🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:50:28 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:35:38 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> >> However you talk about your "old PC physically works reasonably well
> >> >> but the software is obsolete and difficult to use for many tasks since
> >> >> it is no longer compatible".  With what is it not compatible that is
> >> >> causing you problems?
> >> >
> >> >My MS-Word and Internet Explorer have a difficult time today.
> >> >
> >> >For instance, I send Word documents to friends.  They could only
> >> >open it as Read-Only due to the old version.  They could not get
> >> >around that restriction without going to a lot of trouble.  
> >> 
> >> I don't see how that makes the software more difficult to use than it
> >> was when you first got it.  It makes data interchange more difficult,
> >> however Word supports a wide range of formats with more added with
> >> every version.
> >
> >As mentioned, the latest MS-WORD gives trouble when faced with
> >a document produced by old versions of WORD.  You can get around
> >it, but it's a pain.  In some corporate environments, you cannot
> >get around it due to security restrictions.
> >
> >In one transfer, the new WORD screwed up the pagination, and I
> >had to waste time tinkering with the margins and other settings
> >to get the pages to fit properly for printing.
> >
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> >As someone mentioned, I now use plain text files.  But things
> >> >like italics and boldface get lost.  It's impossible to send
> >> >a more formal document with headings and pagination.
> >> 
> >> I just tried saving a document in RTF format in Word for MS-DOS 5.5.
> >> Word for MS-DOS can't show formatting except as a color change.  When
> >> I opened the document with the latest version of Word, it came right
> >> up with bold, italic, bold italic, and underline right where they were
> >> supposed to be, looking much better than in Word for MS-DOS.
> >> 
> >> There is formatting that can be done with Word that won't carry
> >> through to an RTF but for basic stuff of this nature it's fine.
> >
> >Personally, I haven't had good luck with RTF.
> >
> > 
> >> >As to the Internet, more and more websites no longer operate
> >> >on my browser.
> >> 
> >> So have you installed Firefox or Chrome?  More and more web sites
> >> don't work on ANY Microsoft browser you know.
> >
> >I am seeing fewer and fewer websites working with my PC.
> >Unfortunately, Firefox didn't run well on my PC.
> >
> >The reality is that today's computer business does not like
> >old software or old hardware.  "They" keep introducing
> >incompatibilities forcing end users to upgrade, even if
> >their existing machines run just fine in isolation.
> 
> How old is your machine and what OS are you using?
> 
> >I know a fellow who runs an old version of LOTUS.  For himself,
> >it works just fine.  But he no longer can send his spreadsheets
> >to anyone else.  At one time Excel was able to read old LOTUS.
> >No more.
> 
> I can't see anyone in his right mind who has used a modern spreadsheet
> wanting to use "an old version of Lotus". It runs on my current
> machine just fine, but it's horribly limited.

It does everything my friend needs it to do.  Given that, why
should he be forced to upgrade?

My old MS-Word does everything I could ever want in a word processor.
But obviously M/S isn't happy about that--they're not getting any
new revenue from me.  So by planned obsolescence--which the I.T.
community eagerly embraces--I'm forced to upgrade.  Not only that,
but I understand the latest word is only licensed, not purchased,
so I'll have to pay rent for years.  No more "home version" (e.g.
Microsoft Works).  Plus, I don't think my old existing copy of
MS-Works will work on a new machine.