PC Pro takes on the Mac
Steve Hodgson
reasons why PCs are better than Macs" featured pretty heavily on the
cover.
I can't decide if this list is actually *intended* to be funny but it's
certainly laughable.
--
Cheers,
Steve
The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk
Paul Russell
> This month's PC Pro seems to have a pretty heavy Mac theme. With "32
> reasons why PCs are better than Macs" featured pretty heavily on the cover.
>
> I can't decide if this list is actually *intended* to be funny but it's
> certainly laughable.
Maybe it's an April 1st article ?
Paul
Robert Moir
"Paul Russell" <prus...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:589m35F...@mid.individual.net...
No, there's a difference between 'trying to be funny' which is what my local
newspaper does every April 1st, and 'stupid childish name-calling and
repeating of old urban legends' which is the PC Pro article boiled down to
its essentials. Got to say I'm really disappointed, they're usually better
than that.
Ian McCall
> ...No, there's a difference between 'trying to be funny' which is what my local
> newspaper does every April 1st, and 'stupid childish name-calling and
> repeating of old urban legends' which is the PC Pro article boiled down to
> its essentials. Got to say I'm really disappointed, they're usually better
> than that.
Care to give a quick précis for the PC Pro 'deprived'?
Cheers,
Ian
Robert Moir
"Ian McCall" <i...@eruvia.org> wrote in message
news:58a6rcF...@mid.individual.net...
Well their first point was "Service Packs don't cost £90 on Windows". They
go on to mention two button mice as a Windows advantage. They blame Apple
because one of their mac owning editors got sneered at by someone with a new
macbook for having 'last years' model' of mac. They mention how Windows gets
cutting edge software like Office 2007 first (actually a fair point if you
just burn to be running the most up-to-date version of a good office suite)
but seem to miss the point that this can go the other way too.
They mention that Mac OSX has 'really confusing version numbers as one of
their points. Quite aside from how desperate they appear for points here,
I'm running Vista on this desktop machine here and the version number is
'6.0.6000.16386' which doesn't seem to be much clearer than '10.4.9'.
I could go on but frankly I'm losing the will to read further here.
Chris Ridd
> They mention that Mac OSX has 'really confusing version numbers as one of
> their points. Quite aside from how desperate they appear for points here,
> I'm running Vista on this desktop machine here and the version number is
> '6.0.6000.16386' which doesn't seem to be much clearer than '10.4.9'.
If that's the sort of example they're using, they're morons.
Personally I find version numbers like 1.0b9 to be extremely confusing, as
to me the "b" means that it is a beta release.
Cheers,
Chris
Ian McCall
> Well their first point was "Service Packs don't cost £90 on Windows".
Ah - this is the pointless "10.3 is Panther, 10.4 is Tiger so you've
paid for a .1 upgrade" rubbish is it? Quite apart from the silliness of
looking purely at version numbers to determine how useful a change is,
there's always....
2000 command prompt:
ver
Win 5.0
XP command prompt:
ver
Win 5.1
Hmm.
> They go on to mention two button mice as a Windows advantage.
Oh dear/
> They blame Apple because one of their mac owning editors got sneered at
> by someone with a new macbook for having 'last years' model' of mac.
It -is- Apple's fault. Why, if they hadn't released a new model that
editor would be safe and protected in his ego today.
> They mention how Windows gets cutting edge software like Office 2007
> first (actually a fair point if you just burn to be running the most
> up-to-date version of a good office suite) but seem to miss the point
> that this can go the other way too.
Fair point, although there used to be an argument the other way - often
the Mac version of Office was better than the PC version. I don't use
it though, so I don't know how true that is today if at all.
> They mention that Mac OSX has 'really confusing version numbers as one
> of their points. Quite aside from how desperate they appear for points
> here, I'm running Vista on this desktop machine here and the version
> number is '6.0.6000.16386' which doesn't seem to be much clearer than
> '10.4.9'.
They're simply wrong on that one, nothing further to add.
> I could go on but frankly I'm losing the will to read further here.
I'm semi-intrigued, but not enough to go to the site or look at a
magazine. Do you know, I can't even think of "32 reasons why a Mac is
better than a PC" let alone the other way around. I can't -even- think
of 32 reasons I prefer this Mac. I'm sure there -are- 32 reasons, but
you just don't tend to notice discrete bits like that, just winds up in
the "better" bin in my mind.
