Vista
JosephKK
+++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:22:01 +0000
From: "Clive D. W. Feather" <cl...@davros.org>
Subject: The risks of upgrading
As a result of an upgrade to Vista in Ohio's Marietta High School computer
systems, previously protected student information and photos were able to be
accessed by unauthorized people. "It appears the students were interested
in making changes to their photos in the school cafeteria system." The
photos and a student ID are used to verify charges for lunches, and
officials suspected some students were manipulating the system to avoid
paying for lunches. [Source: Marietta Times <http://www.mariettatimes.com>,
PGN-ed]
Clive D.W. Feather +44 20 8495 6138 http://www.davros.org
Joerg
Robert Baer
MooseFET
...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
Brendan Gillatt
Hash: SHA1
How on earth does an upgrade to Vista allow that? Surely they'd still be
running server 2003 on their servers and only the desktops would have
Vista. If the files were writeable with Vista they'd be writeable with
any other version of windows.
- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHswq6uv4tpb9qDZQRAtV/AJ0cy9qU62xMJdXohF0yPDvUfPS+dwCcCQ97
zp+jveq/6Y1omrRW9mXWqMc=
=BYcR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sky4...@trline5.org
>running server 2003 on their servers and only the desktops would have
>Vista. If the files were writeable with Vista they'd be writeable with
>any other version of windows.
Proberbly the same judgement on database app that made them choose MS-Vista.
Not a wise choice for any serious security.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
>
> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
This doesn't seem logical.
If I built an identification system based on stored photos, modifying
those photos would cause identification to fail, and so with the entire
transaction.
Of course, if numerous entries were corrupted, the administration might
opt to hand out lunches for free rather than argue with a bunch of
crying, hungry kids.
Jim Thompson
<pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>MooseFET wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
>> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
>
>You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Joerg
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>
>> MooseFET wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
>>> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
>> You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
>
> Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
> spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
>
Come to California. Then you all really know what "living beyond the
means" is all about.
Joerg
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:20:26 +0000, Brendan Gillatt
> <brendanR...@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If the files were writeable with Vista they'd be writeable with
>> any other version of windows.
>
>
>
> Encrypted file systems are only accessible to OSes that are compliant
> with such file systems. That would not include "any other version of
> windows". Also even an non-encrypted NTFS file system on Vista is not
> able to be accessed on an older Windows box that has not been upgraded,
> and there are thousands of them.
You mean they blew yet another backwards compatibility? What were the
guys in Redmond thinking?
Luckily I don't have to deal with that.
donald
> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:20:26 +0000, Brendan Gillatt
>> <brendanR...@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> If the files were writeable with Vista they'd be writeable with
>>> any other version of windows.
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Encrypted file systems are only accessible to OSes that are compliant
>> with such file systems. That would not include "any other version of
>> windows". Also even an non-encrypted NTFS file system on Vista is not
>> able to be accessed on an older Windows box that has not been upgraded,
>> and there are thousands of them.
>
>
> You mean they blew yet another backwards compatibility? What were the
> guys in Redmond thinking?
>
I think the term is: RSHs *
> Luckily I don't have to deal with that.
>
*Red Short Hairs
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>
> >MooseFET wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
> >> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
> >
> >You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
>
> Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
> spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
That's fine by me. I believe in paying for what I want.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deja fubar: The feeling that you've made the same mistake before.
Jim Thompson
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >MooseFET wrote:
>> >>
>> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
>> >> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
>> >
>> >You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
>>
>> Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
>> spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
>
>That's fine by me. I believe in paying for what I want.
Sure you do. But how about paying for what _other_people_ want?
krw
Use-The-En...@My-Web-Site.com says...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:09 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> >> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >MooseFET wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >[snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
> >> >> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
> >> >
> >> >You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
> >>
> >> Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
> >> spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
> >
> >That's fine by me. I believe in paying for what I want.
>
> Sure you do. But how about paying for what _other_people_ want?
He's no different than any other leftist weenie. He doesn't mind us
paying for his feel-good programs.
--
Keith
krw
Don...@dontdoithere.com says...
