Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
 > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 09:31:03AM -0800, paul beard wrote:
 >
 >
 >> Windows apps, like it or not, offer lots of functionality
 >> that is lost in a pure ASCII world, and the open source
 >> alternatives have yet to catch up. Unlikely they ever will
 >> . . . . .
 >>
 >
 > How much of that "functionality" is truly useful though?
 >
 > Typical of what I see people do is waste perhaps hours
 > changing their fonts and colors on a memo I could type and
 > print in minutes, if not seconds.

there's more to it than that. Say I write a document or report as
text or a spreadsheet. The boss wants it, not to look at, but to
incorporate into something else. Suppose I have lots of formulas
and other esoterica . . . .

 > Nothing wrong with some enhancements, but most of these
 > "features" have little to do with actually producing and
 > using words and numbers.

no one will argue there's a bit of feature creep in the office
suite ;-) and yes, I think Word 4 (circa 1987 or so) had all the
features I ever needed and still fit on a floppy.

 > I have worked in Microsoft-only offics and *still* had massive 
troubles
 > with document interchange, using nothing but Office. Their
 > own products aren't compatible with themselves sometimes.
 >
cf another message in this thread on using features as upgrade
bait, rather than actual enhancements or bug fixes. You got WIN95, 
98, 2K, XP, ME, NT, all playing together . . . . whattamess.

-- 
Paul Beard
8040 27th Ave NE
Seattle WA 98115
206 529 8400

One reason why George Washington
Is held in such veneration:
He never blamed his problems
On the former Administration.
		-- George O. Ludcke