PCs better than Macs - err...greater variety of hardware, better at
games, greater quantity of application software, cheaper at initial
purchase (not comparing spec for spec, just saying you can get models
more low-end than Macs which might well do you fine).
Macs better than PCs - err...OS X, nicer application software on the
whole, more user-focused than machine-focused, err...err....that's
about it for me. But those fuzzy points are more than enough for me, I
don't really feel the need to go around enumerating tiny specifics.
Cheers,
Ian
Robert Moir
> But those fuzzy points are more than enough for me, I don't really feel
> the need to go around enumerating tiny specifics.
Well no. Who outside of magazine staff, apparently, would?
Steve Hodgson
>
> "Ian McCall" <i...@eruvia.org> wrote in message
> news:58a6rcF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2007-04-13 20:20:03 +0100, "Robert Moir" <robsp...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> ...No, there's a difference between 'trying to be funny' which is what my
>>> local
>>> newspaper does every April 1st, and 'stupid childish name-calling and
>>> repeating of old urban legends' which is the PC Pro article boiled down
>>> to
>>> its essentials. Got to say I'm really disappointed, they're usually
>>> better
>>> than that.
>>
>> Care to give a quick précis for the PC Pro 'deprived'?
>
> Well their first point was "Service Packs don't cost £90 on Windows".
That was one one of the first screaming errors. As far as I can see
Windows 95, 98, Me are one version of Windows with service packs.
Windows XP is basically Windows 5.1 i.e a service pack for Windows 2000.
They inevitably bring up the one-button mouse.
"Broadband Just Works" on Windows apparently. My experience has always
been that anything to do with networking under Windows is difficult.
It's been a while though.
Apparently all Macs have to be updated after the MacWorld expo when new
machines are announced. This is just lazy journalism given how many new
Macs were announced at this year's expo.
Macs are noisy when you switch them on. The delete key doesn't delete.
The menu bar is at the top of the screen. All of which boil to the fact
that macs aren't Windows PCs and PC Pro has demonstrated over the years
that it is on thrall to Microsoft. It does normally manage to raise
itself above this kind of base level though.
Woody
> On 2007-04-13 22:31:39 +0100, "Robert Moir" <robsp...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Well their first point was "Service Packs don't cost £90 on Windows".
>
> Ah - this is the pointless "10.3 is Panther, 10.4 is Tiger so you've
> paid for a .1 upgrade" rubbish is it? Quite apart from the silliness of
> looking purely at version numbers to determine how useful a change is,
> there's always....
>
> > They mention how Windows gets cutting edge software like Office 2007
> > first (actually a fair point if you just burn to be running the most
> > up-to-date version of a good office suite) but seem to miss the point
> > that this can go the other way too.
>
> Fair point, although there used to be an argument the other way - often
> the Mac version of Office was better than the PC version. I don't use
> it though, so I don't know how true that is today if at all.
It isn't. Well, it wasn't - ignoring there has been a new office release
which isn't on the mac yet, Office 2004 missed some things that office
2003 had (although it also had other things too, so I guess it is what
you need)
> > They mention that Mac OSX has 'really confusing version numbers as one
> > of their points. Quite aside from how desperate they appear for points
> > here, I'm running Vista on this desktop machine here and the version
> > number is '6.0.6000.16386' which doesn't seem to be much clearer than
> > '10.4.9'.
>
> They're simply wrong on that one, nothing further to add.
not as clear as 1,2,3,3.1,(3.5),95,NT,98,2000,ME,XP,Vista
And obviously, vista is a paragon of virtue when it comes to versions.
> > I could go on but frankly I'm losing the will to read further here.
>
> I'm semi-intrigued, but not enough to go to the site or look at a
> magazine. Do you know, I can't even think of "32 reasons why a Mac is
> better than a PC" let alone the other way around. I can't -even- think
> of 32 reasons I prefer this Mac. I'm sure there -are- 32 reasons, but
> you just don't tend to notice discrete bits like that, just winds up in
> the "better" bin in my mind.
I think the idea of X is better than Y is a way of selling magazines, in
an age where all the technical information in those magazines is
available on the web earlier.
--
Woody
Steve Firth
> They go on to mention two button mice as a Windows advantage.
