Newsgroups II

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Let me guess. Starter Word is the old Microsoft Works? I bet it is.

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program through version 4.x
Then MS really messed it up by trying to make it a "better" Office clone,
and ditto on the file associations (Works used to use .WPS for documents,
and should have just left it that way). I still use MS Works 4 for some
quick document preparations that don't need all the bells and whistles
and
usage overhead of Word.


I still contend that the small team inside Microsoft who were developing
Works were nobbled because it was eating into Office's market: as you
say, by version 4.x, it was quite good, certainly adequate for a lot of
the word processing (and other office tasks) that a moderate sized
business might require. (Also, if you're really paranoid and believe in
the alleged pact between MS and the hardware manufacturers, Works was a
lot less demanding of resources.)

Well, maybe it wouldn't have eaten into Office's market so much if they just
left it alone as it used to be (up through version 4.x). Instead, they kept
"embellishing" it and trying to make it a closer clone to Office, I guess.
And THAT should have cut into Office's market even more. But maybe that's
what you're saying... MS Works was great when it was simple and nimble, and
I still love to use it for quick and dirty documents. In fact, even prefer
it. :-)

Bill in Co wrote:

I've got one used XP computer (a laptop) that came with Office 2007
installed on it. I just couldn't "take" the ribbon - what an incredible
waste of desktop (laptop in my case) screen space!! So I tried out both
UBitMenu and Office Classic Menu. Either one helps immensely, but it's
still not quite as clean as not having had the ribbon at all, like in the
previous versions. Whose "bright" idea was that? (nevermind). :-)

You could hide the menu; however, these add-ons don't provide a new
toolbar but add a ribbon tab to the ribbon bar. So using these add-ons
means having to click on the ribbon tab to show their classic menus. So
you could recover screen space by hiding the ribbon bar and only show it
when you need to see the classic menus (when you don't just use the
keyboard shortcuts to eliminate having to use menus except for rare-used
features).

"Jeff T" wrote in message ...
Are newsgroups available in Outlook?


Big YES


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/171190


It will show you how it setup your
eternal-september.org


Have a Good News-Day

Bill in Co wrote:

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program through version 4.x
Then MS really messed it up by trying to make it a "better" Office clone,
and ditto on the file associations (Works used to use .WPS for documents,
and should have just left it that way). I still use MS Works 4 for some
quick document preparations that don't need all the bells and whistles and
usage overhead of Word.

My aunt had an ancient version of MS Office (97, I think). She didn't
want to put that on her laptop nor did she want to pay for MS Office.
So I put Kingsoft Suite Free on her laptop and she loves it. I played
with it for awhile, too, and it's pretty good. You can choose a menu
theme that is very close to the pre-2007 versions of MS Office to reduce
the learning curve.

She's got some Microsoft certification for MS Office (probably paid for
by her company) but, so far, she found the Kingsoft freebie to handle
all her home-use needs. She didn't like LibreOffice as she needed to do
some doc work right now and couldn't waste time with the learning curve
for LibreOffice, plus she already knew as did I that some Word-matching
features are buried in some goofy workarounds. She checked out tables
and lots of other features in Kingsoft to ensure it would be usable to
her. She was intrigued with the native UI of Kingsoft but time demands
required she switch to the MS-style menus so she could start working
immediately on her docs.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:14:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Though at least one version of Outlook (I think one of the ones previous
to 2003) used Outlook Express in a way that seemed pretty seamless to
me;

Yes, Outlook invoked Outlook Express if you asked it to read
newsgroups. The result was that *many* people thought Outlook had
newsreading capability even though it didn't. Another example of
Microsoft's unnecessarily confusing people.

You can choose to think that if you wish; I found it convenient.

Really? It was more speedy to wait for Outlook to load to then use its
menus to separately load Outlook Express than to use a shortcut on the
Windows desktop or in a toolbar in the taskbar to just click and load
Outlook Express?

