Help for Neighbor?

I wasn't talking specifically about corporate use, although that is
important for setting default standards of file sharing too.

PDF is the new standard.

If you're not producing documents with MS-Office (or
possibly Frame) you will find a lot of push-back in the real world
when you come to exchange or edit them co-operatively.

Not body ever really cared about what processor was used and it has
always been the document format for which .doc was the default standard
from the early days.

Since MS broke its own file comparability since Office 2007 and more
readily available PDF editor, PDF format is the fast rising corporate
format plus it can be securely locked and signed.

You can use Word or any other processor to do it, nobody care. Fanboys
care about "which brand" while the rest of world care about get things
done, one way or the other.

As this is a
windows-8 group I don't think people here would mind spending silly
money on software to do the job.

Money is not a subject but stupidity is, and the most intelligent and
professional approach is to spend the least amount of money to achieve
the maximum output and quality, instead of --- blindly following a brand.



On 8/4/2013 18:43, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 19:28:23 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:



For me, when I come out of my cave, I find people other than
those in the corporate environment. Each and every situation is
unique, so it's impossible to ever make general statements any
more, even in a corporate environment.

As I noted in another post, my observations are not limited to
the corporate world.

What is the standard for you may not be the standard for the
person next to you.

I wasn't talking specifically about corporate use, although that is
important for setting default standards of file sharing too. If
you're happy with Abiword or some other toy word processor good luck
to you. If you're not producing documents with MS-Office (or
possibly Frame) you will find a lot of push-back in the real world
when you come to exchange or edit them co-operatively. As this is a
windows-8 group I don't think people here would mind spending silly
money on software to do the job.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:41:26 +0800, xfile wrote:

Not body ever really cared about what processor was used and it has
always been the document format


Yes, I agree.


for which .doc was the default standard from the early days.


But I don't agree with that. The WordPerfect .wpd format was much more
of a standard until around 1993. In 1993 WordPerfect 6.0 came out and
it was unfortunately a bug-laden version that drove many users away
from it.


--
Ken Blake

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:00:29 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:41:26 +0800, xfile wrote:

Not body ever really cared about what processor was used and it has
always been the document format


Yes, I agree.


for which .doc was the default standard from the early days.


But I don't agree with that. The WordPerfect .wpd format was much more
of a standard until around 1993. In 1993 WordPerfect 6.0 came out and
it was unfortunately a bug-laden version that drove many users away
from it.

And if I didn't make it clear in the above, largely for that reason it
was around then that Word became more popular and the .doc format took
over from .wpd.

To add to that, since version 6.1 came out, WordPerfect became much
more stable, and in my view it remains the best word processor out
there. I've run every version since 4.1 and now run the current
version, X6. It's unfortunate that version 6.1 drove so many people
away and Word and .doc files became much more popular to the extent
that WordPerfect is now a minor player in the word processor field.


--
Ken Blake

On 8/4/13 9:41 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:00:29 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:41:26 +0800, xfile wrote:

Not body ever really cared about what processor was used and it has
always been the document format


Yes, I agree.


for which .doc was the default standard from the early days.


But I don't agree with that. The WordPerfect .wpd format was much more
of a standard until around 1993. In 1993 WordPerfect 6.0 came out and
it was unfortunately a bug-laden version that drove many users away
from it.

+1

And if I didn't make it clear in the above, largely for that reason it
was around then that Word became more popular and the .doc format took
over from .wpd.

My thinking here is a lot of this is because MS was making a concerted
effort at producing a suite of apps that worked (hopefully) seamlessly
with each other. I don't know where the Lotus timeline fits in for this
for SmartSuite.

WP had nothing, as I remember. There were companion programs for WP,
PlanPerfect and DataPerfect, but they weren't integrated in the way
Office was going. I.E., same visual interface, icons, keyboard
shortcuts, etc. IIRC, WP bought Paradox and Quattro Pro, and went to
work at it, but they were behind the eight ball by then, most likely.

At this time, the US gov. was looking to standardize software, at the
agency level, to make support easier. In the agency I worked for, the
"power users" preferred WP. Those that knew little to nothing liked
Word. (I'm with you, Word has always been feces.) I think Office won
out because they had the most sophisticated integration, which is where
a large organization needs to go.

Trivia time... Back in the 8-bit Atari days, there was a company that
produced companion database and word processor programs. The word
processor had the ability to directly read the database files, so if you
wanted to do a mailing to X number of people, the word processor
searched the database files, gathered and inserted the information. In
Office? First you had to make a mailing list, getting the data from
Access files. Then, have Word read the mailing list file. Talk about
extra work.

