What Does it Mean Microsoft No Longer Supports VB?
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: MM on 29 Jan 2010 13:04 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:58:29 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Amazing. I believe we did it for free as a courtesy to new customers. Mind you, this was back in 1961 - 63. I think I used about a drum of underseal on a standard British car (we sold mainly Morris Minors and later the original Mini). MM
From: Ralph on 29 Jan 2010 13:13 Tom Shelton wrote: > On 2010-01-29, mayayana <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote: >> >> 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. I jumped from Office 2000 to Office 2007 just recently. It is still a love/hate relationship - I like many of the new features, but get damn annoyed as they seem to have 'moved stuff' just to aggravate me. (Some habits are tough to change.) As a consultant I often get drawn into discussions concerning products, and OpenOffice has finally grown to where can be seriously considered an alternative tool. I don't care for most open source products as business solutions, and thus deliver my standard elegant spiel concerning the glorious productivity advantages of Office. After which, quite satisfied and still basking in the warmth of my own eloquence, I wander out into the trenches - only to discover a mass of documents formatted with tabs and spaces. Pounds of printed material to be manually highlighted and re-entered into other docs and emails, to be subsquently cut 'n pasted or re-typed into something else ... so on, and so on. One can usually find a few people who actually use the products as intended, but over-all most shops could used WordPad and never notice. OpenOffice is a better WordPad. <g> -ralph
From: David Kerber on 29 Jan 2010 13:34 In article <u39H9oPoKHA.3948(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net says... > > 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. Have you tried the "extended" version of OO, called "Oxygen Office"? It has a lot more capability than the standard OO versions do, including support for the xml versions of MS Office docs (.docx, .xlsx, etc). D
From: mayayana on 29 Jan 2010 13:48 > > 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. > With customers like you, who needs marketing? I certainly expect a newer program to create files compatible with the older, when the file is specific to that program! As do most Word users. What I see personally is friends who have been intimidated into using and upgrading Office -- because everyone they know uses and upgrades Office. They have to type letters for work and Word allows them to format the letter as though it were done with stationery on a typewriter. For most people Word is just Notepad with swagger. I've already had several friends ask me about problems they've had getting Word docs from Word 2007 users. Neither person has any idea why the file can't be read by the recipient. They both use Word, after all! These are not people who download plug-ins. And even if they were, I just can't bring myself to seriously recommend that the recipient get a Word plug-in.....so that they can read Word files. :) And of course, that doesn't help the sender, who's going to run into the same problem with the next recipient. So it seems to make much more sense to explain to the sender how they can save their files in such a way that at least *many* people can read them -- and not only the people who've recently bought a new PC with MS Office on it.
From: Tom Shelton on 29 Jan 2010 15:25
On 2010-01-29, Ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Tom Shelton wrote: >> On 2010-01-29, mayayana <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > I jumped from Office 2000 to Office 2007 just recently. It is still a > love/hate relationship - I like many of the new features, but get damn > annoyed as they seem to have 'moved stuff' just to aggravate me. (Some > habits are tough to change.) > > As a consultant I often get drawn into discussions concerning products, and > OpenOffice has finally grown to where can be seriously considered an > alternative tool. I don't care for most open source products as business > solutions, and thus deliver my standard elegant spiel concerning the > glorious productivity advantages of Office. > > After which, quite satisfied and still basking in the warmth of my own > eloquence, I wander out into the trenches - only to discover a mass of > documents formatted with tabs and spaces. Pounds of printed material to be > manually highlighted and re-entered into other docs and emails, to be > subsquently cut 'n pasted or re-typed into something else ... so on, and > so on. One can usually find a few people who actually use the products as > intended, but over-all most shops could used WordPad and never notice. > > OpenOffice is a better WordPad. <g> > I agree. Like I said, OO is fine for basic stuff. I use it regularly on my Linux systems. -- Tom Shelton |