- Load Outlook.
- Wait for Outlook to get ready.
- Click on the Go To link in the menu bar.
- Click on the Newsgroups entry in that menu.
- Load Outlook Express.
- Wait for Outlook Express to get ready.

versus

- Click on Outlook Express shortcut in toolbar in Windows taskbar.
- Load Outlook Express.
- Wait for Outlook Express to get ready.


Even if you have Outlook already loaded and leave it loaded all the
time, drilling through the menus is still a bit more effort than
clicking on a shortcut button in a taskbar toolbar. With Outlook
already running:

- Click on the Go To link in the menu bar.
- Click on the Newsgroups entry in that menu.
- Load Outlook Express.
- Wait for Outlook Express to get ready.

versus

- Click on Outlook Express shortcut in toolbar in Windows taskbar.
- Load Outlook Express.
- Wait for Outlook Express to get ready.

Yeah, with Outlook already loaded, it's just 1 more click in the menu
but it's still more. For the News menu to work in Outlook required the
NNTP association pointed at Outlook Express. Do an online search and
you'll see users reporting the News menu entry was missing until they
changed the program associations back to Outlook Express. If you used a
different NNTP client and made it the default, you couldn't call the
alternate or replacement NNTP client from inside of Outlook. As I
recall, setting Outlook Express as the default newsgroups program in the
Programs tab in Internet Options might still not get a News entry in
Outlook's Go To menu or it didn't work. That was because there was yet
another default program setting for users of the Fischer Price
bobblehead desktop theme which has its own settings for the default and
newsgroups client. So some users had to change the default in 2 places.

With a shortcut in a toolbar (e.g., Quicklaunch or your own), there was
no configuration elsewhere to start the correct NNTP program, no
associations to screw up, and you didn't have to fix a missing or
unusable News entry in Outlook's Go To menu.

VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

I've got one used XP computer (a laptop) that came with Office 2007
installed on it. I just couldn't "take" the ribbon - what an incredible
waste of desktop (laptop in my case) screen space!! So I tried out both
UBitMenu and Office Classic Menu. Either one helps immensely, but it's
still not quite as clean as not having had the ribbon at all, like in the
previous versions. Whose "bright" idea was that? (nevermind). :-)

You could hide the menu; however, these add-ons don't provide a new
toolbar but add a ribbon tab to the ribbon bar. So using these add-ons
means having to click on the ribbon tab to show their classic menus. So
you could recover screen space by hiding the ribbon bar and only show it
when you need to see the classic menus (when you don't just use the
keyboard shortcuts to eliminate having to use menus except for rare-used
features).

I need to see the classic menus all the time, since I don't use Office often
enough to remember the shortcuts. So hiding the ribbon bar doesn't work for
me. It would have been a LOT better if we had the option to select either
the old menu style OR the new (ribbon) style. But I guess that was asking
too much. Actually, I think I read somewhere that the ribbon was NOT
solely, or necessarily primarily, introduced to supposedly please the
customer base (there were other reasons, like making it harder to copy (by
patents), etc).

VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program through version 4.x
Then MS really messed it up by trying to make it a "better" Office clone,
and ditto on the file associations (Works used to use .WPS for documents,
and should have just left it that way). I still use MS Works 4 for some
quick document preparations that don't need all the bells and whistles
and
usage overhead of Word.

My aunt had an ancient version of MS Office (97, I think). She didn't
want to put that on her laptop nor did she want to pay for MS Office.
So I put Kingsoft Suite Free on her laptop and she loves it. I played
with it for awhile, too, and it's pretty good. You can choose a menu
theme that is very close to the pre-2007 versions of MS Office to reduce
the learning curve.

She's got some Microsoft certification for MS Office (probably paid for
by her company) but, so far, she found the Kingsoft freebie to handle
all her home-use needs. She didn't like LibreOffice as she needed to do
some doc work right now and couldn't waste time with the learning curve
for LibreOffice, plus she already knew as did I that some Word-matching
features are buried in some goofy workarounds. She checked out tables
and lots of other features in Kingsoft to ensure it would be usable to
her. She was intrigued with the native UI of Kingsoft but time demands
required she switch to the MS-style menus so she could start working
immediately on her docs.

