What Does it Mean Microsoft No Longer Supports VB?
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: mayayana on 29 Jan 2010 09:38 > Underseal. One of my first jobs.... I got that on a Toyota pickup in 1986 and drove it 239,000 miles with no rust problems -- in New England. In 2004 I needed a new truck. (Not because of rust. A teenager plowed into it while parked on a quiet street.) But I couldn't find anyone doing undercoating anymore. They used to push it with each vehicle sale, but apparently cars were just lasting too long. ...So that might be an example of planned obsolescence. I'm with you on Word '97. I don't use Office programs a lot and O.O. is plenty for me. I also don't want to add the extra security problems that MS Office brings. But if I did need Word I'd try to get '97. Last I saw it was $35 online. The only catch is that one has to explain to all of the Office 2007 users that no one can open their files unless they save them as .doc instead of .docx. That's another kind of planned obsolescence. Older versions of the very same program can't open the default file type! ("Oh, you don't see any file extension? Isn't that funny. OK, well, let's see if we can find Folder Options and fix that problem first...." :)
From: Tom Shelton on 29 Jan 2010 10:46 On 2010-01-29, mayayana <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote: > >> Underseal. One of my first jobs.... > > I got that on a Toyota pickup in 1986 and > drove it 239,000 miles with no rust problems -- > in New England. In 2004 I needed a new truck. > (Not because of rust. A teenager plowed into it > while parked on a quiet street.) But I couldn't > find anyone doing undercoating anymore. They > used to push it with each vehicle sale, but > apparently cars were just lasting too long. ...So > that might be an example of planned obsolescence. > > I'm with you on Word '97. I don't use Office > programs a lot and O.O. is plenty for me. O.O isn't bad for personal use - but, it sort of sucks for any but the most basic business use. While it can be scripted and automated, it's facilities are somewhat limited in comparaison to office. > I also > don't want to add the extra security problems that > MS Office brings. But if I did need Word I'd try to > get '97. 2003 at least for me. The ability generate documents as xml, and not worry about the binary formats is worth it. I believe office 2k and xp might have some support for it - but 2003 is when it really became practicle. In fact, I do some of that for work. It's really nice to be able to be able to generate documents without 3rd party components or automation on the server side... > Last I saw it was $35 online. The only > catch is that one has to explain to all of the Office > 2007 users that no one can open their files unless > they save them as .doc instead of .docx. That's another > kind of planned obsolescence. Older versions of the > very same program can't open the default file type! MS provides an add-in for reading docx for at least office 2003 (and I think XP). But, besides that, expecting an older program to read files generated from a newer version of that program seems a little silly to me. Personally, I use 2003. I might upgrade to 2010 - or I might not :) Office2k7 isn't bad - I just haven't really had a need to upgrade. -- Tom Shelton
From: C. Kevin Provance on 29 Jan 2010 11:10 | O.O isn't bad for personal use - but, it sort of sucks for any but the most | basic business use. While it can be scripted and automated, it's | facilities are somewhat limited in comparaison to office. Heh. Yeah, we never really expected MSFT evangelists to support OO is any significant way.
From: Ralph on 29 Jan 2010 11:58 mayayana wrote: >> Underseal. One of my first jobs.... > > I got that on a Toyota pickup in 1986 and > drove it 239,000 miles with no rust problems -- > in New England. In 2004 I needed a new truck. > (Not because of rust. A teenager plowed into it > while parked on a quiet street.) But I couldn't > find anyone doing undercoating anymore. They > used to push it with each vehicle sale, but > apparently cars were just lasting too long. ...So > that might be an example of planned obsolescence. > "Rust Proofing" became less common for a variety of reasons. Environmental controls, lawsuits, Mfg warranties, ..., all which led to dramatic cost increases (in both product and facilities), and basically because of improved 'corrosion resistance' in automotive products - a general lack of consumer demand. While "Rust Proofing" virtually disappeared as a dealer option there are many after-market companies still available in the US and Canada, but you will likely have to travel to find them. It is far more expensive - about $300-$500 per vehicle - due to the reasons cited above.
From: Ralph on 29 Jan 2010 12:24
Tom Shelton wrote: > On 2010-01-29, mayayana <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote: >> >>> Underseal. One of my first jobs.... >> >> I got that on a Toyota pickup in 1986 and >> drove it 239,000 miles with no rust problems -- >> in New England. In 2004 I needed a new truck. >> (Not because of rust. A teenager plowed into it >> while parked on a quiet street.) But I couldn't >> find anyone doing undercoating anymore. They >> used to push it with each vehicle sale, but >> apparently cars were just lasting too long. ...So >> that might be an example of planned obsolescence. >> >> I'm with you on Word '97. I don't use Office >> programs a lot and O.O. is plenty for me. > > O.O isn't bad for personal use - but, it sort of sucks for any but > the most basic business use. While it can be scripted and automated, > it's > facilities are somewhat limited in comparaison to office. > >> I also >> don't want to add the extra security problems that >> MS Office brings. But if I did need Word I'd try to >> get '97. > > 2003 at least for me. The ability generate documents as xml, and not > worry about the binary formats is worth it. I believe office 2k and > xp might have some support for it - but 2003 is when it really became > practicle. In fact, I do some of that for work. It's really nice > to be able to be able to generate documents without 3rd party > components or automation on the server side... > >> Last I saw it was $35 online. The only >> catch is that one has to explain to all of the Office >> 2007 users that no one can open their files unless >> they save them as .doc instead of .docx. That's another >> kind of planned obsolescence. Older versions of the >> very same program can't open the default file type! > > MS provides an add-in for reading docx for at least office 2003 (and I > think XP). But, besides that, expecting an older program to read > files generated from a newer version of that program seems a little > silly to me. > > Personally, I use 2003. I might upgrade to 2010 - or I might not :) > Office2k7 isn't bad - I just haven't really had a need to upgrade. |