I don't know if Word ever graduated to being able to read .mdb files or not.

To add to that, since version 6.1 came out, WordPerfect became much
more stable, and in my view it remains the best word processor out
there. I've run every version since 4.1 and now run the current
version, X6. It's unfortunate that version 6.1 drove so many people
away and Word and .doc files became much more popular to the extent
that WordPerfect is now a minor player in the word processor field.

I still have my copy of WP 4.1 for the Atari 16/32 bit machines. Wasn't
very good in the WYSIWYG department, and when WP dropped the Atari
platform, I moved on.

MS also wrote programs for the Atari market, although they seem to not
be willing to talk about it. Still have my copy of MS Basic in a
storage unit. Don't know if those 5.125 floppies are still readable or not.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

On 8/4/13 6:41 AM, xfile wrote:
I wasn't talking specifically about corporate use, although that is
important for setting default standards of file sharing too.

PDF is the new standard.

I think you are correct. In other newsgroups, I've read more and more
comments from heads of IT departments where they've specified the PDF
format as the company standard for exchanging documents between
individuals. Then, they don't have to worry nearly as much about
compatibility of software. Individuals can use what ever program makes
them the most efficient and productive.

If you're not producing documents with MS-Office (or
possibly Frame) you will find a lot of push-back in the real world
when you come to exchange or edit them co-operatively.

Not body ever really cared about what processor was used and it has
always been the document format for which .doc was the default standard
from the early days.

Ken Blake is correct, and to which I agreed, WPD was far more popular
than Word was in the early days.

Since MS broke its own file comparability since Office 2007 and more
readily available PDF editor, PDF format is the fast rising corporate
format plus it can be securely locked and signed.

Even MS can't read all it's own Word formats. :-(

You can use Word or any other processor to do it, nobody care. Fanboys
care about "which brand" while the rest of world care about get things
done, one way or the other.

Fanboys, or if you prefer the French version, Fanboi, LOL, are just a
PITA. It's like dealing with Chevy and Ford fanatics. IMO, many are
lemmings that will walk off a cliff with the others.

Although, that's not really true of real lemmings.

As this is a
windows-8 group I don't think people here would mind spending silly
money on software to do the job.

Money is not a subject but stupidity is, and the most intelligent and
professional approach is to spend the least amount of money to achieve
the maximum output and quality, instead of --- blindly following a brand.

Stupidity... Absolutely right! People will spend days researching a
new TV or car, but not computer software.

snip


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:33:53 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

I think you are correct. In other newsgroups, I've read more and more
comments from heads of IT departments where they've specified the PDF
format as the company standard for exchanging documents between
individuals.

OK for reading docs, not so good for editing them.

On 8/4/13 11:27 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:33:53 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

I think you are correct. In other newsgroups, I've read more and more
comments from heads of IT departments where they've specified the PDF
format as the company standard for exchanging documents between
individuals.

OK for reading docs, not so good for editing them.

If you are the one that's responsible for the finished product, you
don't need X number of edited documents. You need X number of commented
documents, so you can correlate all the similar comments into one. That
way you only have to keep track of one document, not X numbers of them.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

On 8/4/13 4:43 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 19:28:23 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

On 8/2/13 3:38 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:51:22 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

One thing I'm beginning to relearn from my 8-bit days, you simply
have to find and try out different programs that do a particular
category of work (i.e. word processors) until you find the one
that does what you need, and fits you.

Unfortunately when you come out of your cave into the real world and
work with others, you find that it's important to use compatible
applications so that information and work can be shared. Like it or
not MS-Office is the default standard for this.

For me, when I come out of my cave, I find people other than
those in the corporate environment. Each and every situation is
unique, so it's impossible to ever make general statements any
more, even in a corporate environment.

As I noted in another post, my observations are not limited to
the corporate world.

What is the standard for you may not be the standard for the
person next to you.

I wasn't talking specifically about corporate use, although that is
important for setting default standards of file sharing too. If
you're happy with Abiword or some other toy word processor good luck
to you.

To quote the character Ado Annie in Oklahoma, "Yee Gods!" Why is it you
think everyone needs a Kenworth tractor when most likely need just a
Ford F-150? Most people are not using a word processor to write the
next great novel in literature. They are just creating simple, basic
output from flyers to letters to family. Why do you insist on overkill
for everyone?

If you're not producing documents with MS-Office (or
possibly Frame) you will find a lot of push-back in the real world
when you come to exchange or edit them co-operatively.

