🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:09:11 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>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 but the software is obsolete and difficult to use for many tasks since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.
>

I spent about 33 years in the IT world, and I don't like planned
obsolescence. Its stupid.