--
Keith
MooseFET
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> > <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>
> > >MooseFET wrote:
>
> > >[snip]
>
> > >> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
> > >> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
>
> > >You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
>
> > Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
> > spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
>
> That's fine by me. I believe in paying for what I want.
You mean we can't balance the budget by putting the Master Card
payments onto the Visa? The GOP has piled a bunch of taxes onto your
children to pay for todays spending. If we can figure out a way to
kick the can down the road a little further, the problem may solve its
self. Some people are projecting that by 2035, China will have enough
money to buy the US. As is usual in such transactions, the purchaser
will also have to assume all the debt.
The down side for China is that they will end up owning WallMart and
be selling cheap plastic crap to themselves.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Or just stop payments on it.
> The down side for China is that they will end up owning WallMart and
> be selling cheap plastic crap to themselves.
--
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
> >> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
> >
> >You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
>
One of my neighbors is a fundie bible thumper. He was trying to sell me
on the 'save myself before the Rapture'. His sect believes that it will
happen within a decade.
So I asked him if he was participating in his companies 401K plan. Or
saving for his children's college fund.
No answers. Now that was funny.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:09 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> >> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >MooseFET wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >[snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
> >> >> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
> >> >
> >> >You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
> >>
> >> Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
> >> spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
> >
> >That's fine by me. I believe in paying for what I want.
>
> Sure you do. But how about paying for what _other_people_ want?
And then they'll pay for what I want. Not a bad deal.
Joerg
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:37:01 GMT, Joerg
> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:20:26 +0000, Brendan Gillatt
>>> <brendanR...@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the files were writeable with Vista they'd be writeable with
>>>> any other version of windows.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Encrypted file systems are only accessible to OSes that are compliant
>>> with such file systems. That would not include "any other version of
>>> windows". Also even an non-encrypted NTFS file system on Vista is not
>>> able to be accessed on an older Windows box that has not been upgraded,
>>> and there are thousands of them.
>>
>> You mean they blew yet another backwards compatibility?
>
> then, I'd say they blew nothing.
>
>> What were the
>> guys in Redmond thinking?
>
>
>> Luckily I don't have to deal with that.
>
Nope, nothing to do with money. I don't have to deal with Vista. It
won't enter this here office ;-)
JeffM
>One of my neighbors[...]was trying to sell me
>on the 'save myself before the Rapture'.
>His sect believes that it will happen within a decade.
>
>So I asked him if he was participating in his companies 401K plan.
>Or saving for his children's college fund.
>
>No answers. Now that was funny.
Amen.
JeffM
>>>>>If the files were writeable with Vista
>>>>>they'd be writeable with any other version of windows.
>>>>>
>>>>Wrong.
>>>>Encrypted file systems[...]
>>>>
Joerg wrote:
>>>Luckily I don't have to deal with that.
>>>
>>Money?
>>
Joerg wrote:
>Nope, nothing to do with money. I don't have to deal with Vista.
>It won't enter this here office ;-)
It's simple really: "We retain the right
to refuse correspondence in proprietary data formats.
Please use an *open* document format.
We prefer OpenDocument Format."
...and put a fork in M$. They're done.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/8a21a8f29bac0d65/135f79243ffb001f?q=*-*-*-*-*-faster+LTspice+*-well-written-Windows-programs-work-*-*-under-Wine+than-*-XP+than-Vista+Even.WINE.is.more.Windows-compatible
Joerg
My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format. Can be read by all
clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine. The OO format itself
is not widely used in industry so I could not use it. Works for me.
"Winmail.dat" is a real pain though. No matter how often I teach people
with Outlook how to avoid that pitfall they fall right back into it,
time and again.
Jim Thompson
Received any specifications in "docx" format yet ?:-)
Fortunately there's a converter available for free.
Joerg
No. Guess I am lucky that so far my clients haven't jumped onto any of
those "new and improved" bandwagons. Most of my correspondences is in
*.doc, *.xls, *htm, *.pdf, *.sch, *.png and other image formats, and
Gerber photo plotter files.
> Fortunately there's a converter available for free.
>
For most formats there is one, once they become widespread. Winmail.dat
remains a pain though. Can't even read the newsletter from my attorney
and CPA, but next time I am there I show the secretaries how to fix that.
