QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Jonathan Boles
confirm/dispell?
--
Jonathan Boles
ICQ 40329012
email: mousewithglasses AT hotmail DOT com
De...@Spammer.Trasher.Com
tapw...@roomtemperature.dog
will NOT run DOS or Win 3.x pgms at all for security reasons.
However the consumer Win will be named Win Millenium and is due out
in the fall and also will not run 16 bit pgms (as of now).
Michael W. Cocke
Win2K will run DOS programs about as well as NT4 does. (with the usual
problems, in other words).
The new consumer windows, since it's at least 2 years away, I won't even
guess about.
Mike-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: My Email and web page addresses have changed!
The new email address is co...@catherders.com
The web page is at http://www.catherders.com
Because network administration is like herding cats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Boles
any way to program 32-bit basic (don't mention Xbasic), or integrate some
kind of DPMI 32-bit server? I have heard of DJGPP but that is fundamentally
C and C++.
tapw...@roomtemperature.dog wrote in article
<38BF53...@roomtemperature.dog>...
Jonathan Boles
Michael W. Cocke <co...@catherders.com> wrote in article
<105657095199842321122974@MWCTP>...
> I heard the same set of rumors. After a bit of checking, I can say that
> Win2K will run DOS programs about as well as NT4 does. (with the usual
> problems, in other words).
>
> The new consumer windows, since it's at least 2 years away, I won't even
> guess about.
>
> Mike-
>
>
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 21:54:00 -0800, tapw...@roomtemperature.dog wrote:
>
> >I have heard that Win 2k is an NT replacement, is 32 bit only, and
> >will NOT run DOS or Win 3.x pgms at all for security reasons.
> >However the consumer Win will be named Win Millenium and is due out
> >in the fall and also will not run 16 bit pgms (as of now).
> >
> >Jonathan Boles wrote:
> >>
> >> I have heard rumors that QB 4.5 doesn't work in Win 2K. Can anyone
> >> confirm/dispell?
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jonathan Boles
> >> ICQ 40329012
> >> email: mousewithglasses AT hotmail DOT com
> >> De...@Spammer.Trasher.Com
> >
>
Marc van den Dikkenberg
<mousewit...@NO.CANNED.HAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>what kind of probs does NT4 dish out when running DOS apps?
some of the 32 bits DOS extender games (that more or less try to take over
the computer) simply won't run...
Most standard 16-bits DOS applications (including games) have no problems.
--
Marc van den Dikkenberg
--
The PowerBASIC Archives (US) -- http://www.pbarchives.org
The PowerBASIC Archives (EU) -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~excel/pb.html
All BASIC Code Archives (EU) -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~excel/pbabc.html
Jonathan Boles
will also run without probs on Win Me or Win 2K?
Marc van den Dikkenberg <ex...@xs4all.nl.REMOVE-THIS> wrote in article
<2bfCOAY5GvJ4s8c=xt1kZ=ScJ...@4ax.com>...
Paul G
expanders won't run.
Thomas Daugaard
in Win2K and it works fine, except that i can't use ANY keys in it - well i
can
use the keys, but it's not the right characters that turns up and backspace,
enter
and ESC will be displayed as characters (not thier real characters though
...)
I don't now if this is a problem with the setup of my keyboard layout in the
DOS
session, but i don't think so.
Also, some programs compiled with QB 4.5 won't run on Win2K. Win2K's DOS
"emulator" simply doesn't understand all the machine code from the .EXE, as
it, on occasion,
will just make Win2K display its "About Windows" box and close the program
immediately.
Using the mouse in QB 4.5 under Win2K, QB 4.5 will load and run programs
(probably not all,
as the problem described above probably applies to the IDE too) but that's
all.
Also i noticed that when i click "File/Open.." and i change to another
directory my
computer searches for a disk in drive A:, but it doesn't give me an error
message
when there's no disk in it.
--
Sincerely,
Thomas Daugaard
Visit my domain at http://www.tdaugaard.dk/
ICQ me on 48525216
"Jonathan Boles" <mousewit...@NO.CANNED.HAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:01bf840e$6decb060$06bd36cb@tfboles...
Don Schullian
wrote:
<snip>
>Also i noticed that when i click "File/Open.." and i change to another
>directory my
>computer searches for a disk in drive A:, but it doesn't give me an error
>message
>when there's no disk in it.
So these are bugs 64,001 and 64002, right?
--
____ _ ____ ____ _____
| _ \ / \ / ___) __ | ___)(_ _) Don Schullian
| |_) / _ \ \____\/ \| _) | | d...@DASoftVSS.com
|____//_/ \_\(____/\__/|_| |_| www.DASoftVSS.com
___________________________________ www.basicguru.com
Vertical Software Solutions
Bloody Viking
: I heard the same set of rumors. After a bit of checking, I can say that
: Win2K will run DOS programs about as well as NT4 does. (with the usual
: problems, in other words).
This shit with Microsoft sucks. Now they want to force programming
hobbyists to pay hundreds of bucks for yet another version of BASIC. No
wonder I like Linux. I guess I'll have to make a Loadlin disk with
QBASIC.EXE so I can code, route into a QB >> C converter and compile on
Linux. Fuck Megalosloth(tm).
Too bad there's no GNU integrated development environment for QBASIC for
Linux. One of the few complaints I have about Linux is a certain amount of
C snobbishness. But I already mentioned a solution for myself, a Loadlin
boot disk with QBASIC.EXE as a utility on it. Also, too bad there's no
ANSI C compiler for DOS that's GNU too except for DJGPP.
Such is the life of a Joe 6-Pack who is ambi-UNIX/DOS....
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Roger
wrote:
>This shit with Microsoft sucks. Now they want to force programming
>hobbyists to pay hundreds of bucks for yet another version of BASIC.
Because they are going to come and forcibly take away your current
version?
Bart Oldeman
> Michael W. Cocke <co...@catherders.com> wrote:
> : I heard the same set of rumors. After a bit of checking, I can say that
> : Win2K will run DOS programs about as well as NT4 does. (with the usual
> : problems, in other words).
>
> wonder I like Linux. I guess I'll have to make a Loadlin disk with
> QBASIC.EXE so I can code, route into a QB >> C converter and compile on
> Linux. Fuck Megalosloth(tm).
I don't see your point. Why would you need a bootdisk if you're in Linux
if you can run qbasic in dosemu? Runs fine, both X and console.
And if you are an MS hater you should delete QBASIC.EXE immediately
anyway.
Bart
Bloody Viking
: Because they are going to come and forcibly take away your current
: version?
