Ken Springer wrote:
On 5/22/15 10:29 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
I know that folks can run software on non-standard OSes. The
question is, is it worth it (The answer is already determined by the
marketplace)?

In those days, the Atari file format and the PC file format for Word
Perfect were the same.

That is because it was the same program!

The Mac format wasn't, because the Mac format
had graphic capabilities the PC couldn't do.

Not so, by a long shot. I was doing graphics using PCs long before the Mac
was introduced, and when it was, it used the established graphic file
formats. The difference was that the Mac used "little endian" coding and
forked file formats, so its files couldn't be read by PCs unless one had a
translator. But, even those existed.

On one hand the file format is always the issue. Many people are
willing to use software that can read another app's format and save
a file in that format. The problem is, this only works for
elementary-level work and screws up anything else. Businesses are
not going to go through that, and one great way to lose a customer
is to screw up their file after you edit it.

The problem is likely to be the proprietary file format that is the
problem. If everyone switched to the same file format, and followed
the rules for that format, I don't see where there would be a
problem. But that doesn't include the issues that arise due to buggy
software.

Proprietary file formats aren't going to go away. People want apps with the
capability to do a complete job with their tasks, even when those tasks are
unreasonable. A few years ago, I resolved an issue that a company using
MS-Word got into when they created a 700+ page instruction manual with
graphics, charts, etc. That is the wrong app for that job, but if one knows
Word's quirks, it can be done, and it cost them less for me to "fix" it than
to convert it to Ventura or FrameMaker. OTOH, trying to do those documents
with an open format, such as SGML or XML would be a real PITA, because those
formats have serious limitations.

If you're the last step in the process, no problem. But, if it's an
interactive process, forget it (see above).

IMO, an interactive process shouldn't be a problem either. Rather
than having X number of people return X number of files all in
.doc/.docx file format, just have them use the annotation function of
the a PDF reader, and return the annotated PDF. Then, you have only
one .doc/.docx file to combine the edits in.

If the document has any sophisticated formatting, forget it. That isn't the
intended use of PDFs, and only works with very elementary layouts.

History shows that
the PC was and still is the winning concept for professionals, so
it's hard to argue that it wasn't a deserved outcome.

I don't think you are on solid ground by saying the PC is the
winning concept. Today, it's the only concept.

The last one standing is a good definition of winning, AFAICT.

But on what basis did you become the last one standing? If it's on
the merits of your product, then I agree. But if you got there by
breaking agreements and MS broke many and lost in court, or the other
guys were badly managed, underfunded, whatever, then you didn't
become the last one standing because of a superior product.

Everything you mentioned are the dynamics of the marketplace. Just as Apple
tried to sue MS for having a GUI in Windows when they ripped it off from
PARC in the forst place, or has "patented" rectangles and sued Samsung for
having rectangular phones, it's all a catfight.

I think if computer users in general were more knowledgeable, MS
wouldn't have it as easy as they do.

That's a tough speculation to supportn with facts.

I don't know how you would ever devise a method of testing this. But
I know, based on simply talking with people, that once their
knowledge has been increased about the options, You can see the light
bulbs go on. G The simple fact is, a lot of people think they need
MS Office, when the truth is for what they are going to try to do, it
can be done with less expensive and even free software. Not to
mention, a lot of these folks may have better places to spend their
money than on MS software.

I agree that most people's needs don't exceed open-source capabilities, but
there are other things to consider. I gave one of my customers with very
basic needs OpenOffice, which he tried for about a year but wound up buying
MS-Office because he already knew how to use it. In short, OO stumped him
from doing his work because of poor and inaccurate documentation. As for the
cost, what is more expensive, spending a couple hundred once, or spending
many hours in perpetuity trying to accomplish what you already knew how to
do in another program? I think one needs to be much more knowledgable to
work around unexpected, undocumented bugs in open-source than to use
software that just works as intended. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil