 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>> "numbered lists never work correctly".
>
> They don't? Please explain more.
If you write a brand new document, and happen to insert a numbered list
into it somewhere, it usually works fine. As soon as you try to do
anything more complex, bizare behaviour results. Lists magically change
themselves from bullet to numbered, or continue from lists elsewhere in
the document, and when you try to reset them to start from zero, they
either don't reset, or they reset but yet other parts of the document go
wrong. And occasionally, the whole formatting of a section can go wrong.
I've even seen bits of deleted text reappear overprinted on top of body
text...
> btw, if you have a bug to report or a suggestion on an MS product, you can
> log it at http://connect.microsoft.com
> Anything posted there goes directly to the relevant product development
> team.
The Word MVP website has an entire *section* dedicated to this
particular issue:
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Numbering/WordsNumberingExplained.htm
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> And did anyone look up the KB or the MS groups to see whether there were
> some issues with those particular features? I've been using Office heavily
> for a long time now, and one good thing is that it's so massively used that
> the tiniest issues are documented (*). At worse, they're a terse message in
> the KB saying "we know there's a problem there but don't have a solution
> yet" but major stuff like crashes tend to be documented and fixed.
As you probably know, it's frustratingly difficult to track down
*exactly* what causes intermittent bugs such as "Word sometimes crashes
if I use this template file".
> As I
> said, Word from the 2000 version onward is stable now, if it doesn't work
> properly there's something fishy on your end. And yes, at least make sure
> that you have the latest service packs.
Well AFAIK all the Office 2003 machines are at a minimum of SR2 right
now. I could see if SR3 makes any difference, but with intermittent
problems you can never truly know if it's "fixed" or not...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> I don't think I've ever had Word crash on me.
You're lucky. In year 1 at uni, Word "ate" my assignment 3 hours before
the handin deadline. (As in, the file would open, but it became
impossible to save any modifications. Word *insisted* the disk was full,
when in fact it wasn't.) From that point on, I wrote every single
assignment in HTML instead. That's how ****ed off I was about it!
Even today, Word still sometimes does strange things to me - usually to
do with formatting not working right, or spurios text duplication. I
don't use Word very much, so I never see it actually *crash*. The report
writers do though. Not quite as much as in Word 97, but it still happens
now and then.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Don't think I've ever seen Excel crash - or any other element of Office,
> just Word.
If you do sufficiently funky stuff with it, it can get ugly. (By
sufficiently funky, I mean things like adjusting the formulas and
display options based on the values stored in an external SQL database,
say.)
> (BTW, did you ever see the flight simulator?)
I think I might have, once.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> bluescreen and shutdown more than once (it's in dire need of a reinstall).
I had one coworker with an install so screwed up he'd get Yellow Screen
Of Death (with light-grey text) whenever he tried to log out. But then,
he ran all kinds of pirated crap and weird amateur device drivers on it,
so I'm not surprised he had to reinstall every couple years.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:487f6620@news.povray.org...
>>> Presumably Word crashes like hell for everybody else too,
>>
>> No.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that there are people for whom Word doesn't
> crash?
yes, it doesn't crash for me, in fact I haven't had it crash for me in
*years*.
HTH
Cheers Dre
<snip>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you write a brand new document, and happen to insert a numbered list
> into it somewhere, it usually works fine. As soon as you try to do
> anything more complex, bizare behaviour results.
Either turn off the array of auto-numbering options within Word, or learn
how they work. Once you know how they work it's easy to understand what
Word is doing, and more importantly what you need to do to get things to
look the way you want (when that's different from what the auto options
think you want!).
At least in recent versions of Word, whenever it changes something for you,
you *always* get that little icon that gives you the chance to "don't ever
do what you just did again" or "ok undo what you just did, but do it again
later if you want". Very handy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:23:34 +0100, Gilles Tran
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> did spake, saying:
> At worse, they're a terse message in the KB saying "we know there's a
> problem
> there but don't have a solution yet"
Or much more helpfully 'We know there's a problem and we've fixed it in
the new version; go and buy that'
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:30:14 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake, saying:
>> Yeah, I'm reading about it now. (Hmm, I guess I'm not the only person
>> who still thinks 512 MB RAM is a lot. ;-)
>
> For a games console it's probably enough. What do you hold in RAM
> during a game? All the 3D meshes and textures are on the GPU video
> memory only*. Probably only the code, collision meshes, map data? And
> the PS3 OS is vastly simpler than Windows, so I doubt that uses up much
> RAM.
Yeah all you've got is an OS that can have multiple users; reads/writes to
a hard drive; works with multiple USB devices; shows pictures, plays
music, videos, and games; communicates via Bluetooth and a wired/wireless
TCP/IP connection; and comes with an internet browser.
Completely different to what Windows does :-P
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yeah all you've got is an OS that can have multiple users; reads/writes to
> a hard drive; works with multiple USB devices; shows pictures, plays
> music, videos, and games; communicates via Bluetooth and a wired/wireless
> TCP/IP connection; and comes with an internet browser.
>
> Completely different to what Windows does :-P
Actually that sounds like my phone, and that has something like 35MB RAM ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