They will have to in fact use violence. I bought my copy of QBASIC, after
all. Tough shit if I route my code into a QB >> C converter and compile
away on UNIX. Fuck the monopoly. Bill Gates can suck my dick. And I won't
allow it to do so.
Rich C
news:Lr9K4.6454$ZE4.1...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
> : Because they are going to come and forcibly take away your current
> : version?
>
> They will have to in fact use violence. I bought my copy of QBASIC, after
> all. Tough shit if I route my code into a QB >> C converter and compile
> away on UNIX. Fuck the monopoly. Bill Gates can suck my dick. And I won't
> allow it to do so.
>
I doubt ms would use violence to stop you from converting qbasic code (even
theirs) to c and linux ;o)
Just curious: have you checked out the OpenDIAS project? Is that something
like what you're looking for, or do you just want to continue to use
microsoft's qbasic?
http://pandora.inf.uni-jena.de/pframe.phtml/e/basic/basic.html
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
Rich C
news:o61qfso2961qt9t95...@4ax.com...
> "Bloody Viking" <nos...@masu.wwa.com> wrote in message
> news:Lr9K4.6454$ZE4.1...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
>
> > In alt.destroy.microsoft Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
> > : Because they are going to come and forcibly take away your current
> > : version?
>
> > They will have to in fact use violence. I bought my copy of QBASIC,
after
> > all. Tough shit if I route my code into a QB >> C converter and compile
> > away on UNIX. Fuck the monopoly. Bill Gates can suck my dick. And I
won't
> > allow it to do so.
>
> original contention, after all...
Well, I wasn't the one who said this, but I think B. Viking is lamenting the
fact that QBASIC.EXE doesn't run reliably under ANY modern version of
windows, which is testament to the fact that they don't provide true DOS
environments.
Roger
Roger
wrote:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:o61qfso2961qt9t95...@4ax.com...
>> Then in what way are they forcing you to upgrade, which * was * your
>> original contention, after all...
>Well, I wasn't the one who said this, but I think B. Viking is lamenting the
>fact that QBASIC.EXE doesn't run reliably under ANY modern version of
>windows, which is testament to the fact that they don't provide true DOS
>environments.
Assuming that the first assertion is correct, and I would be
interested in proof that it is so, this just pushes the premise back
one step: in what way are they forcing you to use "modern" versions
of Windows?
T. Max Devlin
Roger, you are so outrageously boring, it is truly amazing.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
mde...@eltrax.com
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:45:45 GMT
>>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:44:27 -0400, someone claiming to be Rich C
>>wrote:
>>Assuming that the first assertion is correct, and I would be
>>interested in proof that it is so, this just pushes the premise back
>>one step: in what way are they forcing you to use "modern" versions
>>of Windows?
>Roger, you are so outrageously boring, it is truly amazing.
So we'll just add this to the * long * list of "Questions which Max
finds it uncomfortable to answer," shall we?
T. Max Devlin
Why? You didn't ask me the question (this time, though you have a thousand
and a half times before). Incredible. Pathetic, but incredible.
[Five will get you ten that Roger just *can't* resist posting back. And if I
didn't steal his illusion of glory by using it in this statement, he would
probably say something along the general lines of "I know you are, but what am
I, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, neiner-neiner-neiner."]
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:20:40 GMT
>>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:28:55 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:45:45 GMT
>>>>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:44:27 -0400, someone claiming to be Rich C
>>>>wrote:
>>>>Assuming that the first assertion is correct, and I would be
>>>>interested in proof that it is so, this just pushes the premise back
>>>>one step: in what way are they forcing you to use "modern" versions
>>>>of Windows?
>>>Roger, you are so outrageously boring, it is truly amazing.
>>So we'll just add this to the * long * list of "Questions which Max
>>finds it uncomfortable to answer," shall we?
>Why? You didn't ask me the question (this time, though you have a thousand
>and a half times before). Incredible. Pathetic, but incredible.
My assumption, being an optimist, is that if you had been willing to
answer the question you would have done so since you took the trouble
to respond.
Of course, your intention could simply have been engage in a personal
attack without even considering a reasonable response, but I prefer
not believe that given the choice you would take the high road (all
evidence to the contrary, I know...)
>[Five will get you ten that Roger just *can't* resist posting back.
And I should decline to respond, because ... ?
>And if I
>didn't steal his illusion of glory by using it in this statement, he would
>probably say something along the general lines of "I know you are, but what am
>I, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, neiner-neiner-neiner."]
Nope -- the juvenile stuff I leave to you.
Joe Bfstplk
name in the book in big letters. AAaarrrrgggg........
T. Max Devlin
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 02:31:59 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:20:40 GMT
>>>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:28:55 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>My assumption, being an optimist, is that if you had been willing to
>answer the question you would have done so since you took the trouble
>to respond.
The only thing wrong with this response is that it is BORING!!!
>Of course, your intention could simply have been engage in a personal
>attack [...yada, yada, more boring things...]
T. Max Devlin
>Max [...]
Has it escaped your notice that I'm extremely BORED with your repetitious use
of third person narrative style? I mean, seriously, stop BORING me.
Roger
Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:00:12 GMT
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 02:31:59 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:20:40 GMT
>>>>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:28:55 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>My assumption, being an optimist, is that if you had been willing to
>>answer the question you would have done so since you took the trouble
>>to respond.
>The only thing wrong with this response is that it is BORING!!!
Max has learned a new word which arguably * can * be applied to my
posts, being a matter of opinion and not fact.
>>Of course, your intention could simply have been engage in a personal
>>attack [...yada, yada, more boring things...]
So, you've abandoned all pretense of engaging in reasonable
discussion?
T. Max Devlin
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:31:41 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote:
>
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:28:35 GMT
>>>Max [...]
>
>>Has it escaped your notice that I'm extremely BORED with your repetitious use
>>of third person narrative style? I mean, seriously, stop BORING me.
>
>
>As it is: I'm not, and I haven't been, and I shan't.
>
>I shall continue to point out your errors of fact and logic as I see
>fit.
If only this were the case, I wouldn't be bored. Had you not lied so baldly
in this message, I suspect it would be slightly less tedious, but boring
nonetheless.
Roger
T. Max Devlin
[[[.]
>If I thought you were a person of honour, [...]
Well, you don't. So quit wasting my time.
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:15:43 GMT
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:31:41 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote:
>If only this were the case, I wouldn't be bored. Had you not lied so baldly
>in this message, I suspect it would be slightly less tedious, but boring
>nonetheless.
If I thought you were a person of honour, I would ask that you either
point out specifically where I have lied or retract the accusation.