I haven't tried LibreOffice, and didn't even realize it was available for
Windows I just thought it was primarily targeted to (and designed for) the
Linux crowd, where it seems to be the standard, from what I gather (the
other one being Open Office).

I find Word to be a PIA sometimes, like with its autoformatting, which seems
almost impossible to completely turn off.

Bill in Co wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

I've got one used XP computer (a laptop) that came with Office 2007
installed on it. I just couldn't "take" the ribbon - what an incredible
waste of desktop (laptop in my case) screen space!! So I tried out both
UBitMenu and Office Classic Menu. Either one helps immensely, but it's
still not quite as clean as not having had the ribbon at all, like in the
previous versions. Whose "bright" idea was that? (nevermind). :-)

You could hide the menu; however, these add-ons don't provide a new
toolbar but add a ribbon tab to the ribbon bar. So using these add-ons
means having to click on the ribbon tab to show their classic menus. So
you could recover screen space by hiding the ribbon bar and only show it
when you need to see the classic menus (when you don't just use the
keyboard shortcuts to eliminate having to use menus except for rare-used
features).

I need to see the classic menus all the time, since I don't use Office often
enough to remember the shortcuts. So hiding the ribbon bar doesn't work for
me. It would have been a LOT better if we had the option to select either
the old menu style OR the new (ribbon) style. But I guess that was asking
too much. Actually, I think I read somewhere that the ribbon was NOT
solely, or necessarily primarily, introduced to supposedly please the
customer base (there were other reasons, like making it harder to copy (by
patents), etc).

I figure your eyes must move off the document and upward to the top of
the window to see the ribbon bar. So I also figure it would be trivial
when moving your eyes off the document to click on a tab for the
otherwise hidden ribbon bar to uncollapse it. Using the classic menus
(if they were there), using classic menus in a ribbon toolbar tab, or
using the ribbon toolbar means interrupting your focus of the document
to move your eyes upward.

Since you must interrupt your focus to look up, I figure collapsing the
ribbon bar when you're not looking at it would give back the screen
space you complained the ribbon bar was sucking up.

VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

I've got one used XP computer (a laptop) that came with Office 2007
installed on it. I just couldn't "take" the ribbon - what an
incredible
waste of desktop (laptop in my case) screen space!! So I tried out
both
UBitMenu and Office Classic Menu. Either one helps immensely, but
it's
still not quite as clean as not having had the ribbon at all, like in
the
previous versions. Whose "bright" idea was that? (nevermind). :-)

You could hide the menu; however, these add-ons don't provide a new
toolbar but add a ribbon tab to the ribbon bar. So using these add-ons
means having to click on the ribbon tab to show their classic menus. So
you could recover screen space by hiding the ribbon bar and only show it
when you need to see the classic menus (when you don't just use the
keyboard shortcuts to eliminate having to use menus except for rare-used
features).

I need to see the classic menus all the time, since I don't use Office
often
enough to remember the shortcuts. So hiding the ribbon bar doesn't work
for
me. It would have been a LOT better if we had the option to select
either
the old menu style OR the new (ribbon) style. But I guess that was
asking
too much. Actually, I think I read somewhere that the ribbon was NOT
solely, or necessarily primarily, introduced to supposedly please the
customer base (there were other reasons, like making it harder to copy
(by
patents), etc).

I figure your eyes must move off the document and upward to the top of
the window to see the ribbon bar. So I also figure it would be trivial
when moving your eyes off the document to click on a tab for the
otherwise hidden ribbon bar to uncollapse it. Using the classic menus
(if they were there), using classic menus in a ribbon toolbar tab, or
using the ribbon toolbar means interrupting your focus of the document
to move your eyes upward.

Since you must interrupt your focus to look up, I figure collapsing the
ribbon bar when you're not looking at it would give back the screen
space you complained the ribbon bar was sucking up.

I find collapsing and not collapsing the large ribbon bar a nuisance. With
the old system, the menus were always there AND took up very little space.
That was the best option, IMHO (and I know many others felt the same way,
given all the "fallout" since Office 2007 (and later) came on the horizon.

