Vista on the Mac (was: Computer)

In article <20070319222146.7a743e7c.RemoveThis@granite.localdomain>,
Paul Allen <paul.l.allen.RemoveThis@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:26:48 +0000 (UTC)
> Paul J Gans <gans.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul Allen <paul.l.allen.RemoveThis@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> > >On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:03:02 +0000 (UTC)
> > >Paul J Gans <gans.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Paul Allen <paul.l.allen.RemoveThis@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> >On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:24:46 -0500
> > >> >Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> Paul Allen wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Another absolute statement that can be refuted by a single
> > >> >> > counter- example. I'm a professional and I mostly use Open
> > >> >> > Office for collaborating with my Windows-using colleagues.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Did you ever think that you might be making their lives
> > >> >> miserable when they have to decipher your documents?
> > >>
> > >> >You're seriously behind the times. If I author a document and
> > >> >save it in Word format, my team-mates cannot distinguish it from
> > >> >one created with Microsoft Word. The only issue we've noticed is
> > >> >that OpenOffice can't show comments inserted by Word users. It's
> > >> >likely that there are other issues, but that's the only one we've
> > >> >seen.
> > >>
> > >> Have you checked the difference in file sizes between an
> > >> OO document saved in native format and the same document
> > >> saved in the .doc format beloved by Microsoft?
> >
> > >Nope, have you?
> >
> > Yes. The OO document is significantly smaller. Saved .doc
> > files are HUGE. And there's all sorts of stuff in that file
> > (such as deleted lines) that you really may not want there.
>
> Interesting. Does it keep deleted lines (and the like) even when you
> turn off change logging?
>
> Paul Allen

I believe you have to do a "Save All".
 >> Stay informed about: Vista on the Mac (was: Computer) 

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:21:46 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:

> Interesting. Does it keep deleted lines (and the like) even when you
> turn off change logging?

The deleted lines are saved for a different reason. Back in
Word's early days it was bloated and slow, and due to the way it was
designed, Word was able to save documents much faster if it could
simply save everything (even though the file would be larger)
instead of stripping out deleted text on the fly as the file was
saved. There was (or is) a configuration option that allows the
user to choose whether to retain deleted lines or not. As is their
custom, I believe that Microsoft chose to make the dangerous option
(retaining deleted lines) the default. Eventually, if the number of
retained deleted lines grows too large, file saves will become much
slower than if the deleted lines had been stripped.
 >> Stay informed about: Vista on the Mac (was: Computer) 

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:47:00 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:21:46 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Does it keep deleted lines (and the like) even when you
>> turn off change logging?
>
> The deleted lines are saved for a different reason. Back in
> Word's early days it was bloated and slow, and due to the way it was
> designed, Word was able to save documents much faster if it could
> simply save everything (even though the file would be larger)
> instead of stripping out deleted text on the fly as the file was
> saved. There was (or is) a configuration option that allows the
> user to choose whether to retain deleted lines or not. As is their
> custom, I believe that Microsoft chose to make the dangerous option
> (retaining deleted lines) the default. Eventually, if the number of
> retained deleted lines grows too large, file saves will become much
> slower than if the deleted lines had been stripped.

Thank god for emacs.

--
Neil
Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email.
 >> Stay informed about: Vista on the Mac (was: Computer) 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Vista on the Mac (was: Computer) 

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 07:42:22 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

>> Thank god for emacs.
>
> Nonsense! Eimacs are much better.

Tube or not tube, that is the question! (but I prefer Luguru's
Epsilon)
 >> Stay informed about: Vista on the Mac (was: Computer) 

On 2007-03-14 11:01:57 -0400, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> said:

> My last Windows machine finally refused to log onto the network at all
> and won't talk to any printers. Rats. Well, it was getting pretty long
> in the tooth and slow anyway, compared to the newer Macs.
>
> So yesterday I installed Vista Business on the Mac, using Parallels. It
> seems to work fine, except there is no Vista driver for my QMS
> Magicolor 3100 laser printer and something seems to have convinced the
> Epson driver that the photo printer is out of ink. It will print over
> the network, though, to the HP 7100 series all-in-one, although it does
> not understand the scanner or the fax. OS X has none of these problems.
>
> It would be nice to have an XPS file reader in OS X, then I wouldn't
> have to worry about Windows' constant problems with conflicting device
> drivers. I could just print everything in Vista to XPS and then if I
> needed a hard copy I could print it in OS X.
>
> The nice thing about Parallels is that you can run Vista in Console
> mode. Vista almost completely disappears. Every Vista window becomes an
> OS X window. You can drag stuff from a Vista window to an OS X window
> and back. And yet Vista is compartmentalized, so you don't have to
> worry about any of its viruses getting into the OS X system. Vista
> doesn't have to have access to the Internet at all except for its own
> updates. You lose Aero, of course (otherwise it wouldn't look like OS
> X) but it is very slick.
>
> The interesting thing is that Parallels manages to get Vista to run in
> only 528 megabytes of RAM. Every application in Vista seems to run just
> fine without disk swapping. I have not noticed any speed penalty in
> either OS X or Vista.
>
> As for the keyboard and mouse, so far Vista has managed to put up with
> the MacBook Pro's keyboard and the Bluetooth Mighty Mouse. It is a
> little insensitive on the right click, but I think that is a problem
> with the Mighty Mouse anyway.
>
> I have no intention of using any of Vista's media accessories, so I
> have no idea how they work. I also do not have any 3D games for Vista,
> but Parallels says they will not work. So much for MS Flight Simulator
> X (but then, who needs a simulator when you fly real airplanes whenever
> you want).

The nice thing about my Mac's is I can keep Windows and all its
aggravations off my network. Nice! OS X is a killer OS. No Vista here!
--
Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
 >> Stay informed about: Vista on the Mac (was: Computer) 

http://en.mediaopedia.org - Its all been about getting paid from the
get go and it just never happens for the average publisher at google.

On Apr 1, 1:47 am, ASAAR <cau... DeleteThis @22.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:21:46 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:
> > Interesting. Does it keep deleted lines (and the like) even when you
> > turn off change logging?
>
> The deleted lines are saved for a different reason. Back in
> Word's early days it was bloated and slow, and due to the way it was
> designed, Word was able to save documents much faster if it could
> simply save everything (even though the file would be larger)
> instead of stripping out deleted text on the fly as the file was
> saved. There was (or is) a configuration option that allows the
> user to choose whether to retain deleted lines or not. As is their
> custom, I believe that Microsoft chose to make the dangerous option
> (retaining deleted lines) the default. Eventually, if the number of
> retained deleted lines grows too large, file saves will become much
> slower than if the deleted lines had been stripped.
 >> Stay informed about: Vista on the Mac (was: Computer)