As it is, I'll just have to marvel publicly at the unmitigated gall.
Bloody Viking
: Just curious: have you checked out the OpenDIAS project? Is that something
: like what you're looking for, or do you just want to continue to use
: microsoft's qbasic?
I havn't looked at OpenDIAS until I saw your URL. I'll have to again get X
to work. :)
Bob May
Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
Arclight
wrote:
>Go buy a new copy of Word for Windows 1.0.
>Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
>YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
>which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
So? what's wrong with that?
TTFN
Arclight
Craig Kelley
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 18:26:50 -0700, "Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Go buy a new copy of Word for Windows 1.0.
> >Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
> >YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
> >which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
>
> So? what's wrong with that?
We run Office97.
How do we buy new copies for the new machines (which aren't just
replacing the old ones).
Either we all have to upgrade to Office2000, or the new machines go
without...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
tapw...@roomtemperature.dog
So, either join the "let's make dollar Bill even richer" club,
or, join the "let's screw bill" club.
Arclight
wrote:
>daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 2 May 2000 18:26:50 -0700, "Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Go buy a new copy of Word for Windows 1.0.
>> >Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
>> >YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
>> >which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
>>
>> So? what's wrong with that?
>
>We run Office97.
>
>How do we buy new copies for the new machines (which aren't just
>replacing the old ones).
You can still buy Office 97 from lots of places.
>Either we all have to upgrade to Office2000, or the new machines go
>without...
or you could just look in the computer press for somewhere that sells
Office 97.
ROW Software
Hash: SHA1
Or you can just screw M$ Office altogether and download StarOffice
for Linux and Linux, which is what I did.
Regards,
Kurt Weber
"Arclight" <daniel...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:391074f6...@news.cableinet.co.uk...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBORCYG24I3AOszg9bEQL8XgCgn15z3I8XfkxX4SzjzsuPxegn1HwAmwZZ
G2bvPMb/4UtqfJRJkkKTQgDn
=X1aP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bob May
ago - a switch card between CGA and a Video source (TARGA 16 card).
Last run of 100 cards was 3 years ago just for him. How do you tell
the customer that you aren't going to make anymore? That was his
business! He now has to rebuild his software (written in some version
of BASIC from the '80s). Where is he going to get a new compiler for
the software conde he has? Visual Basic is so far from what he worked
with that it is silly to contemplate for some. His costs have just
gone up drastically just to keep up with the new hardware and software
that is now mandatory.
The biggest problem that I have is that the files made for much of the
old software can't be opened by the new stuff that is more than 3
generations newer. What a pity.
That's what's wrong with not being able to get the older software.
T. Max Devlin
>Had a customer which was buying a product that we obsoleted 8 years
>ago - a switch card between CGA and a Video source (TARGA 16 card).
>Last run of 100 cards was 3 years ago just for him. How do you tell
>the customer that you aren't going to make anymore? That was his
>business! He now has to rebuild his software (written in some version
>of BASIC from the '80s). Where is he going to get a new compiler for
>the software conde he has? Visual Basic is so far from what he worked
>with that it is silly to contemplate for some. His costs have just
>gone up drastically just to keep up with the new hardware and software
>that is now mandatory.
>The biggest problem that I have is that the files made for much of the
>old software can't be opened by the new stuff that is more than 3
>generations newer. What a pity.
>That's what's wrong with not being able to get the older software.
Well, that is a sad story. It might make a beautiful and poignant book some
day, which explores the terrible and lonely pain of becoming obsolete. But
seriously, BASIC from the 80s? I mean, I'm a tron god, I know "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it", and GODS I wish we could do that more often. But there
comes a time...
Craig Kelley
> On 03 May 2000 10:56:02 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 2 May 2000 18:26:50 -0700, "Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Go buy a new copy of Word for Windows 1.0.
> >> >Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
> >> >YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
> >> >which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
> >>
> >> So? what's wrong with that?
> >
> >We run Office97.
> >
> >How do we buy new copies for the new machines (which aren't just
> >replacing the old ones).
>
> You can still buy Office 97 from lots of places.
>
> >Either we all have to upgrade to Office2000, or the new machines go
> >without...
>
> or you could just look in the computer press for somewhere that sells
> Office 97.
And in 2001, or 2002?
That doesn't solve the problem.
Keith T. Williams
Sears Canada. They had a job which had been written for an IBM 1401 (in
autocoder) which took 2 hours to run in a 1401 emulator each night on a
370/165 (long time ago). They finally got pissed at the lost time and
re-wrote it for the 370. The job ran in under 7 minutes. Maybe the person
with the Basic program should re-write it.
T. Max Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote in message
news:1mo1hs8159kji5e4k...@4ax.com...
Tom Lake
> the software conde he has? Visual Basic is so far from what he worked
> with that it is silly to contemplate for some. His costs have just
> gone up drastically just to keep up with the new hardware and software
> that is now mandatory.
That's what happens when you don't keep up with changes! If he had made
incremental changes as newer versions of the compilers were introduced, he
wouldn't be in this fix today. It's Darwinism in its purest form! Those
that can adapt to change will survive. Those that can't, become extinct.
Tom L
Arclight
wrote:
>daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>
>> On 03 May 2000 10:56:02 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 2 May 2000 18:26:50 -0700, "Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Go buy a new copy of Word for Windows 1.0.
>> >> >Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
>> >> >YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
>> >> >which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
>> >>
>> >> So? what's wrong with that?
>> >
>> >We run Office97.
>> >
>> >How do we buy new copies for the new machines (which aren't just
>> >replacing the old ones).
>>
>> You can still buy Office 97 from lots of places.
>>
>> >Either we all have to upgrade to Office2000, or the new machines go
>> >without...
>>
>> or you could just look in the computer press for somewhere that sells
>> Office 97.
>
>And in 2001, or 2002?
well you can still buy office 95 from some places, so I think it'd be
pretty safe to say that you will probably be able to buy office 97 in
2002,
>That doesn't solve the problem.
But why should you force microsoft to sell outdated products just to
support the few people who might want them?
anyway what's stopping you using office 2000 on some of the computers
and 97 on others?
Craig Kelley
True, but natural selection also depends on having a very disperse set
of traits. If everyone runs VC++ and Windows then we're on our way
off a cliff some day (witness the ILOVEYOU virus which came out
today).
Of course, everyone *doesn't* run VC++ and Windows, so some of us are
safe (if a bit incovenienced). :)
So, someone running BASIC from the 80s could be a very good thing,
from a natural selection point of view.
Craig Kelley
> >And in 2001, or 2002?