JeffM
>>>It's simple really: "We retain the right
>>>to refuse correspondence in proprietary data formats.
>>>Please use an *open* document format.
>>> We prefer OpenDocument Format."
>>>
>>My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format.
>>Can be read by all clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine.
>The OO format itself is not widely used in industry
>>so I could not use it. Works for me.
>>
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:OASIS
"Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards"
OOo simply does a grand job of implementing it.
Jim Thompson wrote:
>Received any specifications in "docx" format yet ?:-)
They say that the memory is the 2nd thing to go, Old Timer. 8-)
You even posted to that thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/829613d0c85112d0/96d9d3a732a23edf?q=_not_-OpenOffice+zzz+MS.Office+require
Jim Thompson
wrote:
No. Looks like Joerg (and perhaps you, as well :-) that have memory
problems. I just asked Joerg if he HAD received such a file. I
tracked down the converter after I got the "xlsx" file.
Joerg
I do remember that one. But I've been spared so far.
JeffM
>>>Received any specifications in "docx" format yet ?:-)
>>
>>They say that the memory is the 2nd thing to go, Old Timer. 8-)
>>You even posted to that thread.
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/829613d0c85112d0/96d9d3a732a23edf?q=_not_-OpenOffice+zzz+MS.Office+require
>
>No. Looks like Joerg (and perhaps you, as well :-)
>that have memory problems.
>
It's all a part of the same steaming pile.
It's just M$'s (crap) attempt to derail ODF:
http://www.google.com/search?q=OOXML+defective.by.design&num=100
>I just asked Joerg if he HAD received such a file.
>
Obviously, his interpolater is properly calibrated
...or he doesn't recognize the 2 formats as siblings.
>I tracked down the converter after I got the "xlsx" file.
>
...or just refuse delivery of broken-by-design file formats.
Joerg
[...]
> ...or just refuse delivery of broken-by-design file formats.
Consultants can't do that. The client is king :-)
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
I don't have that privilege. You do what the client asks. I was
"forced" to buy the whole Adobe Acrobat Suite _many_ years ago because
that was all a Japanese client could read.
JeffM
>>...or just refuse delivery of broken-by-design file formats.
>>
>Consultants can't do that. The client is king :-)
Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format.
>>>>>>Can be read by all clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine.
>>>>>>
You are going to LOVE this:
"Office 2003 Service Pack Disables Older File Formats"
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21879732
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21880018
(Summary at the top of that page.)
Instead of fixing THEIR broken parser,
they crippled backwards-compatibility with file formats.
Get ready for lots of steaming piles coming your way.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>JeffM wrote:
So who has Office 2003 ?:-)
I'm like Joerg, I have Word 97.
Don Bowey
7f607524-b8c3-4f40...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "JeffM"
<jef...@email.com> wrote:
FWIW, I've found that in the event Word won't recognize a particular doc
version, that the same file can be opened by the drag-and-drop method.
JeffM
>>>>>>>>My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format.
>>>>>>>>Can be read by all clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine.
>>>>>>>>
JeffM wrote:
>>You are going to LOVE this:
>>"Office 2003 Service Pack Disables Older File Formats"
>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21879732
>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21880018
>>(Summary at the top of that page.)
>>
>>Instead of fixing THEIR broken parser,
>>they crippled backwards-compatibility with file formats.
>>Get ready for lots of steaming piles coming your way.
>>
>So who has Office 2003 ?:-)
>
> I'm like Joerg, I have Word 97.
>
...and will be using it to create documents
which will be sent to clients who will want to open them.
If your preferred format isn't already deprecated in M$ products,
at this rate, it soon could be (in favor of this new OOXML crap??).
Notice that this was a SERVICE PACK to an *older* M$ product
and there is **no advance warning** of what it will cripple.
Client: "Oh, there's a SP available for my M$ app.
It says[1] that it's a SECURITY update.
I should get that and install it."
***BOOM***
...and, once the SP is installed, it's not a simple tweak
to regain the backwards-compatibility that M$ just crippled.
.
.
[1] As M$ typical does with such mendacity.
Joerg
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:38:51 -0800 (PST), JeffM <jef...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>> JeffM wrote:
>>>> ...or just refuse delivery of broken-by-design file formats.
