Philip Arndt wrote: > Don't you think they have the right to release a document format that > isn't backward compatible after about 10 years with the other one?
Of course I think they have the right to piss off users. In fact as a supporter of FOSS I fully support them doing as much as they can to piss off as many users as they can as fast as they can. > I believe it allows them to add in numerous amounts of additional > features and signify to the user 'you need this version to run this'. Wa wa wa... It would not be hard to write code that saves the document in the most backwards compatible format. I've had a number of DOCX documents sent to be that could have been saved in Doc Version 1. Sure, I understand you need to update the format to allow for new features. But why not make the software save documents in the most compatible format by default? > Ever experienced the pain of trying to run a .doc in word 97 when it > was created in 2003 and not saved "for 97" with nothing to give it > away other than trying to open it and failing? The .docx extension > would have been useful here! Now you're talking about a naming thing. I do agree, should have done .d97, .d2k, .d23, .d27 Or even better... .ODF > Happens with other products, but as soon as Microsoft do something, > they're "evil" I guess?? Evil? I never said they were evil... just bloody annoying! Cheers Don --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