Since I've gone back to using a MacBook Pro at work, I've had to put up
with the "daft PC user comments" on a daily basis. I keep getting told
the two-buton mouse crap. Even when I'm sitting at the desk using my
favourite Trust micromouse with a wheel obviously working with the Mac.
Or on one occasion when I was using the trackpad and got the same
drivel. When I pointed out that the Thinkpad buttons are hard to use no
one believed me. When I showed them two fingers on the pad for right
click they seemed to think it was witchcraft.
I despair at the aggregate stupidity of the human race.
Ian McCall
> ...When I showed them two fingers on the pad for right
> click they seemed to think it was witchcraft.
Strange, isn't it. The one time in the last few years when the whole
two button thing was valid was when you were discussing pre-Intel
laptops. You could always plug in a USB mouse that's true, but as a
straight laptop you had one button or a key combo.
Since the release of the Intels, a Mac laptop has gone from having the
least functional button of any manufacturer to having the -most-
functional button of any manufacturer. I find using machines with
physically two buttons on the pads an annoyance now.
> I despair at the aggregate stupidity of the human race.
It's just reputation again - hard to change. There are brands that had
reputations for rubbish quality 30 years ago that are still suffering
from that now, and brands that have reputations as paragons of solid
engineering and quality because they were twenty years ago that still
enjoy that reputation today, despite the actual quality coming out
being somewhat rubbish*.
Cheers,
Ian
* I'm thinking of two specific car manufacturers here, but I don't want
to go the car flamewar route so I'm not going to name them.
Ian McCall
> On 2007-04-14 00:03:32 +0100, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> said
>>
>> It's just reputation again - hard to change. There are brands that had
>> reputations for rubbish quality 30 years ago that are still suffering
>> from that now, and brands that have reputations as paragons of solid
>> engineering and quality because they were twenty years ago that still
>> enjoy that reputation today, despite the actual quality coming out
>> being somewhat rubbish*.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ian
>>
>> * I'm thinking of two specific car manufacturers here, but I don't want
>> to go the car flamewar route so I'm not going to name them.
>
> Ooh ooh let me guess, Skoda and Mercedes Benz?
Spot on.
Cheers,
Ian
Peter Lee
<snip>
>
> > > They mention that Mac OSX has 'really confusing version numbers as one
> > > of their points. Quite aside from how desperate they appear for points
> > > here, I'm running Vista on this desktop machine here and the version
> > > number is '6.0.6000.16386' which doesn't seem to be much clearer than
> > > '10.4.9'.
> >
> > They're simply wrong on that one, nothing further to add.
>
> not as clear as 1,2,3,3.1,(3.5),95,NT,98,2000,ME,XP,Vista
>
7, 8, 9, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5
is a clearer indicator of serial/version number than the sequence of
Windows numbers?
Peter
--
This address is never read; use
peterattheleesdotukdotnet
Steve Firth
> * I'm thinking of two specific car manufacturers here, but I don't want
> to go the car flamewar route so I'm not going to name them.
OK, but one of the was good is now rubbish ones is VW and the other is
Mercedes.
Woody
Gwynne Harper
> I despair at the aggregate stupidity of the human race.
Whilst at a petting zoo with my children today I witnessed a woman in
her 30s having to read the information panel in front of a couple of
calves: "Ah, they're cows", she then said. What the heck did she think
they were, I wonder?
Gwynne
--
My real email is net, not line.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I despair at the aggregate stupidity of the human race.
>
> Whilst at a petting zoo with my children today I witnessed a woman in
> her 30s having to read the information panel in front of a couple of
> calves: "Ah, they're cows", she then said. What the heck did she think
> they were, I wonder?
Oohh, ooh please I've got a good one like that. I was in the Science
Museum looking at those wonderful Edwardian exhibits where you turn a
handle to make them work. I was enjoying the Windmill which had a handle
to turn the sails so that one can see the cogs move and the grindstones
grind.
There was a Sloane Square woman in designer suit and shades next to me
and a small child rushed up grabbed the handle and shouted "Mummy how
does it work?"
"Oh don't ask me dahling it's faar too compliketted."
Jings, give them half a chance and they'll forget the wheel and fire.
These *are* the people from the B Ark.
Peter Lee
10.10?
Then, 10.11, 10.12 etc.
I know that 10.11 might look a bit like 10.1.1, but it's not, really.
Woody
ok, so I was wrong. Maybe there is a case for smilies in posts after
all.
