Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:2519 comp.sys.mac.apps:1250
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!vali!man
From: man@vali.cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Norton Utils and Excel
Message-ID: <48037@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 23 Aug 90 14:32:52 GMT
References: <1538@ntmtv.UUCP> <679@dbase.A-T.COM> <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Reply-To: man@vali.cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine)
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 30

In article <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com>, boris@world.std.com
(Boris Levitin) writes:
|>Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain
|>users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software.  I understand
|>upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can 
|>fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features.
|>The computer industry is all about progress; it doesn't make sense to try to
|>freeze its development by refusing to take advantage of its new offerings.

That's easy.  I'm still using Excel 1.5 because
 (1) It's too expensive for me to upgrade to 2.2
 (2) Excel 1.5 does everything I need done
 (3) The _only_ features of 2.2 that I would find at all useful are the
file-handling functions (I read the whole manual which is more than
probably most owners of 2.2 can say).
 (4) There were reports that 2.2 did some things very slowly with
databases.  I use databases a lot and things are already slow enough,
thank you.
 (5) If and when MS comes out with another release of Excel that either
has things I want or that I'm sure won't set me back, I'll consider
buying another upgrade.  In my experience, most companies charge the
same amount for an upgrade no matter what previous version you're
upgrading from, so it's probably cheaper to leapfrog 2.2.

BTW, I've been using Excel 1.5 under MF with no problems.  I just always
start it first if I'm going to use it.

	--Mark