One feature I do like about Word 2007 is the ability to save a doc as a PDF
file if desired, however. I'll concede that point. :-) And at least MS
was wise enough to give the option to set the default Word save option to
..doc OR .docx.

Bill in Co wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

I've got one used XP computer (a laptop) that came with Office 2007
installed on it. I just couldn't "take" the ribbon - what an
incredible
waste of desktop (laptop in my case) screen space!! So I tried out
both
UBitMenu and Office Classic Menu. Either one helps immensely, but
it's
still not quite as clean as not having had the ribbon at all, like in
the
previous versions. Whose "bright" idea was that? (nevermind). :-)

You could hide the menu; however, these add-ons don't provide a new
toolbar but add a ribbon tab to the ribbon bar. So using these add-ons
means having to click on the ribbon tab to show their classic menus. So
you could recover screen space by hiding the ribbon bar and only show it
when you need to see the classic menus (when you don't just use the
keyboard shortcuts to eliminate having to use menus except for rare-used
features).

I need to see the classic menus all the time, since I don't use Office
often
enough to remember the shortcuts. So hiding the ribbon bar doesn't work
for
me. It would have been a LOT better if we had the option to select
either
the old menu style OR the new (ribbon) style. But I guess that was
asking
too much. Actually, I think I read somewhere that the ribbon was NOT
solely, or necessarily primarily, introduced to supposedly please the
customer base (there were other reasons, like making it harder to copy
(by
patents), etc).

I figure your eyes must move off the document and upward to the top of
the window to see the ribbon bar. So I also figure it would be trivial
when moving your eyes off the document to click on a tab for the
otherwise hidden ribbon bar to uncollapse it. Using the classic menus
(if they were there), using classic menus in a ribbon toolbar tab, or
using the ribbon toolbar means interrupting your focus of the document
to move your eyes upward.

Since you must interrupt your focus to look up, I figure collapsing the
ribbon bar when you're not looking at it would give back the screen
space you complained the ribbon bar was sucking up.

I find collapsing and not collapsing the large ribbon bar a nuisance. With
the old system, the menus were always there AND took up very little space.
That was the best option, IMHO (and I know many others felt the same way,
given all the "fallout" since Office 2007 (and later) came on the horizon.

One feature I do like about Word 2007 is the ability to save a doc as a PDF
file if desired, however. I'll concede that point. :-) And at least MS
was wise enough to give the option to set the default Word save option to
.doc OR .docx.

But the "menus" were just a menu bar: a single row of tab labels. None
of those tab labels did anything. You still had to click on a tab in
the menubar to bring down a menu and look for an entry on which to
click. So how is that different from squashing the ribbon so only its
tabs show? Alas, yes, with Ubitmenu and others, you end up having to
click twice to bring down a classic menu: click once to open the
ribbon's tab and then click in the classic menubar to bring down that
menu to finally get at the entries. So you end up with one additional
click.

Leaving the ribbon shown means eliminating that one extra click. Must
be that one extra click is worse than "what an incredible waste of
desktop screen space" to keep the ribbon shown. So one extra click
isn't a solution for you. As for "the menus were always there AND took
up very little space", that's still true by hiding the ribbon.

I'm not defending Microsoft's choice of ribbon, just addressing what I
thought you thought was the worst offense in wasting screen space by
showing the ribbon. The first thing I did to tweak Office 2010 was to
hide the ribbon bar. Yep, it wastes too much space. I'm on the fence
about Ubitmenu, the Office Classic Menus add-on, and addintools but if I
installed one of them I'd still leave the ribbon as hidden. It's just
one click away from the hidden ribbon (that still shows its tabs just
like the old classic menubar) to dropdown the menus from the menubar.

While I would uninstall Office 2010 to go back to the classic UI for
Office 2003, the newer versions are must faster. Excel spreadsheets can
not only be over 100 times larger but they load a lot faster and cells
with formulae complete much faster even on the same old hardware. Huge
Word docs load faster, reformat faster, search faster, and everything
faster. It's the ribbon that slows the user and having to dig around
finding features. So I'll keep Office 2010 but I might install one of
those classic menu add-ons so I can get back up to speed with the
addition of just 1 tab click to open the "classic menu" tab in the
ribbon bar. Faster, access to classic menus with little extra effort,
and I can later learn the ribbon UI a little at a time.

