Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Word 3.0 for the mac Press Release
Message-ID: <1287@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Fri, 14-Nov-86 02:26:40 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1287
Posted: Fri Nov 14 02:26:40 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Nov-86 06:08:17 EST
References: <9087@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Distribution: net
Organization: Centram Systems, Berkeley
Lines: 25

Word 3.0 sounds great in most ways, but there is a major blunder in the PC
compatibility.  A conversion utility is just not good enough!  File transfer
is the past.  Transparent file access is the present and the future.

Microsoft Excel is a lovely program largely because it understands the Lotus
1-2-3 file format directly.  No conversion utility is needed.  This allows a
database to be shared between Mac and PC users over a transparent remote
file system, like TOPS, NFS, RFS, etc.  If a conversion step were required,
only Mac users or only PC users could access the database.  Why didn't
Microsoft follow the same philosophy with Word as they did with Excel?

They didn't have to use a common Mac and PC file format, just make each
program capable of understanding the other's format.  If the programs are as
similar as Microsoft is claiming, this should have been straightforward.
But programmers just are not making the conceptual leap to multiple-vendor
low-end workstation networks very fast, even though this is obviously
becoming the usual configuration at most schools and businesses.

Okay, okay, so I'm flaming.  Just don't get me started on microcomputer
programs that use fixed temp file names and configuration files in the same
directory as the program....
-- 
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)