--
Woody
Tim Gowen
> All of which boil to the fact
> that macs aren't Windows PCs and PC Pro has demonstrated over the years
> that it is on thrall to Microsoft. It does normally manage to raise
> itself above this kind of base level though.
Jon Honeyball is an excellent writer and a PC/Mac owner. He's really
the best thing about that magazine, which no doubt will be dropping
through my door in an hour or so.
I'm not going to write in about this. It's pointless.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Graham J Lee
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Peter Lee <pete...@softhome.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> They mention that Mac OSX has 'really confusing version numbers as one
>>>>>> of their points. Quite aside from how desperate they appear for points
>>>>>> here, I'm running Vista on this desktop machine here and the version
>>>>>> number is '6.0.6000.16386' which doesn't seem to be much clearer than
>>>>>> '10.4.9'.
>>>>> They're simply wrong on that one, nothing further to add.
>>>> not as clear as 1,2,3,3.1,(3.5),95,NT,98,2000,ME,XP,Vista
>>>>
>>> Really? Don't you think that:
>>>
>>> 7, 8, 9, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5
>>>
>>> is a clearer indicator of serial/version number than the sequence of
>>> Windows numbers?
>> Ask me again when we are ready to upgrade from 10.9
>
> 10.10?
10.0xa
--
Graham Lee
http://www.thaesofereode.info
Robert Moir
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1hwj8s5.9y7g4u1irmiz5N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Robert Moir <robsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They go on to mention two button mice as a Windows advantage.
>
> Since I've gone back to using a MacBook Pro at work, I've had to put up
> with the "daft PC user comments" on a daily basis. I keep getting told
> the two-buton mouse crap. Even when I'm sitting at the desk using my
> favourite Trust micromouse with a wheel obviously working with the Mac.
Not very observant then are they?
> Or on one occasion when I was using the trackpad and got the same
> drivel. When I pointed out that the Thinkpad buttons are hard to use no
> one believed me. When I showed them two fingers on the pad for right
> click they seemed to think it was witchcraft.
More fool them. Again. The two-finger gesture on my macbook is the most
natural way of describing a 'right-click' I've found to date, certainly on
laptops but actually I think it might just edge out 'normal' mouse behaviour
too.
Martin S Taylor
> I was enjoying the Windmill which had a handle
> to turn the sails so that one can see the cogs move and the grindstones
> grind.
>
I knew some people who owned a real windmill, which they could use to grind
corn. They gave guided tours, and on windless days kept track of the
percentage of visitors who asked "Can we see it working?"
MST
Tim Streater
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
[snip]
> Jings, ...
Now there's a work to conjure with. I haven't seen that since when I was
a kid a mate used to loan me his Oor Wullie comics.
Gwynne Harper
> Jings, give them half a chance and they'll forget the wheel and fire.
> These *are* the people from the B Ark.
Telephone sanitisers, the lot of them.
Annie Seedballs
(in article <58afsiF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Broadband Just Works" on Windows apparently. My experience has always
> been that anything to do with networking under Windows is difficult.
> It's been a while though.
As someone who's still forced to deal with an XP box (parents flatly refuse
to dump the Shuttle, despite me pointing them towards a very reasonably
priced iLamp on eBay) let me assure you that *NOTHING* whatsoever has
changed, When I set up my 2G5, all I did was plug in the Ethernet cable, and
that was that. This machine, a MBP, talks to my Netgear router very nicely,
ta very much and i can get 4 bars anywhere in the house, and down as far as
the greenhouse. My parents' Shuttle (or Shittle as it's known in these parts)
has a Netgear Wi-Fi card in it, which finds the router maybe, 20% of the
time. So, when the RAM in my old Windoze box died (and it's prohibitively
expensive to replace) I used its Ethernet cable to network the Shuttle.
I must admit, I do have networking issues - the MBP will talk to the 2G5, but
it won't talk to the XP box (and vice versa). Under the Windoze partition on
the MBP (XP Pro) I can see both the G5 and the Shuttle. I'm wondering if the
fact that the Shuttle's only running Home would have anything to do with the
price of haddock? Though I'm sure I used to be able to connect and it's never
run anything other than Home.
When the HDD died in the Shittle, IE would frequently complain there was no
Internet connection (mind you, Safari seems wont to do the same, but not with
such regular monotony...) my parents refuse to use Firefox, which I have
installed and set as the default.