In "Hot-Text"
wrote:

"Jeff T" wrote in message
...
Are newsgroups available in Outlook?


Big YES


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/171190

No. That's for "Outlook Express" which is an entirely different product.

--
St. Paul, MN

On 12/3/13 10:12 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program through version 4.x
Then MS really messed it up by trying to make it a "better" Office clone,
and ditto on the file associations (Works used to use .WPS for documents,
and should have just left it that way). I still use MS Works 4 for some
quick document preparations that don't need all the bells and whistles
and
usage overhead of Word.

My aunt had an ancient version of MS Office (97, I think). She didn't
want to put that on her laptop nor did she want to pay for MS Office.
So I put Kingsoft Suite Free on her laptop and she loves it. I played
with it for awhile, too, and it's pretty good. You can choose a menu
theme that is very close to the pre-2007 versions of MS Office to reduce
the learning curve.

She's got some Microsoft certification for MS Office (probably paid for
by her company) but, so far, she found the Kingsoft freebie to handle
all her home-use needs. She didn't like LibreOffice as she needed to do
some doc work right now and couldn't waste time with the learning curve
for LibreOffice, plus she already knew as did I that some Word-matching
features are buried in some goofy workarounds. She checked out tables
and lots of other features in Kingsoft to ensure it would be usable to
her. She was intrigued with the native UI of Kingsoft but time demands
required she switch to the MS-style menus so she could start working
immediately on her docs.

I haven't tried LibreOffice, and didn't even realize it was available for
Windows I just thought it was primarily targeted to (and designed for) the
Linux crowd, where it seems to be the standard, from what I gather (the
other one being Open Office).

Libre Office is a spin off of Open Office/Star Office. Available for
Linux, Mac, and Windows. Oxygen Office and the current Lotus Symphony
are also based on Open Office.

I've gotten frustrated with bugs in LO, so I've given up on it. Which
is too bad, I'd like to see serious Office competition. If there was a
Mac version of Word Perfect, I'd buy it.

I find Word to be a PIA sometimes, like with its autoformatting, which seems
almost impossible to completely turn off.




--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8

On 12/3/13 8:43 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program through version 4.x
Then MS really messed it up by trying to make it a "better" Office clone,
and ditto on the file associations (Works used to use .WPS for documents,
and should have just left it that way). I still use MS Works 4 for some
quick document preparations that don't need all the bells and whistles and
usage overhead of Word.

My aunt had an ancient version of MS Office (97, I think). She didn't
want to put that on her laptop nor did she want to pay for MS Office.
So I put Kingsoft Suite Free on her laptop and she loves it. I played
with it for awhile, too, and it's pretty good. You can choose a menu
theme that is very close to the pre-2007 versions of MS Office to reduce
the learning curve.

She's got some Microsoft certification for MS Office (probably paid for
by her company) but, so far, she found the Kingsoft freebie to handle
all her home-use needs. She didn't like LibreOffice as she needed to do
some doc work right now and couldn't waste time with the learning curve
for LibreOffice, plus she already knew as did I that some Word-matching
features are buried in some goofy workarounds. She checked out tables
and lots of other features in Kingsoft to ensure it would be usable to
her. She was intrigued with the native UI of Kingsoft but time demands
required she switch to the MS-style menus so she could start working
immediately on her docs.

One thing you can't do in tables in the free 2012 version is sort your
data. I've been told you can't sort in the paid version also, but I do
not know that for sure.



--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8

Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/3/13 10:12 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program through version
4.x
Then MS really messed it up by trying to make it a "better" Office
clone,
and ditto on the file associations (Works used to use .WPS for
documents,
and should have just left it that way). I still use MS Works 4 for
some
quick document preparations that don't need all the bells and whistles
and usage overhead of Word.