>>>>
>> Joerg wrote:
>>> Consultants can't do that. The client is king :-)
>> Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>>> My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format.
>>>>>>>> Can be read by all clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine.
>>>>>>>>
>> You are going to LOVE this:
>> "Office 2003 Service Pack Disables Older File Formats"
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21879732
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21880018
>> (Summary at the top of that page.)
>>
>> Instead of fixing THEIR broken parser,
>> they crippled backwards-compatibility with file formats.
>> Get ready for lots of steaming piles coming your way.
>
I've never encountered problems with companies using new Office
versions. Then again it's usually me who writes reports, module specs
and such. They could always read them. Much goes out in PDF format but
when it's a collaboration we must all use Word.
> So who has Office 2003 ?:-)
>
> I'm like Joerg, I have Word 97.
>
Yep. I also got 2000 on one PC. Luckily one can buy older versions at
liquidators and such. Comes at a nice discount so you can spend the cost
savings on Syrah or Pinot Noir.
Joerg
'tis why it's good policy to employ some clever IT guys who test this
stuff _before_ deployment and reject it if defective in such a manner.
I mean, would you blindly switch a medication your doctor recommended
just because a pharmaceutical company said so?
krw
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:09 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> > <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Jim Thompson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:09:11 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> > >> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >MooseFET wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >[snip]
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ...not if the world ends before the national debt has to be paid. Any
> > >> >> money that is left when the rapture comes will just go to waste.
> > >> >
> > >> >You appear to have just summarized GOP fiscal policy in one sentence.
> > >>
> > >> Crap! If you listen closely to Obama's double-talk, he's going to
> > >> spend even more... by taxing you "rich" guys ;-)
> > >
> > >That's fine by me. I believe in paying for what I want.
> >
> > Sure you do. But how about paying for what _other_people_ want?
>
> And then they'll pay for what I want. Not a bad deal.
Why don't you just pay for what you want and we can all cut out the
middle man?
--
Keith
Joerg
Then all those poor middlemen would have to find jobs on the free market
and would suffer from not having fat pension entitlements. And, whoa,
they'd have to give up the cushy cradle-to-grave health care and look
for HMO insurance just like the rest of us. Maybe they have a
pre-existing condition and won't find converage at all. Now that would
be a dose of reality, wouldn't it?
krw
notthis...@removethispacbell.net says...
Not to mention the power that goes with the control over the purse
strings.
--
Keith
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Where were the purse strings when your boys were in control?
Interesting how its 'them' when the money isn't flowing your way but its
'our elected officials' doing 'the will of the people' when you are
flush with cash.
> --
> Keith
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Experience is the worst teacher. It always gives the test
first and the instruction afterward.
krw
They gave me a pile of my money back. Not enough, but some.
> Interesting how its 'them' when the money isn't flowing your way but its
> 'our elected officials' doing 'the will of the people' when you are
> flush with cash.
Right. I want *MY* money to flow *MY* way, not yours. I'm quite
happy when you keep your money, though if you want to give it away
that's perfectly within your rights and all three of us are happy.
Don't give mine away; I'll do that myself, thanks. Got it?
--
Keith
Joerg
Tell the city of Sacramento. They are in the hole to the tune of >$40M
or so. Yet they just decked out a brand new office building with plush
brand new furniture. Mostly custom made. That makes me sick.
The "rationale" was that they value their employee. Hah! They laid off
some right before that. I've equipped an office/lab building myself. We
used all 2nd hand stuff, cubicles, desks, everything. Cost about 35%
versus new including thorough steamn cleaning and looked great.
krw
Exactly what I'd expect from the lefties.
> The "rationale" was that they value their employee. Hah! They laid off
> some right before that. I've equipped an office/lab building myself. We
> used all 2nd hand stuff, cubicles, desks, everything. Cost about 35%
> versus new including thorough steamn cleaning and looked great.
"For the children..." In their eyes, we're all their children.
--
Keith
JosephKK
Would you happen to have a link for that?
Joerg
No text but it was televised in great detail a few days ago on KOVR
(CBS13). I can't view flash stuff but probably this is the story:
http://cbs13.com/shownotes/office.furniture.2.653854.html
Mike
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:38:51 -0800 (PST), JeffM <jef...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>>JeffM wrote:
>>>>...or just refuse delivery of broken-by-design file formats.
>>>>
>>Joerg wrote:
>>>Consultants can't do that. The client is king :-)
>>
>>Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>>>My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format.
>>>>>>>>Can be read by all clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>You are going to LOVE this:
>>"Office 2003 Service Pack Disables Older File Formats"
>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21879732
>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/01/137257&mode=nested&threshold=5#21880018
>>(Summary at the top of that page.)
>>
>>Instead of fixing THEIR broken parser,
>>they crippled backwards-compatibility with file formats.
>>Get ready for lots of steaming piles coming your way.
>
> So who has Office 2003 ?:-)
>
> I'm like Joerg, I have Word 97.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I do. I also have Word 97 and 2000. Backwards compatibility to those
versions, as far as I can tell in a few simple tests today, hasn't been
affected. What isn't in Word 2003 (if it ever was) is various Save As
formats that are in Word 2000, including Word 2.x, Word 6.0, Word 95, and
various Word for Mac versions.
It's worth pointing out that this only means Word 2003 won't _write_ those
formats. I don't know if it will still _read_ them or not.
-- Mike --
Joerg
And that is a substantial issue which I believe cost MS quite some
sales. For example, I cannot use any word processor unless it is able to
write files that can be read into '97 and 2000.
Didi
> sales. For example, I cannot use any word processor unless it is able to
> write files that can be read into '97 and 2000.
I could understand why one uses ms-word or sort of stuff to create or
edit
documents, but I really do not get it why one would use it for
communication.
Print the whole thing in .pdf format and be done with it?
Dimiter
------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments
http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
Joerg
>> And that is a substantial issue which I believe cost MS quite some
>> sales. For example, I cannot use any word processor unless it is able to
>> write files that can be read into '97 and 2000.
>
> I could understand why one uses ms-word or sort of stuff to create or
> edit
> documents, but I really do not get it why one would use it for
> communication.
> Print the whole thing in .pdf format and be done with it?
>
I usually do that. However, there are times when a larger group has to
collaborate on a project and in my cases the members are often thousands
of miles apart. Then you need an easily editable format where everyone
has the tools to edit. And that's the MS-Word format.
[...]
krw
notthis...@removethispacbell.net says...
> Didi wrote:
> >> And that is a substantial issue which I believe cost MS quite some
> >> sales. For example, I cannot use any word processor unless it is able to
> >> write files that can be read into '97 and 2000.
> >
> > I could understand why one uses ms-word or sort of stuff to create or
> > edit
> > documents, but I really do not get it why one would use it for
> > communication.
> > Print the whole thing in .pdf format and be done with it?
... and YOY does everyone want resumes in "word format"? PDFs are
perfect for this, but there is no arguing the point.
(and why can't I reply to your post?)
> I usually do that. However, there are times when a larger group has to
> collaborate on a project and in my cases the members are often thousands
> of miles apart. Then you need an easily editable format where everyone
> has the tools to edit. And that's the MS-Word format.
We used Frame for such things, but someone still has to own the
document or it gets hopelessly out of sync pretty fast.
--
Keith
Joerg
It sure would be. We usually do it like relay runners. Baton gets handed
off to SW guy and nobody else changes anything. He hands it over back to
me, then on to the process engineers etc.
Robert Adsett
> ... and YOY does everyone want resumes in "word format"? PDFs are
> perfect for this, but there is no arguing the point.
Their keyword extractors are built to parse Word (or are written in
VBA).
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
krw
@aeolusdevelopment.com says...
> In article <MPG.22255c32e...@news.individual.net>, krw says...
> > ... and YOY does everyone want resumes in "word format"? PDFs are
> > perfect for this, but there is no arguing the point.
>
> Their keyword extractors are built to parse Word (or are written in
> VBA).
I suppose. In one of the groups a while back someone claimed that
he'd gotten an interview for a job he wasn't qualified for because
he listed the language of interest as one he did NOT know. Maybe
there is a way to beat them at their own game. ;-)
--
Keith