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?

However, having open Open Office installed doesn't mean I use it. Anymore
than I use Internet Explorer which is also installed.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"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.

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.

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.

For some reason Bill forgot to mention buying from charity shops,
or thrifts, as I think they're known over there, in his letter
to the Homebrew Computer Club. So I consider my conscience
to be clear on that score.


However, having open Open Office installed doesn't mean I use it.

Anymore
than I use Internet Explorer which is also installed.

Well yes. But if Open Office was included with bundled software on a
machine you bought the fact remains that the only reason it was
bundled was because it was free. As it is, larger manufacturers only
pay a fraction of retail to bundle OEM Microsoft Office in
any case.

michael adams

....

On 09/03/2018 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

I pay for office 365.. where else can you get 5 Terabytes of online
storage for ~£50 a year? My Synology NAS synchronizes an encrypted
backup to my one drive as an extra backup that's well and truly off site.

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 ;-)

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Are you sticking with your view that 80% of Windows users are happy to
pay extra for Word?

The 80% figure is an approximation.

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.

Except if they wish to exchange files, of course. ;-)

For office use a figure of 85% has been suggested

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

covering versions going back to 2003.

I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format. Plenty of ways of sending a
document which can be read by any computer.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/03/18 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format.

To attempt a phishing attack. They got you to click the link, so were
halfway there. Only the fact that your system lacked the vulnerability
spared you further embarrassment.

On 09/03/18 19:52, Richard wrote:
On 09/03/18 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format.

To attempt a phishing attack. They got you to click the link, so were
halfway there. Only the fact that your system lacked the vulnerability
spared you further embarrassment.

Its very like the New Left

Get you to vote on something that sueprficially looks reasonable - Germy
Corbyn - and then rob you blind.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 09/03/2018 12:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2018 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* 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?

I pay for office 365.. where else can you get 5 Terabytes of online
storage for ~£50 a year? My Synology NAS synchronizes an encrypted
backup to my one drive as an extra backup that's well and truly off site.

5TB *mailbox*, 1 TB storage. Which isn't actually that bad.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 09/03/18 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format.

To attempt a phishing attack.

I'd moved on from the subject of this tread. Do try and keep up.


They got you to click the link, so were
halfway there. Only the fact that your system lacked the vulnerability
spared you further embarrassment.

Think even I might have got suspicious if I used Word and found a delivery
company wanting to alter it against warnings.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/03/18 00:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 09/03/18 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format.

To attempt a phishing attack.

I'd moved on from the subject of this tread. Do try and keep up.


They got you to click the link, so were
halfway there. Only the fact that your system lacked the vulnerability
spared you further embarrassment.

Think even I might have got suspicious if I used Word and found a delivery
company wanting to alter it against warnings.


Yet you chose to attack DPD in your initial post?

In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 10/03/18 00:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 09/03/18 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format.

To attempt a phishing attack.

I'd moved on from the subject of this tread. Do try and keep up.


They got you to click the link, so were
halfway there. Only the fact that your system lacked the vulnerability
spared you further embarrassment.

Think even I might have got suspicious if I used Word and found a
delivery company wanting to alter it against warnings.


Yet you chose to attack DPD in your initial post?

You a shareholder then? Or suddenly terribly concerned about hurting
feelings?

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/03/18 11:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 10/03/18 00:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 09/03/18 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format.

To attempt a phishing attack.

I'd moved on from the subject of this tread. Do try and keep up.


They got you to click the link, so were
halfway there. Only the fact that your system lacked the vulnerability
spared you further embarrassment.

Think even I might have got suspicious if I used Word and found a
delivery company wanting to alter it against warnings.


Yet you chose to attack DPD in your initial post?

You a shareholder then? Or suddenly terribly concerned about hurting
feelings?

Not a shareholder. Simply outing you for being disingenuous.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
Yet you chose to attack DPD in your initial post?

You a shareholder then? Or suddenly terribly concerned about hurting
feelings?

Not a shareholder. Simply outing you for being disingenuous.

You've not read and understood this tread then? That it was a con?
Perhaps you think the likes of DPD hang on your every word and deserve an
apology?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 09/03/18 13:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't have an office. So don't see why anyone would wish to send me
anything which uses a proprietary file format.

To attempt a phishing attack.

I'd moved on from the subject of this tread. Do try and keep up.


They got you to click the link, so were
halfway there. Only the fact that your system lacked the vulnerability
spared you further embarrassment.

Think even I might have got suspicious if I used Word and found a delivery
company wanting to alter it against warnings.


People are too used to clicking on dire warnings several times when they
install most things on Windows or run anything with Java for such
warnings to even impinge upon their consciousness.


--

Roger Hayter

On 10/03/18 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
Yet you chose to attack DPD in your initial post?

You a shareholder then? Or suddenly terribly concerned about hurting
feelings?

Not a shareholder. Simply outing you for being disingenuous.

You've not read and understood this tread then? That it was a con?
Perhaps you think the likes of DPD hang on your every word and deserve an
apology?

Thread.
I responded early on to your initial bitchy whiney post, requesting the
link. It was obvious to anyone (almost) that it was a phishing attempt.