So, all I can say the that point, is that it's a complete load of old tosh,
to be polite.
Oh and it's funny how I'm using a MX510 with the 2G5 which, the last time I
looked, had *EIGHT* buttons.
Sarah
Tim Gowen
> "Broadband Just Works" on Windows apparently. My experience has always
> been that anything to do with networking under Windows is difficult.
> It's been a while though.
Their point was that USB Broadband modems are not likely to be
compatible with Macs. How many ISPs let you use a router, which is the
sensible way of doing things and totally Mac compatible?
One of their arguments in favour of the PC was that Steve Jobs is too
mouthy. Who cares? Michael Dell may have bad breath but Windows is
still mired in driver and security hell. Anyone heard the one about the
malformed mouse pointer vulnerability? I had to laugh.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Bob Wardrope
Crivvens, Help Ma Boab.
Bob W
David Kennedy
I was asked yesterday, by a consultant who appears normally to be quite
intelligent, that Apple are in financial trouble and that they are part
owned by Microsoft.
My Ghast was flabbered. I explained to him that this was not the case
that the Sultan of Brunei bought them in 1997 to stave off a take over
by Sony and that these days apart from iPods everything else was made
under license by Dell.
He accepted this as making perfect sense.
--
David Kennedy
David Kennedy
>> reputations for rubbish quality 30 years ago that are still suffering
>> from that now, and brands that have reputations as paragons of solid
>> engineering and quality because they were twenty years ago that still
>> enjoy that reputation today, despite the actual quality coming out
>> being somewhat rubbish*.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ian
>>
>> * I'm thinking of two specific car manufacturers here, but I don't
>> want to go the car flamewar route so I'm not going to name them.
>
Vauxhall and Alfa
Jim
> Damn I'm good. I agree with your findings too, as a happy customer of
> the former, and a far less happy ex-customer of the latter
We've got two Skodas here (both Fabias) and they're both fine cars.
Washer bottle's a bit small though.
Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk
AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Skype: greyarea
Ian Robinson
(in article <4621cf53$0$8752$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>):
> My Ghast was flabbered. I explained to him that this was not the case
> that the Sultan of Brunei bought them in 1997 to stave off a take over
> by Sony and that these days apart from iPods everything else was made
> under license by Dell.
>
> He accepted this as making perfect sense.
You're a very wicked person. You do know that, don't you?
Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>
Pub Landlord
reply to your latest piece of fiction?
Annie Seedballs wrote:
> O
> >SNIPPED> Usual Balfour bullshit
Steve Firth
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid
> wrote:
The problem is that he will now sell off that information to someone.
Oddly enough, I know someone who is a regular house guest of the Sultan,
I suspect it's probably best not to inform him of this theory.
Wayne Stuart
> "Ian McCall" <i...@eruvia.org> wrote in message
> news:58a6rcF...@mid.individual.net...
> > On 2007-04-13 20:20:03 +0100, "Robert Moir" <robsp...@gmail.com> said:
> >
> >> ...No, there's a difference between 'trying to be funny' which is what my
> >> local
> >> newspaper does every April 1st, and 'stupid childish name-calling and
> >> repeating of old urban legends' which is the PC Pro article boiled down
> >> to
> >> its essentials. Got to say I'm really disappointed, they're usually
> >> better
> >> than that.
> >
> > Care to give a quick précis for the PC Pro 'deprived'?
>
> Well their first point was "Service Packs don't cost £90 on Windows". They
> go on to mention two button mice as a Windows advantage. They blame Apple
> because one of their mac owning editors got sneered at by someone with a new
> macbook for having 'last years' model' of mac. They mention how Windows gets
> cutting edge software like Office 2007 first (actually a fair point if you
> just burn to be running the most up-to-date version of a good office suite)
> but seem to miss the point that this can go the other way too.
>
> They mention that Mac OSX has 'really confusing version numbers as one of
> their points. Quite aside from how desperate they appear for points here,
> I'm running Vista on this desktop machine here and the version number is
> '6.0.6000.16386' which doesn't seem to be much clearer than '10.4.9'.
>
> I could go on but frankly I'm losing the will to read further here.
Wasn't written by John Dvorak was it? ;-)
He did finally admit he only posts ridiculously negative articles about
Apple and Macs to wind up the notoriously 'sensitive' Mac fans so he
gets the hits. Maybe they're taking a leaf out of his book.