My aunt had an ancient version of MS Office (97, I think). She didn't
want to put that on her laptop nor did she want to pay for MS Office.
So I put Kingsoft Suite Free on her laptop and she loves it. I played
with it for awhile, too, and it's pretty good. You can choose a menu
theme that is very close to the pre-2007 versions of MS Office to reduce
the learning curve.

She's got some Microsoft certification for MS Office (probably paid for
by her company) but, so far, she found the Kingsoft freebie to handle
all her home-use needs. She didn't like LibreOffice as she needed to do
some doc work right now and couldn't waste time with the learning curve
for LibreOffice, plus she already knew as did I that some Word-matching
features are buried in some goofy workarounds. She checked out tables
and lots of other features in Kingsoft to ensure it would be usable to
her. She was intrigued with the native UI of Kingsoft but time demands
required she switch to the MS-style menus so she could start working
immediately on her docs.

I haven't tried LibreOffice, and didn't even realize it was available for
Windows I just thought it was primarily targeted to (and designed for)
the
Linux crowd, where it seems to be the standard, from what I gather (the
other one being Open Office).

Libre Office is a spin off of Open Office/Star Office. Available for
Linux, Mac, and Windows. Oxygen Office and the current Lotus Symphony
are also based on Open Office.

I've gotten frustrated with bugs in LO, so I've given up on it. Which
is too bad, I'd like to see serious Office competition. If there was a
Mac version of Word Perfect, I'd buy it.

Well, what about Open Office? Do you find that just as buggy, or better or
worse than LibreOffice?

I find Word to be a PIA sometimes, like with its autoformatting, which
seems almost impossible to completely turn off.

snip

Ken Springer wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Bill in Co wrote:

MS Works used to be a pretty good lightweight program ...

My aunt ... put Kingsoft Suite Free on her laptop and she loves it. ...
You can choose a menu theme that is very close to the pre-2007
versions of MS Office to reduce the learning curve.

One thing you can't do in tables in the free 2012 version is sort your
data. I've been told you can't sort in the paid version also, but I do
not know that for sure.

My aunt happened to call me while composing this reply. I asked her
about table sorting and she said she has never needed to do that. She
knows a hell of a lot more about what Office, especially Word, can do
but never needed to do that. For that level of complexity or table
size, she creates a spreadsheet and links or embeds it into her doc.

I've been using MS Office since the 95 version and now up to 2010
version. In all that time of 18+ years, I've never needed to sort a
table in a doc (but I have needed to sort in a spreadsheet). I didn't
even think about sorting a doc table until you mentioned it.

I created a table in MS Word 2010. I right-clicked on borders, selected
a column with numbers, selected the entire table, and right-clicked on
the "+" object handle at the upper left of a table but there is no Sort
option in the context menu. In its help, I searched on "table sort" and
"sort table". Nothing came up. Not until I clicked on the Layout
ribbon tab did I finally find a Sort function (I really need to get the
classic menus add-on so I can more quickly find functions in MS Word
2010). It's obvious that table sorting is not something I've done much
(actually I don't remember ever doing this). Guess Microsoft doesn't
consider sorting a property of a table. Yep, that worked to sort a
table in a doc but then considering the size of this behmoth software
I'm not surprised it has functions not available is far smaller and more
resource-light contenders.

The Kingsoft Office installer download is just 46 MB. For MS Office
2010 Home & Student that I have, its installer is 965 MB -- 20 times the
size of Kingsoft's installer. For MS Office 2010, the recommended free
disk space for installation is 3 GB; however, the C:\Program Files
(x86)\Microsoft Office folder is 647 MB in size (for me). For Kingsoft
Office Suite, the recommended free disk space is 1 GB (I don't know its
actual folder size since it's my aunt that has this on her laptop). I
doubt Kingsoft Office, especially the free version, does everything that
MS Office 2010 can do but then that's not expected of a lightweight
solution geared more for home users than for programs geared to folks
whose careers are professional editors in the Document department at a
company. OpenOffice, also much larger than Kingsoft, can also sort
tables.

Does MS Works (to which Kingsoft Suite was compared) sort tables in Word
docs? From an online search and reading forum articles, doesn't look
like MS Works can sort tables, either.