I hate sodding Windows XP and I hate PCs
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Elliott Roper on 21 May 2010 07:57 In article <timstreater-7168F5.12363421052010(a)news.individual.net>, Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article <210520101219024721%nospam(a)yrl.co.uk>, > Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: <snip> > > Office 2008 is utterly broken anyway. I keep an old 2004 for the rare > > document that Pages or Numbers can't handle. Y'know, like VBA macros > > they threw out with the bathwater in 2008? > > I thought the VBA stuff was because of the awful way it had been done? > Something to do with they were emulating the 68000 inside the PowerPC > and it would have been a pig's breakfast to make *that* be emulated > under Intel. I dunno, sounded like something to avoid. From what I could learn from blogs and other non-NDA sources, that's pretty much the colour of the bathwater. They were previously in CodeWarrior which had some magic for keeping Windows and Mac stuff aligned. The VBA was brute forced from early Windows via CodeWarrior. The one thing that was not chucked out in the move to Xcode was the name. They did not have time to rewrite the VBA without calling it Office 2009. At the time, it was unclear whether VBA on Windows had a future. VB.NET was flavour of the month. VBA's return is promised in the next one. > I find Word (even the 2008 one although it seems v. slow to me) works > reasonably well for smallish documents. And the alternative means > getting SWMBO to change. Word is actually quite good at very large single documents too. John McGhie, one of the last of the old time microsoft.public.mac.office.word denizens maintains dozens of > 2000 page tech docs for a living. He likes the ribbon. But he's argumentative and a curmudgeon to boot. He also has the greatest Word skills of all -- knowing which 'features' to avoid. -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Sak Wathanasin on 21 May 2010 08:05 On 21 May, 10:49, Jim <j...(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > It's very much a 'love it or loath it' type thing. I'm firmly in the 'loath > it' camp. Yeah, they take up so much screen space and creates clutter everwhere. First thing I do if I'm forced to use a fresh copy of Word or Excel, is to remove them all. Except that in the latest version of Excel (2008 for Mac), the "sheets, charts &c" menubar can't be removed (or is there some hack that will get rid of it)? What is the point of having a "sheet" menu that replicates the function of the "sheets" tab at the bottom of the window?
From: Bruce Horrocks on 21 May 2010 08:29 On 21/05/2010 10:15, Chris Ridd wrote: >> Erm, Windows came out in 1985, but was really rubbish - did anyone >> actually use V1.0? > > I had to use Windows/386 a bit, which Wikipedia reckons was Windows 2.1. > 1.0 must have been *really* bad. I had the joy, once, of spending about 3 weeks trying to see if it was possible to program a GUI interface to the relational database that we were using at the time. The machine was a Compaq stuffed with *2MBytes* of extended memory, which was 'awesome' for the time. Needless to say it never worked - something to do with the RDBMS drivers expecting to be in High Memory and Windows shifting the drivers out of there into extended memory and then failing to emulate it properly, or some such. Oh the pleasures of developing under DOS. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Chris Ridd on 21 May 2010 09:02 On 2010-05-21 13:29:06 +0100, Bruce Horrocks said: > On 21/05/2010 10:15, Chris Ridd wrote: >>> Erm, Windows came out in 1985, but was really rubbish - did anyone >>> actually use V1.0? >> >> I had to use Windows/386 a bit, which Wikipedia reckons was Windows 2.1. >> 1.0 must have been *really* bad. > > I had the joy, once, of spending about 3 weeks trying to see if it was > possible to program a GUI interface to the relational database that we > were using at the time. The machine was a Compaq stuffed with *2MBytes* > of extended memory, which was 'awesome' for the time. Needless to say > it never worked - something to do with the RDBMS drivers expecting to > be in High Memory and Windows shifting the drivers out of there into > extended memory and then failing to emulate it properly, or some such. > Oh the pleasures of developing under DOS. Yep, that all sounds familiar. Editing config.sys to maximize some portion of memory to do something? The odd folks I worked with at the time booted up Windows/386 just to run PageMaker (I think), and then shut it down after. -- Chris
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 May 2010 09:04
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > On 21/05/2010 11:12, Andy Hewitt wrote: > > Jim<jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: [..] > > Yeah, it's one of those things that just didn't need fixing, IMHO. > > I am in the unique 'I don't mind it' catagory. > > But then I don't use office much, and when I do I use the 10% that is > easy enough to get from the ribbon! I find I either use the 2% that was in the old toolbar, or I need something obscure that's not in any of the toolbars/ribbons. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> |