>
> well you can still buy office 95 from some places, so I think it'd be
> pretty safe to say that you will probably be able to buy office 97 in
> 2002,
>
> >That doesn't solve the problem.
>
> But why should you force microsoft to sell outdated products just to
> support the few people who might want them?
It's commonly called the "upgrade treadmill" by us "few people".
We hate it.
> anyway what's stopping you using office 2000 on some of the computers
> and 97 on others?
File incompatibilites.
Don't tell me they don't exist; we've already encountered several
PowerPoint problems (and we don't even have Office 2000 anywhere in
the building).
Arclight
wrote:
>daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>
>> >And in 2001, or 2002?
>>
>> well you can still buy office 95 from some places, so I think it'd be
>> pretty safe to say that you will probably be able to buy office 97 in
>> 2002,
>>
>> >That doesn't solve the problem.
>>
>> But why should you force microsoft to sell outdated products just to
>> support the few people who might want them?
>
>It's commonly called the "upgrade treadmill" by us "few people".
>
>We hate it.
well that's tough.
are you suggesting that microsoft should continue to support all its
old software because people might still be using it?
>> anyway what's stopping you using office 2000 on some of the computers
>> and 97 on others?
>
>File incompatibilites.
These can be avoided by using the right export/import filters.
>Don't tell me they don't exist; we've already encountered several
>PowerPoint problems (and we don't even have Office 2000 anywhere in
>the building).
Try installing all the import/export filters that are on the office
2000 CD, they should get rid of any problems.
Damien
He doesn't have Office 2000.
Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
turn the upgrade treadmill? Is there any way to change the system to
make it save into the older formats by default? And why aren't these
file formats backwards compatible? Any decent file format would have
an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
older versions.
T. Max Devlin
>>> But why should you force microsoft to sell outdated products just to
>>> support the few people who might want them?
>>
>>It's commonly called the "upgrade treadmill" by us "few people".
>>
>>We hate it.
>
>well that's tough.
>are you suggesting that microsoft should continue to support all its
>old software because people might still be using it?
I think he's suggesting, as am I, that Microsoft should continue to support
its *customers*, even after its taken their money, as an on-going license does
in fact indicate *some* level of long-term commitment. Let me ask you this:
when you bought your licenses, did you see any indication whatsoever that it
was going to be made almost entirely useless by the guy who sold it to you
after only 18 to 24 months?
Microsoft's well documented history of spuriously "upgrading" simply to "hold
up its customers for more money" so that they can continue to benefit from
their original investment (and, indeed, incur even more of an investment in
the installed system outside of monetary costs) makes yours a straw-man
argument at best, and so pointedly dismissive as to seem ludicrous.
[...]
>>File incompatibilites.
>
>These can be avoided by using the right export/import filters.
This is a trivial response to a grievous problem; unmitigated teflon bullshit.
If Microsoft didn't know damn well that leveraging of file incompatibilities
didn't provide *massive* coercion for the installed base to upgrade, they
wouldn't do it. In other words: these can be avoided by using someone else's
software that doesn't so whole-heartedly support the "upgrade merry-go-round"
scam. Filters are handy in a pinch, but they are *not* the equivalent of
functional inter-operability.
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>Is there any way to change the system to
>make it save into the older formats by default?
Depends on the program. I haven't seen Office 2000 yet, but in Office 97, I
think all three (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) finally have this feature. Not that
it is really anywhere near as functional as you would imagine. The
applications don't, for instance, register themselves as servers for the older
file types. So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a file
as an embedded object and the like will fail. I would guess that this is
excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support older
file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications are
capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
The point is that "save as" is a barely expectable work-around for trivial
cases, not a valid way of addressing the theft of control of a user's data
which Microsoft's handling of file formats constitutes.
Craig Kelley
[snip]
> >File incompatibilites.
>
> These can be avoided by using the right export/import filters.
No they can't.
> >Don't tell me they don't exist; we've already encountered several
> >PowerPoint problems (and we don't even have Office 2000 anywhere in
> >the building).
>
> Try installing all the import/export filters that are on the office
> 2000 CD, they should get rid of any problems.
Animated gifs in presentations?
Arclight
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:32:03 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Arclight <daniel...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>| On 04 May 2000 09:38:30 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>
>| >> anyway what's stopping you using office 2000 on some of the computers
>| >> and 97 on others?
>| >
>| >File incompatibilites.
>|
>| These can be avoided by using the right export/import filters.
>|
>| >Don't tell me they don't exist; we've already encountered several
>| >PowerPoint problems (and we don't even have Office 2000 anywhere in
>| >the building).
>| Try installing all the import/export filters that are on the office
>| 2000 CD, they should get rid of any problems.
>
>He doesn't have Office 2000.
but the source of the office 2000 document will.
>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>turn the upgrade treadmill?
So that it saves all the new features in the file.
>Is there any way to change the system to
>make it save into the older formats by default?
Probably
>And why aren't these
>file formats backwards compatible?
Because they add new features to office with every release, and the
old file formats can't handle them.
>Any decent file format would have
>an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
>older versions.
They are partially compatible, as long as you don't use any of the new
features.
Arclight
wrote:
>daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>> >File incompatibilites.
>>
>> These can be avoided by using the right export/import filters.
>
>No they can't.
Yes they can.
>> >Don't tell me they don't exist; we've already encountered several
>> >PowerPoint problems (and we don't even have Office 2000 anywhere in
>> >the building).
>>
>> Try installing all the import/export filters that are on the office
>> 2000 CD, they should get rid of any problems.
>
>Animated gifs in presentations?
That's a problem with using a new feature which doesn't exist in the
older versions. If you want to use new features you'll have to be
prepared for the older versions not to support it, its the same with
most software.
Bob May
character in a document) and you can't open that file with the older
version of the program. For reference, Works 3.0 creates a document
with just the letter "A" in it and you can't open it with the Works
2.0 version! That means that everybody in the company needs to
upgrade to 3.0 for compatibility reasons. All this because you can't
buy a license for Works 2.0 anymore. Microsoft is famous for this
kind of stuff. Look at the upgrading of RTF files for a very good
example. Every version of software that uses RTF for compiling
something seems to have it's own version of the extensions for doing
the same job. I have just put my foot down and am refusing to do any
upgrades unless the upgrade is backward compatible and with
Microsoft's propensity for not providing the standard being the same,
I am just not upgrading.
BTW, take a VB2.0 source code and try to run it in VB6.0 and you will
see what I mean. Even simple things (Hello World level stuff) won't
compile between the different versions!