What is Frame? I've never heard of it. (A quick Google search failed.
:-( ) But, as if you couldn't tell, I'm not stuck in the "do it like
the rest" mentality. I'm always on the lookout for programs that makes
doing a job easier for me. I could care less what programs you use, and
if we had to share docs, it would be PDF files. Damned if I'm going to
buy a certain program just to make you happy. :-)

As this is a
windows-8 group I don't think people here would mind spending silly
money on software to do the job.



--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

Hi, Ken,

Haven't been avoiding this post, just don't have time to keep up with
things on "work days". LOL

On 8/3/13 9:19 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:11:45 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/1/13 3:01 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:51:22 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I just don't understand the idea that you *have* to have MS Office,
Adobe Photoshop, Corel Draw, etc. And it frustrates me to no end! LOL


With some exceptions, I by and large agree with you. But see below.


Unless a program has a specific function/feature you need, there are a
myriad of programs out there that can replace any of those programs.
And many are free and cross platform.


There at least two things about that statement that I don't agree
with:

1. If I have invested a substantial amount of time and trouble
learning how to use a specific program, and learning how to use a new
different one means I would now have to expend a lot of time and
trouble all over again, making a change is not at all attractive.
Photoshop is probably a good example of that.

That probably depends on the "other" program.


Yes, my point exactly. Not all programs, but some (as I said,
Photoshop is probably a good example of that). That's why I disagreed
with "Unless a program has a specific function/feature you need, there
are a myriad of programs out there that can replace any of those
programs." I was pointing out that with some programs there are things
other than "a specific function/feature " that makes it difficult to
replace.

But, wouldn't those "other things" fall into the category of "specific
function/feature"?


2. If I have a history of data in some particular format and there is
no other program that can read and use it properly, I would never want
to make a change. My Quicken history is what I have in mind.

I've never used Quicken, but I've heard their data is difficult to deal
with if you want to change.


Then I guess you agree with my point that "Unless a program has a
specific function/feature you need, there are a myriad of programs out
there that can replace any of those programs" is an oversimplication.
It may be correct for some people, but not for everybody.

I'm not sure I follow/understand your logic, here. Would you mind
rephrasing your point?



--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:05:50 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 9:41 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:00:29 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:41:26 +0800, xfile wrote:

Not body ever really cared about what processor was used and it has
always been the document format


Yes, I agree.


for which .doc was the default standard from the early days.


But I don't agree with that. The WordPerfect .wpd format was much more
of a standard until around 1993. In 1993 WordPerfect 6.0 came out and
it was unfortunately a bug-laden version that drove many users away
from it.

+1

And if I didn't make it clear in the above, largely for that reason it
was around then that Word became more popular and the .doc format took
over from .wpd.

My thinking here is a lot of this is because MS was making a concerted
effort at producing a suite of apps that worked (hopefully) seamlessly
with each other.

Maybe, but I think the WordPerfect 6.0 problems had much more to do
with Word taking over as number 1.


I don't know where the Lotus timeline fits in for this
for SmartSuite.

WP had nothing, as I remember. There were companion programs for WP,
PlanPerfect and DataPerfect, but they weren't integrated in the way
Office was going. I.E., same visual interface, icons, keyboard
shortcuts, etc. IIRC, WP bought Paradox and Quattro Pro, and went to
work at it, but they were behind the eight ball by then, most likely.


Even after they got Paradox and Quattro Pro, that didn't help them
very much. Even though I think WordPerfect is better than Word, I
think all the other Microsoft Office programs are much better than
their WordPerfect equivalents.


At this time, the US gov. was looking to standardize software, at the
agency level, to make support easier. In the agency I worked for, the
"power users" preferred WP. Those that knew little to nothing liked
Word. (I'm with you, Word has always been feces.)

Well, we're a little farther apart than you think. I don't think Word
is that terrible, it's rather that I think WordPerfect is much better.
If there were no WordPerfect, I wouldn't be too distressed about using
Word.


To add to that, since version 6.1 came out, WordPerfect became much
more stable, and in my view it remains the best word processor out
there. I've run every version since 4.1 and now run the current
version, X6. It's unfortunate that version 6.1 drove so many people
away and Word and .doc files became much more popular to the extent
that WordPerfect is now a minor player in the word processor field.

I still have my copy of WP 4.1 for the Atari 16/32 bit machines. Wasn't
very good in the WYSIWYG department, and when WP dropped the Atari
platform, I moved on.

I never used an Atari, and know nothing about it. My first personal
computer was an IBM XT clone, in 1983 or so.


MS also wrote programs for the Atari market, although they seem to not
be willing to talk about it. Still have my copy of MS Basic in a
storage unit. Don't know if those 5.125 floppies are still readable or not.


