On Friday, 9 March 2018 12:28:19 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Only because you're one of the circa 20% who don't have "Word"
installed. Presumably they're not too bothered about missing
out on the odd skinflint, here and there.

Why do you say it's being a skinflint not buying a prog I've no need
for? If I'd ever found I needed it, I'd have bought it.

Thought you'd have realised that by my first post. ;-)

Exactly the opposite. In your first post you explain

" Not Open Office or Libra Office - only Microsoft Office."

Implying that you use either Open Office or Libra Office.
Or both.

Are you sticking with your view that 80% of Windows users are happy to pay
extra for Word?

The 80% figure is an approximation.

Then define happy ;-)


The point to bear in mind is that this covers all versions of Word
some going quite a way back. There's never been a requirement for
users to constantly update to the latest version.

There is when new versions aren't completely compatable with older versions..


For office use a figure of 85% has been suggested

https://www.networkworld.com/article...ogle-docs.html

covering versions going back to 2003.

Where home use is concerned, later OEM versions of Microsoft Works
the dumbed down version of Office which was often bundled with
Windows on new machines, all included "Word".

I happen to know that all the components of Office 95, Excel etc work
perfectly fine in XP. Providing you don't need to swap files.

While if I ever feel pressing need to upgrade there's always my
student and teacher edition of Office 2003, bought new and sealed
from a charity shop for £1.

you were ripped off ;-)