Bob May
product is still the same because every time you make a change, you
need to go through the regulation process of the product all over
again. Do you want to spend $500,000 every year on a product that has
a gross sales of that much? I really wouldn't want to do that. I'd
rather maximize my engineering talent for making new products rather
than on just that one product.
Rico
>daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>
>> >And in 2001, or 2002?
>>
>> well you can still buy office 95 from some places, so I think it'd be
>> pretty safe to say that you will probably be able to buy office 97 in
>> 2002,
>>
>> >That doesn't solve the problem.
>>
>> support the few people who might want them?
>
>It's commonly called the "upgrade treadmill" by us "few people".
>
>We hate it.
>
>> and 97 on others?
>
>File incompatibilites.
>
>PowerPoint problems (and we don't even have Office 2000 anywhere in
>the building).
>
I'm missing your problem here, if you want to stick to a particular
version of a product, buy an open license. Then if MS stops selling, so
what, buy a new computer in what ever year you pick, install from the same
old CD you installed every other copy in the office from. Better still
stick the CD in the CD server and log the 'new' PC into the lan and run
the install script. Let 3Com and cat5 wiring do the work.
For an individual, as you upgrade computers, just install your original
license on the new machine.
JEDIDIAH
>Damien <dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>> Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>> new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>> make it save into the older formats by default?
>
>
>right.
What's so illogical about it? Unless you have some burning desire
(or need) for an advanced feature: what's the point of potentially
complicating the lives of anyone that might need to share data with
you?
It certainly doesn't make sense from Microsoft's perspective. Their
business model requires that you buy more and more software, even if
you don't need it.
If a document can be expressed in Word 2.0 format or RTF then why not?
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>>And why aren't these
>>file formats backwards compatible?
>
>Because they add new features to office with every release, and the
>old file formats can't handle them.
>
>>Any decent file format would have
>>an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
>>older versions.
>
>They are partially compatible, as long as you don't use any of the new
>features.
Entirely incorrect. They are partially *similar*. The ability to use a
filter to translate a document does not make it compatible. It makes it a
document. New features is, to begin with, a dubious excuse, particularly in
Microsoft's case. It becomes a pathetic and offensive lie when there is
direct evidence to the contrary. And I say there is, referring to internal
Microsoft memos indicating this type of strategy, and design/marketing
decisions with no plausible alternative explanation.
File formats. Development tool licensing restrictions. Secret strategies and
flaunting of civilized convention. None of these illegal strategies in their
own right; you're allowed, I guess, to screw your customers if you can get
away with it. All of them potential anti-trust violations when used to defend
or extend a monopoly, though, because then your customers aren't so free to
frown on your tactics as to take their business elsewhere.
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>In theory yes, but can you point to anything which actually does this?
Maybe not now, as Microsoft might have made it a bit too acceptable to screw
the users. But in the very early 90s, WordPerfect 5.1 could perfectly read
and handle a WordPerfect 5.2 document. There were substantial additions made,
too; far more real improvements, though maybe not as many spurious changes, in
both the program and the document structures than in the last few revs of
Word. In WP5.1, all the hidden codes (equivalent of "formats", "fields", and
just about all the other various structures/features in Word) which 5.2 added
were simply identified as "Unknown". The original codes were preserved
completely, however, and the edited document could be transparently passed
between 5.1 and 5.2 users without any real trouble. Assuming, of course, that
the 5.1 user didn't need to edit anything in or directly affected by the 5.2
code. That could get dicey.
I'm not saying an extensible file format is easy or common, nor that I expect
it to be the rule. It isn't the use of a new file format for a new version
that gauls people, really. It's Microsoft's *handling* of it, and purposeful
*use* of it to drive upgrade sales. You'd think if MS was as good as some
people claim, responsible for so much power available to the end user, that
they could figure out a way to NOT screw their customers over whenever they
get the chance?
T. Max Devlin
+0200
>Damien <dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>> Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>> new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>> turn the upgrade treadmill? Is there any way to change the system to
>> make it save into the older formats by default?
>
>
> what then is more logical? to save in older format as default? yeah,
>right.
Accept for the problem with document object servers, I had Word, Excel, and
PowerPoint all set to save in older formats by default at one time or another.
Word fell first, as it was truly abominable in trying to support my needs
operationally. Excel then followed a few months later because of translation
problems where older version files would get locked and even corrupted.
PowerPoint lasted the longest, though it was annoying having an extra prompt
or two more often than usual.
What is more logical is having these attempts fail for reasons that I can feel
confident are entirely technical; because MS hasn't figured out how to do it
better yet, but maybe someone else has/can/will. But I'm well aware that even
the most trivial issue often gets weighted towards what will increase customer
lock-in and suppression of competition.
I'm not as wild-eyed as my critics make me out. I only say that MS is
constantly and increasingly making every single decision based entirely on
nefarious intent, nor that none of their services or products are at all of
benefit to anyone, or that they have played absolutely no useful part in the
development of PCs when I'm speaking rhetorically. I am decidedly
non-paranoid, and un-deluded (though no more immune to being wrong than any
other talking monkey).
I'm quite sure that I have read Microsoft memos, statements, and reports
variously leaked or exhibited, a number of times over the last decade, which
quite convincingly indicate that Microsoft has consciously made decisions
concerning this very topic of document file formats, in which the capability
to defend the monopoly was weighed against supporting customer requirements,
and defending the monopoly won. This is a very bad thing.
Geo
Beautiful, beautiful take on the whole scene of "licensing". And M$
has pushed it to the extreme making users and OEM lap up with gratefulness
their many fixes posted by their web pages.
Such a business! Never before has there been such a business aside from
the Mafia. M$ now keeping 40% (after all expenses and taxes) of all
sales for their mounting treasury. And like the Mafia investing, buying
or wiping out all potential competitors.
Stac Electronics is the only company that ever brought M$ to bey with
measley $millions for copying their works. Others just cave.
Is it any wonder why? 40% pure profit can wipe out anyone in the way.
Obscene.
Rant off.
Geo
Tom Hanlin wrote:
>
> On 4-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote:
>
> > >are you suggesting that microsoft should continue to support all its
> > >old software because people might still be using it?
> >
> > I think he's suggesting, as am I, that Microsoft should continue to
> > support its *customers*, even after its taken their money, as an
> > on-going license does in fact indicate *some* level of long-term
> > commitment.
>
> I have to suspect that you've never actually read any of Microsoft's
> licenses-- not to single out Microsoft, as these are industry-standard
> bull**** boilerplate. In a dozen pages or so, they all come down to the
> following:
>
> 1) Despite what you may imagine, you didn't actually buy our product. You're
> just licensing it at our limited sufferance. Don't piss us off, loser.