5.125? Do you mean 5.25? As far as I know, if you have a 5.25" drive
they can still be read.


--
Ken Blake

On 8/4/13 12:16 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:05:50 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 9:41 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:00:29 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:41:26 +0800, xfile wrote:

snip

Even after they got Paradox and Quattro Pro, that didn't help them
very much. Even though I think WordPerfect is better than Word, I
think all the other Microsoft Office programs are much better than
their WordPerfect equivalents.

I've never used Paradox and Quattro Pro, but it nags at my mind the
integration between the 3 programs was poor.

At this time, the US gov. was looking to standardize software, at the
agency level, to make support easier. In the agency I worked for, the
"power users" preferred WP. Those that knew little to nothing liked
Word. (I'm with you, Word has always been feces.)

Well, we're a little farther apart than you think. I don't think Word
is that terrible, it's rather that I think WordPerfect is much better.
If there were no WordPerfect, I wouldn't be too distressed about using
Word.

As I replied to mechanic, I keep looking for something that fits me
better. I'd try and possibly buy WP for the Mac, but WP broke their
promise to lots of Mac users who are likely to never come back. I
wasn't a Mac user then.

mechanic just doesn't seem to understand not everyone needs the bells
and whistles of a high end processor. :-(


To add to that, since version 6.1 came out, WordPerfect became much
more stable, and in my view it remains the best word processor out
there. I've run every version since 4.1 and now run the current
version, X6. It's unfortunate that version 6.1 drove so many people
away and Word and .doc files became much more popular to the extent
that WordPerfect is now a minor player in the word processor field.

I still have my copy of WP 4.1 for the Atari 16/32 bit machines. Wasn't
very good in the WYSIWYG department, and when WP dropped the Atari
platform, I moved on.

I never used an Atari, and know nothing about it. My first personal
computer was an IBM XT clone, in 1983 or so.

I got started with computers before that, in in 1981, I think. The
original IBM PC days.

I ended up with an Atari computer as my first computer as one of my
parameters for purchase was there needed to be someone dealing in them
where I lived. No IBM dealers, but had Commodore, Atari, and Apple.
Chose the Atari because the display was the best at the time.


MS also wrote programs for the Atari market, although they seem to not
be willing to talk about it. Still have my copy of MS Basic in a
storage unit. Don't know if those 5.125 floppies are still readable or not.


5.125? Do you mean 5.25? As far as I know, if you have a 5.25" drive
they can still be read.

Typo on my part, should have been 5.25. I still have my two drives, but
if the disks have deteriorated, I'm probably out of luck. Whopping 360k
single sided drives. I used to flip the disks over and format them
again and use both sides. I just checked, Atari eventually made a
double sided, double density drive, but I never had one.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:10:36 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

Hi, Ken,

Haven't been avoiding this post, just don't have time to keep up with
things on "work days". LOL


That's OK. There's no rush.


On 8/3/13 9:19 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:11:45 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/1/13 3:01 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:51:22 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I just don't understand the idea that you *have* to have MS Office,
Adobe Photoshop, Corel Draw, etc. And it frustrates me to no end! LOL


With some exceptions, I by and large agree with you. But see below.


Unless a program has a specific function/feature you need, there are a
myriad of programs out there that can replace any of those programs.
And many are free and cross platform.


There at least two things about that statement that I don't agree
with:

1. If I have invested a substantial amount of time and trouble
learning how to use a specific program, and learning how to use a new
different one means I would now have to expend a lot of time and
trouble all over again, making a change is not at all attractive.
Photoshop is probably a good example of that.

That probably depends on the "other" program.


Yes, my point exactly. Not all programs, but some (as I said,
Photoshop is probably a good example of that). That's why I disagreed
with "Unless a program has a specific function/feature you need, there
are a myriad of programs out there that can replace any of those
programs." I was pointing out that with some programs there are things
other than "a specific function/feature " that makes it difficult to
replace.

But, wouldn't those "other things" fall into the category of "specific
function/feature"?


I don't think so. I'm not talking about what those specific functions
or features are, but about the time and effort required to use the
different functions and features in a new program. With some programs,
the time and effort can be slim--for example with Notepad and a
replacement for it. But with other programs, that time and effort can
be large--the example I gave was PhotoShop.


2. If I have a history of data in some particular format and there is
no other program that can read and use it properly, I would never want
to make a change. My Quicken history is what I have in mind.

I've never used Quicken, but I've heard their data is difficult to deal
with if you want to change.


Then I guess you agree with my point that "Unless a program has a
specific function/feature you need, there are a myriad of programs out
there that can replace any of those programs" is an oversimplication.
It may be correct for some people, but not for everybody.