Would still be interested to see the full list, just to see how many of
them I could debunk with my own list:
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
Which incidentally, I am the top hit on Google for the keywords, 'why
choose mac'. <pats self on back> ;-)
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Chris Ridd
Good for him.
I think it is a theory that's pretty plausible to complete boneheads,
so we should reuse it whenever there's an Apple's going bust thread.
> Oddly enough, I know someone who is a regular house guest of the Sultan,
> I suspect it's probably best not to inform him of this theory.
Does he chop your mouse off if you click on the wrong thing?
Cheers,
Chris
Steve Firth
> > Oddly enough, I know someone who is a regular house guest of the Sultan,
> > I suspect it's probably best not to inform him of this theory.
>
> Does he chop your mouse off if you click on the wrong thing?
Well if he decides to run over you in his car(s) then it's going to take
a long time for them to pass by and you would end up as a monomolecular
film.
David Kennedy
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:09:03 +0100, David Kennedy wrote
> (in article <4621cf53$0$8752$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>):
>
>> My Ghast was flabbered. I explained to him that this was not the case
>> that the Sultan of Brunei bought them in 1997 to stave off a take over
>> by Sony and that these days apart from iPods everything else was made
>> under license by Dell.
>>
>> He accepted this as making perfect sense.
>
> You're a very wicked person. You do know that, don't you?
He nodded and accepted my comments, I didn't have the heart to say
anything more...
Had he reacted differently then I might have admitted to winding things
up a smidge.
David Kennedy
>
> Oddly enough, I know someone who is a regular house guest of the Sultan,
> I suspect it's probably best not to inform him of this theory.
Just in case he decides it's a good idea ?
Steve Firth
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid
> wrote:
> On 15/4/07 14:30, Steve Firth wrote:
> >
> > Oddly enough, I know someone who is a regular house guest of the Sultan,
> > I suspect it's probably best not to inform him of this theory.
>
> Just in case he decides it's a good idea ?
I have this feeling that he'd only buy Apple if he could get at the
change he's lost down the back of the sofa.
Rowland McDonnell
> "Robert Moir" <robsp...@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
> > They mention how Windows gets cutting edge software like Office 2007
> > first (actually a fair point if you just burn to be running the most
> > up-to-date version of a good office suite) but seem to miss the point
> > that this can go the other way too.
>
> Fair point, although there used to be an argument the other way - often
> the Mac version of Office was better than the PC version. I don't use
> it though, so I don't know how true that is today if at all.
[snip]
My wife uses the Win XP version of Office at work and the MacOS X
version of Office at home on MacOS X 10.3.9.
She says the Mac version is lots better.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Peter Lee
Woody
np, but for the record, I do consider sequential numbers to be a clearer
numbering system!
--
Woody
Jaimie Vandenbergh
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
>> "Robert Moir" <robsp...@gmail.com> said:
>[snip]
>
>> > They mention how Windows gets cutting edge software like Office 2007
>> > first (actually a fair point if you just burn to be running the most
>> > up-to-date version of a good office suite) but seem to miss the point
>> > that this can go the other way too.
>>
>> Fair point, although there used to be an argument the other way - often
>> the Mac version of Office was better than the PC version. I don't use
>> it though, so I don't know how true that is today if at all.
>
>[snip]
>
>My wife uses the Win XP version of Office at work and the MacOS X
>version of Office at home on MacOS X 10.3.9.
>
>She says the Mac version is lots better.
I find 2004 easier to work with most of the time (though Excel's habit
of starting in Page view is odd - can that be changed?).
However, recently colleagues have been sending me Word 2003 docs which
drag Word 2004 to its knees and beyond after a few minutes reading.
CPU 100%, fans spin up to full, beachball. Bloody irritating. I've had
other docs where after a table gets to more than two pages long Word
2004 stops bothering to show anything after it. Which makes a right
mess of Change Control documents!
I've not done the necessary copy'n'paste experiments to work out if
it's fixable.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Phnglui mgwlnafthth Cthulhu rlyey wghnagl fthagn." "In his flat in Bromley,
drunk Cthulhu waits knitting? I think a few subtle typos may have crept into
into that one." "That explains why this shoggoth I summoned is only 3mm tall."
-- Peter da Silva and Peter Gutmann, asr