>
> 2) Our product is not software. It's a trademark-named collection of bits on
> a disk which, despite our advertising claims, is not actually expected to do
> anything useful, or even to refrain from destroying your computer and all
> data contained in it.
>
> 3) If there is something physically wrong with the disk we supply you, we
> will consider replacing it with another disk that may or may not contain
> something or other.
>
> 4) Despite the fact that we deny that our software has any ostensible useful
> purpose, you may not copy it, disassemble it, or think of producing anything
> that sort of does what we claim our product might do. (Fixing it is Right
> Out.)
>
> 5) Ha ha. [Ok, I made up this part. Legalese is uniformly humorless.]
>
> Go ahead, *read* that shrink-wrap license sometime. Aside from (5), you'll
> find it all there. (I get a particular kick out of Borland's 15-page
> licenses, which are still [from a much earlier and saner point in their
> history] called "no-nonsense" "agreements". :-)
>
> In short, no commitment express or implied.
>
> --
> Thomas G. Hanlin III, Programmer At Large
> home: http://www.tgh3.com - programming tools & libraries, games and things
> work: http://www.powerbasic.com - DOS & Windows BASIC compilers & tools
Geo
Geo
Geo
Davorin Mestric
Damien
Arclight <daniel...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
| On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU (Damien) wrote:
|
| >On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:32:03 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| >Arclight <daniel...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
| >an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
| >older versions.
|
| They are partially compatible, as long as you don't use any of the new
| features.
But a well designed file format would degrade well. Uses of programs
that don't support the newer version of the file format would still be
able to work with those files transparently, albeit without being able
to edit and view all the newest, whiz-bang features.
Damien
Rico <spam...@nomail.tw> wrote:
| I'm missing your problem here, if you want to stick to a particular
| version of a product, buy an open license. Then if MS stops selling, so
| what, buy a new computer in what ever year you pick, install from the same
| old CD you installed every other copy in the office from. Better still
| stick the CD in the CD server and log the 'new' PC into the lan and run
| the install script. Let 3Com and cat5 wiring do the work.
|
| For an individual, as you upgrade computers, just install your original
| license on the new machine.
But if the new computer isn't a replacment? Now you have two
computers and one Office 5 license. What do you do?
Arclight
In theory yes, but can you point to anything which actually does this?
TTFN
Rico
Open license
Damien
SGML, HTML, TeX, httpd.conf. . . that's all I can come up with right
now. I think postscript, and dvi would qualify too but I don't know
enough about them to say for sure.
Damien
Rico <spam...@nomail.tw> wrote:
| In article <slrn8h45io...@localhost.localdomain>, dam...@damien.mit.edu.munge mentioned:
| >On Thu, 04 May 2000 23:05:16 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| >Rico <spam...@nomail.tw> wrote:
| >
| >| I'm missing your problem here, if you want to stick to a particular
| >| version of a product, buy an open license. Then if MS stops selling, so
| >| what, buy a new computer in what ever year you pick, install from the same
| >| old CD you installed every other copy in the office from. Better still
| >| stick the CD in the CD server and log the 'new' PC into the lan and run
| >| the install script. Let 3Com and cat5 wiring do the work.
| >|
| >| For an individual, as you upgrade computers, just install your original
| >| license on the new machine.
| >
| >But if the new computer isn't a replacment? Now you have two
| >computers and one Office 5 license. What do you do?
|
| Open license
MS sells software licenses that allow you to install the software all
the new computers you buy?
Tom Hanlin
Geo
not sent.
Geo
Norman D. Megill
JEDIDIAH <jedi...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 May 2000 02:11:01 +0200, Davorin Mestric <davorin...@zg.tel.hrREMOVEX> wrote:
> (or need) for an advanced feature: what's the point of potentially
> complicating the lives of anyone that might need to share data with
> you?
>
> It certainly doesn't make sense from Microsoft's perspective. Their
> business model requires that you buy more and more software, even if
> you don't need it.
>
> If a document can be expressed in Word 2.0 format or RTF then why not?
One example I've run into is "box around text", a rather simple, common
feature for which there is no reason for it not to be
backwards-compatible. Apparently Word97 did it differently from Word95,
so when you converted from W97 to W95 boxes around text disappeared.
Yet if you drew the box in W95, then W97 could see it fine. So a couple
of years ago I wasted time manually putting in boxes, using W95, in a
whole bunch of specs for the benefit of the W95 people.
Now it has happened again. Office 2000 seems to have yet a third way of
drawing a box around text. Someone sent me a 2K doc converted to W97,
and in W97 the boxes weren't there. But if they read back the converted
doc into 2K they were there! This drove us nuts; we even tried
converting to WPerfect as an intermediate format without luck (all boxes
disappeared of course). So, again I had to manually put back the boxes
where they should be based on a faxed version of the document, since I
don't have 2K yet - I never intended to purchase it, but now it seems
I'll have to, so I can read and work on docs sent to me by others. On
the other hand when creating a document it seems best to use the oldest
possible version, to make it available to the widest audience.
--Norm
Don Schullian
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Or you can just screw M$ Office altogether and download StarOffice
>for Linux and Linux, which is what I did.
There is also a version of Star Office for Windoze!
--
____ _ ____ ____ _____
| _ \ / \ / ___) __ | ___)(_ _) Don Schullian
| |_) / _ \ \____\/ \| _) | | d...@DASoftVSS.com
|____//_/ \_\(____/\__/|_| |_| www.DASoftVSS.com
___________________________________ www.basicguru.com
Vertical Software Solutions
Jim Richardson
Geo, in the persona of <nospa...@core.com>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Tom-
>
>Beautiful, beautiful take on the whole scene of "licensing". And M$
>has pushed it to the extreme making users and OEM lap up with gratefulness
>their many fixes posted by their web pages.
>
>Such a business! Never before has there been such a business aside from
>the Mafia. M$ now keeping 40% (after all expenses and taxes) of all
>sales for their mounting treasury. And like the Mafia investing, buying
>or wiping out all potential competitors.
>
>Stac Electronics is the only company that ever brought M$ to bey with
>measley $millions for copying their works. Others just cave.
>Is it any wonder why? 40% pure profit can wipe out anyone in the way.
>Obscene.
>
Caldera got $150+ Million in a settlement with M$
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Michael Mattias
news:8etpu9$go1$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Curious rip of licensing, sir, as your shareware products were offered on a
licensed basis with many of the same disclaimers you now single out for
special treatment.
