This is a discussion on Re: Why buy Microsoft Office? - Linux ; firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > I wouldn't call it stupid, it was a deliberate tactic by Microsoft to > force everyone to "upgrade" to their new incompatible-with-everything > format. I know what you mean: OpenOffice does the same thing with their .odt ...
> I wouldn't call it stupid, it was a deliberate tactic by Microsoft to
> force everyone to "upgrade" to their new incompatible-with-everything
I know what you mean: OpenOffice does the same thing with their .odt format,
that hardly anyone in the world can use.
> This was hit upon when Vista first came out, and of course
> all the trolls jumped up and down, saying, oh, but there *is* a way to
> save in the old formats!! Seems to be true,
What do you mean "seems to be"? Either there is or there isn't.
> but the point is that many (most) users don't know about it, and
> get screwed with their "trial" version of Office 2007.
Only dumbasses knowingly use a soon-to-expire trial version for their
production systems and documents, then whine that they can't have it for
free. hmmm... sounds like 90% of cola "advocates*".
> For Microsoft, it has the desired effect: Lock-in.
But you just said you could save as other formats? Make up your mind.
> Gee, you'd think a company with such good products wouldn't have to
> resort to tactics like this to keep people using them.
What tactic is that: upgrading their document formats and offering new
functionality to please customers?
> If all the alternatives like Linux are so crappy as DFS says, why don't
> they just
> let people judge products on their merits?
Everyone always has been and always will be free to judge Linux on its
merits. Those that have clearly found Linux wanting, since it's been free
its entire life yet hardly anyone uses it. Put a realistic price tag on
it - one you wacks think is fair - and watch it collect more dust.
"Embraced" Linux in 1997
Never Looked Back...Except
All I Can Talk About Is Microsoft