I'm not sure I follow/understand your logic, here. Would you mind
rephrasing your point?

My point is that there are some programs (I gave Quicken as an
example, and you agreed with me) where many people could have a large
complex file of data that they would lose if they converted to a
different program. That's another reason why someone might not want to
be forced to change the programs they use.


So you said "Unless a program has a specific function/feature you
need, there are a myriad of programs out there that can replace any
of those programs." My point is that there may be some people for whom
that's the only reason, but there are other reasons for other people.
The other reasons I mentioned were the time and effort required to
learn a replacement for a complex program (like PhotoShop) and the
loss of the data base for a program like Quicken.


--
Ken Blake

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:02:03 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 12:16 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

Even after they got Paradox and Quattro Pro, that didn't help them
very much. Even though I think WordPerfect is better than Word, I
think all the other Microsoft Office programs are much better than
their WordPerfect equivalents.

I've never used Paradox and Quattro Pro, but it nags at my mind the
integration between the 3 programs was poor.


You're probably right, but integration was never a big factor to me.


At this time, the US gov. was looking to standardize software, at the
agency level, to make support easier. In the agency I worked for, the
"power users" preferred WP. Those that knew little to nothing liked
Word. (I'm with you, Word has always been feces.)

Well, we're a little farther apart than you think. I don't think Word
is that terrible, it's rather that I think WordPerfect is much better.
If there were no WordPerfect, I wouldn't be too distressed about using
Word.


mechanic just doesn't seem to understand not everyone needs the bells
and whistles of a high end processor. :-(


I agree with you 100%. It's not only "not everyone" who doesn't need
it; it's most people who don't need it. For lots of people, WordPad is
sufficient.

And if you think about it, even WordPad has a lot more in the way of
"bells and whistles" than the typewriters that people used before
personal computers.


To add to that, since version 6.1 came out, WordPerfect became much
more stable, and in my view it remains the best word processor out
there. I've run every version since 4.1 and now run the current
version, X6. It's unfortunate that version 6.1 drove so many people
away and Word and .doc files became much more popular to the extent
that WordPerfect is now a minor player in the word processor field.

I still have my copy of WP 4.1 for the Atari 16/32 bit machines. Wasn't
very good in the WYSIWYG department, and when WP dropped the Atari
platform, I moved on.

I never used an Atari, and know nothing about it. My first personal
computer was an IBM XT clone, in 1983 or so.

I got started with computers before that, in in 1981, I think. The
original IBM PC days.


I got started with computers way before that. I started in 1962 (way
before personal computers) as a professional programmer on an IBM
1401.


I ended up with an Atari computer as my first computer as one of my
parameters for purchase was there needed to be someone dealing in them
where I lived. No IBM dealers, but had Commodore, Atari, and Apple.
Chose the Atari because the display was the best at the time.


MS also wrote programs for the Atari market, although they seem to not
be willing to talk about it. Still have my copy of MS Basic in a
storage unit. Don't know if those 5.125 floppies are still readable or not.


5.125? Do you mean 5.25? As far as I know, if you have a 5.25" drive
they can still be read.

Typo on my part, should have been 5.25.


Yes, that's what I thought.


I still have my two drives, but


Mine are all gone, along with all the old 5.25 diskettes I had. And
the few 8" diskettes I had are also long gone.


if the disks have deteriorated, I'm probably out of luck.


Ah, that's what you meant! Sorry, I misunderstood "don't know if those
5.125 floppies are still readable or not."

--
Ken Blake

On 8/4/13 1:35 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:02:03 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 12:16 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

snip

Mine are all gone, along with all the old 5.25 diskettes I had. And
the few 8" diskettes I had are also long gone.

Did you ever see/use any of the Konica/Minolta 10 MB 5.25 floppies? I
think there was a 20 MB version also.


if the disks have deteriorated, I'm probably out of luck.


Ah, that's what you meant! Sorry, I misunderstood "don't know if those
5.125 floppies are still readable or not."

No problem, this just exemplifies the problems of text only communications.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 22.0
Thunderbird 17.0.7
LibreOffice 4.0.4.2

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:56:56 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 1:35 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:02:03 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 8/4/13 12:16 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

snip

Mine are all gone, along with all the old 5.25 diskettes I had. And
the few 8" diskettes I had are also long gone.

Did you ever see/use any of the Konica/Minolta 10 MB 5.25 floppies? I
think there was a 20 MB version also.


I don't know. If I did, it was long ago enough that I've forgotten
g.

--
Ken Blake