Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 10:18 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:43:37 -0400, in <4c31d39a$1$5540$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:8lm236hdsfndajg990mvg9ri1978r4hcm2(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:39:52 -0400, in >> <4c315766$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:040720102018323649%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>>> In article <hui236di9v843di1gqnothhfo3nvjd4pke(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >>>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >MS had superior marketing and >>>>> >developer support. When sn ISV can purchase a product for less from a >>>>> >discount retailer than from the pulisher, do you really think the ISV >>>>> >is >>>>> >going to stick with that publisher. >>>>> >>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus. >>>> >>>> in many ways it was much better than microsoft and was (and still is) >>>> popular for legal documents. >> >> Simply not true. > >I am not taking your bait. I have already stat4ed why wordPerfect is >superior to Word. You made a sweeping claim. My own claim is that proper templates and macros, coupled with a better user interface and integration with Windows, make Word more capable and suitable than WordPerfect for legal work. >I will also add two more reasons: total ease with >backward compatibility and Dragon worked well with it, from version 1.. Neither is an advantage for WordPerfect over Word IMHO. >OTOH >you have not demonstrated anything, except to pontificate "pissing contest" >statements. Neither of us will prove anything here by what we write, where there are no open minds to change. All we can do is state our own opinions, in whatever detail we wish and have time for, neither of which is better than the other. I stand by my long experience in the legal community. You stand by your experience. And there we have it. No call for any discourtesy. -- John <http:/navasgroup.com> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
From: J. Clarke on 5 Jul 2010 10:28 On 7/5/2010 12:16 AM, John Navas wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:04:16 -0400, in > <4c315a05$0$5553$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >> "John Navas"<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >> news:08l236t9rgqgmsnurp8ti4pakbfi8k5vdi(a)4ax.com... > >>> Many of both. Word primarily in enterprise environments. >>> WordPerfect primarily in legal environments. >>> Programming in supported languages (macro and procedural). >> >> And you didn't find WordPerfect superior to Word? > > 'Fraid not, especially the printer drivers. I was a fan of Word almost > from the get go (copy of v1 I got at the [now sorely missed] West Coast > Computer Faire). > >> You didn't feel short changed by Novel's and later Corel's support policies? > > Now that I did! > >>> FWIW, my personal old favorite was Multiplan. >> >> I had forgotten about that. IIRC didn't it morph into Excel. > > They're really quite different. Multiplan was orphaned once Excel took > off. I stubbornly held on for a number of years, but eventually gave > up. Excel was originally Microsoft's Mac spreadsheet, got ported to Windows. >
From: J. Clarke on 5 Jul 2010 10:05 On 7/5/2010 12:21 AM, nospam wrote: > In article<8lm236hdsfndajg990mvg9ri1978r4hcm2(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:39:52 -0400, in >> <4c315766$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>> "nospam"<nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:040720102018323649%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>>> In article<hui236di9v843di1gqnothhfo3nvjd4pke(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >>>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> MS had superior marketing and >>>>>> developer support. When sn ISV can purchase a product for less from a >>>>>> discount retailer than from the pulisher, do you really think the ISV is >>>>>> going to stick with that publisher. >>>>> >>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus. >>>> >>>> in many ways it was much better than microsoft and was (and still is) >>>> popular for legal documents. >> >> Simply not true. > > maybe for you but not for others. > >>> Most law firms I know have switched to the dark side. >> >> True. WordPerfect let the market get away. > > more like microsoft steamrolled it. > >>>>> But the big issue was simply that it didn't keep up, >>>>> and Word for Windows killed it. >>>> >>>> actually, microsoft's predatory business tactics is what killed it. >> >> Nope, it lost in the market. > > due to predatory tactics, not features. It lost the market because WPCorp couldn't get a decent Windows version out in a timely manner. Lotus made the same blunder. One could equally argue that Lotus and WPCorp took the market from Visicorp and Wordstar by "predatory tactics". >>> You somehow made my statements look like Navas's. >>> >>> Notwithstanding that, the original WordPerfect for Windows was poorly >>> developed. It had no real functionality on a network. This was just after >>> the product was sold to Novel. I went to PC Expo and complained abut the >>> bug. the "experts" from Novel said they could not duplicate my finding. With >>> their permission I demonstrated two bugs and it took them several hours to >>> recover from the "non-existent bugs." Meanwhile, MS was supplying free >>> copies of Word to legal secretarial school students and almost anyone, >>> especially IT professionals, who asked. >> >> Yep. Dismal marketing versus excellent marketing. > > nope. Yep. Microsoft knows how to sell stuff. They're good at it. You call it "predatory marketing" but the rest of the world just calls it "marketing".
From: J. Clarke on 5 Jul 2010 10:11 On 7/5/2010 12:12 AM, tony cooper wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:04:16 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>>>> WordPerfect wasn't as good as Microsoft, but was better than Lotus. >> >> Lotus was never intended to be a word processor. > > That statement jarred me, but I think he was thinking about Lotus's > dedicated word processing module. Was it Lotus Notes? At one time I > had "SmartSuite" and I think it had a word processing module. The > spreadsheet module is "Lotus 1-2-3" (which I still use). There was Lotus Manuscript, which I tried to look at but the question was how the laser printer output looked and Lotus disabled printing in the demo version and the authorized Lotus dealer didn't have a live copy set up. The authorized Microsoft dealer, however, did have a live copy of Word set up and I was able to test it and found out that it did what I needed. The product in SmartSuite is "Word Pro" which I've never actually seen in any form.
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 11:38
In article <i0sqdt11an1(a)news5.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > Yep. Microsoft knows how to sell stuff. They're good at it. like the kin phone? :) > You call > it "predatory marketing" but the rest of the world just calls it > "marketing". actually the courts are the ones who called it predatory, along with being an abusive monopoly, after examining the evidence. |