So, when was it you were on the Road to Damascus?
MCM
(licensor, and proud of it).
PS: I make committments to my licensees, including a money-back guarantee.
Not all licensors are looking for exemptions from moral and legal
obligations to customers.
ROW Software
Hash: SHA1
Yes, but because it runs on Winblows, it is inherently unstable.
Regards,
Kurt Weber
"Don Schullian" <d...@DASoftVSS.com> wrote in message
news:mq23hs4eknrl0k42f...@4ax.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBORK4L24I3AOszg9bEQLuWwCgrNa1+RkeB6V0+c9ySrrgjXSrdN8AnR6E
qqfA+KCtbMa/jkCRY16EUbZn
=+Vuh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
T. Max Devlin
>On 4-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote:
>> >are you suggesting that microsoft should continue to support all its
>> >old software because people might still be using it?
>>
>> I think he's suggesting, as am I, that Microsoft should continue to
>> support its *customers*, even after its taken their money, as an
>> on-going license does in fact indicate *some* level of long-term
>> commitment.
>
>licenses-- not to single out Microsoft, as these are industry-standard
>bull**** boilerplate. In a dozen pages or so, they all come down to the
>following:
>
>1) Despite what you may imagine, you didn't actually buy our product. You're
>just licensing it at our limited sufferance. Don't piss us off, loser.
>
>2) Our product is not software. It's a trademark-named collection of bits on
>a disk which, despite our advertising claims, is not actually expected to do
>anything useful, or even to refrain from destroying your computer and all
>data contained in it.
>
>3) If there is something physically wrong with the disk we supply you, we
>will consider replacing it with another disk that may or may not contain
>something or other.
>
>4) Despite the fact that we deny that our software has any ostensible useful
>purpose, you may not copy it, disassemble it, or think of producing anything
>that sort of does what we claim our product might do. (Fixing it is Right
>Out.)
>
>5) Ha ha. [Ok, I made up this part. Legalese is uniformly humorless.]
>
>Go ahead, *read* that shrink-wrap license sometime. Aside from (5), you'll
>find it all there. (I get a particular kick out of Borland's 15-page
>licenses, which are still [from a much earlier and saner point in their
>history] called "no-nonsense" "agreements". :-)
>
The commitment is implicit in the nature of the contract. You did a very
admirable job of paraphrasing a typical MS license. I'll agree that many
other software licenses resemble MS's closely, and I would submit that they
have become more and more similar in recent years as Microsoft has moved the
bar for how little value you can deliver for how much money. Of course,
you've left out my favorite bit; "this software is covered by copyright". Why
would I have to agree to that (since the gov't makes me go along with it
whether I agree or not) in the license if it were as obvious and true as
everyone claims?
I liked number 5, too. And I'm quite sure I've seen that in several MS
licenses, so I doubt you made it up. :-)
Bob May
can tell you that they were really frosted off when they found out
that microcrud had stolen thier idea and recoded it from the code that
Stac had provided to them. I Stac had also sent them some of our code
(picture compression) then we would have been involved in the suit
also. However, that part of the Stac product line wasn't up and
running when the big war started. BTW, Stac software worked better
than the microcrud product does.
Bob May
are on an earlier version of Excel? You are flat out not able to read
the format, much less read it with Works, another microcrud product!
Bob May
isn't just a one time purchase with that version of the license
either.
JEDIDIAH
>But what do you do when somebody sends you an Excel worksheet and you
>are on an earlier version of Excel? You are flat out not able to read
>the format, much less read it with Works, another microcrud product!
You install Star Office...
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Geo
>
> Caldera got $150+ Million in a settlement with M$
Really?? I'd not seen the number because it was out of court settlement,
sealed, wasn't it? In any event, a trivial amount to M$.
I wonder how many others there were/are. Gates keeps crying "we innovate,
we innovate" and claims all progress comes from MS. <belch>
Geo
Bob Lyday
>
> Jim Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Caldera got $150+ Million in a settlement with M$
>
> Really?? I'd not seen the number because it was out of court settlement,
> sealed, wasn't it? In any event, a trivial amount to M$.
>
> I wonder how many others there were/are. Gates keeps crying "we innovate,
> we innovate" and claims all progress comes from MS. <belch>
>
--
Bob
"Earth hath no sorrows that Earth cannot heal." John Muir
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
Tom Hanlin
> Curious rip of licensing, sir, as your shareware products were offered on
> a licensed basis with many of the same disclaimers you now single out
This is, quite simply, untrue. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else?
My licensing is brief and in clear language, and basically just covers these
points: you can distribute the trial versions freely as long as you don't
modify them; you can't distribute the files that are unique to the
registered version; and I can't guarantee that everything will work on every
possible computer configuration.
On that last point, I should not that the trial versions are always fully
functional, so it's always possible to test before buying. The registered
versions typically come with full source code, allowing you to make your own
modifications if you really really need to get that one routine working on
your Unique Enigma-brand embedded microcontroller.
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:10:13 GMT
>>If I thought you were a person of honour, [...]
>Well, you don't. So quit wasting my time.
Once again, I do not post for your benefit, liar.
Roger
wrote:
>We run Office97.
>
>How do we buy new copies for the new machines (which aren't just
>replacing the old ones).
>
>Either we all have to upgrade to Office2000, or the new machines go
>without...
Why? Office 2000 can save its docs in the older format, and this can
even be made the default.
Why should you have to upgrade?
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Damien from alt.destroy.microsoft; 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT
>>Is there any way to change the system to
>>make it save into the older formats by default?
>Depends on the program. I haven't seen Office 2000 yet, but in Office 97, I
>think all three (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) finally have this feature.
"Finally?" They've been able to since they were first offered as
Office.
>Not that it is really anywhere near as functional as you would imagine. The
>applications don't, for instance, register themselves as servers for the older
>file types.
Since the file types have not changed, this is wrong.
>So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
>same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a file
>as an embedded object and the like will fail.
Also wrong.
>I would guess that this is
>excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support older
>file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications are
>capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
And you would guess wrong, since your guess is based on something
incorrect to begin with.
Roger
>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>turn the upgrade treadmill?
Because certain of the new features (which are what new customers are
buying the software for) require the new format.
>Is there any way to change the system to
>make it save into the older formats by default?
Yep.
>And why aren't these
>file formats backwards compatible?
They are -- Office 2000 can read the older formats.
Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
Tom Hanlin
> Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
> reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
Actually, this is a perfectly reasonable idea, and is not that difficult to
implement. The old software may not be able to take advantage of every new
feature, but it can reasonably be expected to degrade gracefully-- say,
displaying text in a default font instead of using the unknown new feature.
