Mike Raiford wrote:

> The newer Word format is supposedly more open. It's an XML-based format, 
> IIRC. I dunno what sort of proprietary stuff they've crammed into it, 
> though.

How about deliberately defining it in such a way that only Word itself 
can really "understand" what its content means?

XML is no magic bullet for instant portability...

> People complain that Windows is unstable. This was true up to ME. After 
> Windows XP hit the market, the NT Kernel went mainstream, and Windows 
> has been extremely stable ever since.

When XP first came out, it required insane amounts of resources and was 
hopelessly unstable. Over time they seem to have somehow fixed the 
stability issues; today XP is pretty stable. And... well, hardware as 
advanced so much that nobody *even notices* how much XP is wasting them.

Now look at Vista. I'm anticipating the same story all over again. Right 
now, you'd be insane to use Vista. It's just too flaky, and it's too 
expensive to construct a machine that's sufficiently high-end to run it 
even moderately well. Maybe in another 10 years it'll be OK...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message