Invisible wrote:
> unecessarily complicated, 

That kind of depends on whether you need the complicated bits, don't you 
think? The opposite of "unnecessarily complicated" is "lacking features."

> poorly documented, 

MS has some of the best documentation out there, and they teach classes in 
using their stuff. Just because you never learned it doesn't mean it isn't 
out there.

> resource-inefficient, 

Somewhat, but what are you comparing it to?  How resource-efficient *you* 
could make it if you didn't have any commercial constraints?

> insecure, 

Somewhat. Much of that is due to people not installing patches or people not 
using the system as designed.

> Let's suppose that a particular Word document is corrupted. Why should 
> that make Word crash? Shouldn't it just pop up a message saying "I can't 
> read this file, it seems to be corrupted"? Isn't that what "graceful 
> failure" is all about? But no, Word just crashes outright.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If it's corrupted in a way that's 
hard to check, it crashes, because if it didn't, you'd be using up even 
*more* resources to be doing the checking. See?

> I opened the same file in OpenOffice, and it just opened up as if there 
> was nothing wrong with it. I saved it again, and it has worked in Word 
> ever since.

It probably deleted whatever it was that was confusing Office.

> Why is it that Word, a premium product designed and produced by the 
> richest software company on earth, cannot do something that OpenOffice 
> can? 

Why is it that OpenOffice can't do something that Word can?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message