This is a common technique for software designed to be robust, as opposed to
badly-designed software, or software that is designed to force you to
upgrade...
T. Max Devlin
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:40:19 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>
>>>Is there any way to change the system to
>>>make it save into the older formats by default?
>
>>think all three (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) finally have this feature.
>
>"Finally?" They've been able to since they were first offered as
>Office.
This is inaccurate. Word 2.0 was available in Office, and did not have the
ability to save into older formats by default. Investigating whether all
other Microsoft applications in Office supported that feature at specific
points in the past I will leave to you, Lord Weasel.
>>Not that it is really anywhere near as functional as you would imagine. The
>>applications don't, for instance, register themselves as servers for the older
>>file types.
>
>Since the file types have not changed, this is wrong.
"Word document" is not the same file type as "Word 6.0/7.0 Document" nor
"Word97" document. The file extensions haven't changed. The file types are
listed separately in the registry, whether the file structures have or not.
>>So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
>>same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a file
>>as an embedded object and the like will fail.
>
>Also wrong.
Oh really?
>>I would guess that this is
>>excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support older
>>file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications are
>>capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
>
>And you would guess wrong, since your guess is based on something
>incorrect to begin with.
Whatever.
***ZZZZZZZZZ***
T. Max Devlin
>On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>
>>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>>turn the upgrade treadmill?
>
>Because certain of the new features (which are what new customers are
>buying the software for) require the new format.
Care to back this up with some particular examples, or are you just assuming
it must be true because it is what Microsoft tells you?
>>And why aren't these
>>file formats backwards compatible?
>
>They are -- Office 2000 can read the older formats.
Guffaw.
>Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
>reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
Yea, kinda like WordPerfect 5.1 could almost ten years ago. And most HTML
documents.
T. Max Devlin
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:03:27 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:10:13 GMT
>
>>>If I thought you were a person of honour, [...]
>
>>Well, you don't. So quit wasting my time.
>
>Once again, I do not post for your benefit, liar.
Then why is it me you seem intent on boring to death?
JEDIDIAH
>On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>
>>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>>turn the upgrade treadmill?
>
>Because certain of the new features (which are what new customers are
>buying the software for) require the new format.
Like what?
Besides, the notion that customers are buying for those features
rather than the fact that version foo just happens to be the only
one on sale anymore and/or the fact that they are getting pestered
by datafiles in format foo is trivially absurd.
>
>>Is there any way to change the system to
>>make it save into the older formats by default?
>
>Yep.
>
>>And why aren't these
>>file formats backwards compatible?
>
>They are -- Office 2000 can read the older formats.
That does not constitute backwards compatibility of the file format.
>
>Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
>reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
YES.
The format should be readable even if the special new features
aren't available.
>
>>Any decent file format would have
>>an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
>>older versions.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Donal K. Fellows
Damien <dam...@damien.mit.edu.munge> wrote:
> Arclight <daniel...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>| In theory yes, but can you point to anything which actually does
>| [handle new features gracefully]?
> SGML, HTML, TeX, httpd.conf. . . that's all I can come up with right
> now. I think postscript, and dvi would qualify too but I don't know
> enough about them to say for sure.
SGML, and particularly HTML can, though it does depend on the way that
the DTD is handled. (IIRC HTML was supposed to handle new features
unrecognised tags and attributes from the beginning.)
TeX strictly doesn't, but the basic format is extremely well known and
has hasn't changed for donkeys' years. LaTeX has changed more, but it
has a pretty reasonable backward-compatability mode. You can usually
get something reasonable out of a partial interpretation of a document
too.
Postscript and DVI do not qualify, but (like TeX) the formats haven't
changed for a very long time. They are also very carefully specified
so there isn't a lot of room for conflicting implementations (except
in the case of DVI where there is a defined extension interface. But
even there there are a set of widely understood uses that most layers
that understand DVI can comprehend.)
I believe (though I have no first-hand evidence for this one way or
another) that Wordperfect handles backward compatability very well.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <jeffre...@scriptics.com>
ROW Software
Hash: SHA1
Wow...what a thread!
Regards,
Kurt Weber
"T. Max Devlin" <tm...@nbn.net> wrote in message
news:6dfchskn4luefldc0...@4ax.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBORaskW4I3AOszg9bEQLMHwCeINggLV7jAvhoy1/8YmosMLEcSP4AoL78
3iEAU8cIsHEHWq3PgzkDxTiz
=knLO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Donal K. Fellows
Damien <dam...@damien.mit.edu.munge> wrote:
> MS sells software licenses that allow you to install the software all
> the new computers you buy?
Yes, they do. But site licenses (as they are known) are not cheap at all.
Donal K. Fellows
Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> True, but natural selection also depends on having a very disperse set
> of traits. If everyone runs VC++ and Windows then we're on our way
> off a cliff some day (witness the ILOVEYOU virus which came out
> today).
Yeah. If every creature in the world was a lemming, it would be a
good idea for some of them to evolve an aversion to large drops, no
matter how much this would interfere with uniformity and standards...
Yannick
compatibility mode (That is, all new options
are deactivated. Apart from that I beleive the file formats in 97 and 2K are the same). It
has to be done for each file, though
(but shouldn't be necessary if you use only the old features), but maybe if you turn it on
in normal.dot...
I've been using it at work, i've encountered no problem.
Yannick
yvalot /at/ libertysurf /dot/ fr
Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> a écrit dans le message :
m1n1m7y...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> daniel...@cableinet.co.uk (Arclight) writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2 May 2000 18:26:50 -0700, "Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Go buy a new copy of Word for Windows 1.0.
> > >Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
> > >YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
> > >which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
> >
> > So? what's wrong with that?
>
> We run Office97.
>
> How do we buy new copies for the new machines (which aren't just
> replacing the old ones).
>
> Either we all have to upgrade to Office2000, or the new machines go
> without...
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Keith T. Williams
the "backwards compatible format" was RTF, although it was stored with a DOC
extension. This was NOT satisfactory to most users and after a LOT of
complaints from users, there was an upgrade which allowed W'97 to actually
write 6.0/95 files as actual DOCs. Eventually they even issued a patch
which allowed 6.0/95 to read '97 files.
T. Max Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote in message
news:12fchs4nekarjpmb9...@4ax.com...
> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:13:52 GMT
> >On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:40:19 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
> >Devlin wrote:
> >
> >>Quoting Damien from alt.destroy.microsoft; 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT
> >
> >>>Is there any way to change the system to
> >>>make it save into the older formats by default?
> >