>
> But MS is a business. MacBU is required to conform to MS business
> practices. If that means choosing not to spend a dollar to chase a
> nickel, that's what they'll choose. To do anything else is a waste of
> their shareholders' resources.
>
> In what other industry is a company *required* to invest substantial
> amounts in researching a problem experienced by a small number of
> customers, especially when the problem only manifests itself with, and
> may be caused by, another manufacturer's product?
>
> Your desire to get a permanent fix is understandable. So is your
> frustration. Your indignation, however, is misplaced.
>
>>> Having a persistent bug is frustrating, but there are dozens, hundreds,
>>> perhaps even thousands, of them (for instance, userform focus bugs are
>>> far more debilitating from an application developer's perspective, and
>>> those have existed a *lot* longer!). Six months is a long time if
>>> that's all MacBU is working on. Depending on the rest of the priority
>>> list, the root cause, and the resources available, problems that have
>>> workarounds like the one you've found may take much longer, if ever, to
>>> get fixed.
>>
>> absolute horecrap. just read these boards. how many times does this come
>> up?
>>
>> i'm sick of apologists.
>
> I'm hardly being an apologist - I've acknowledged that this could be
> MS's problem and it could be easy to fix. I rather pointed out that your
> statements were emotional rather than based on facts in evidence, and
> that your expectations were not necessarily realistic. But to prevent
> further incidents of illness:
>
> <plonk!>
Remove FontCacheTool from support files in office and no more problem.
.
- References:
- Re: Service Release 2 does not fix font problem
- From: JE McGimpsey
- Re: Service Release 2 does not fix font problem
- From: Loren
- Re: Service Release 2 does not fix font problem
- From: JE McGimpsey
- Re: Service Release 2 does not fix font problem
- Prev by Date: Mac Office 2004 Service Pack 2 - Document Icons
- Next by Date: Office SP2 - crash while printing
- Previous by thread: Re: Service Release 2 does not fix font problem
- Next by thread: x-serve conflict with Office X
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
