[23129] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] -L format
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Begin)
Wed Nov 6 18:03:20 2002
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:46:32 -0600
Reply-To: Scott Begin <scott@THEBEGINS.COM>
From: Scott Begin <scott@THEBEGINS.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
At 09:24 AM 11/06/2002 -0600, Brandon Walts wrote:
>Another issue that I haven't seen addressed is durability. Microsoft
>changes the way Word documents are formatted all the time. Ever tried
>to open a Word document from 10 years ago? Or, worse yet, a document
>made in a 10-year-old version of something like WordPerfect or
>AppleWorks?
My experience has been that the current version of Microsoft products
(including Word, Excel, etc) will open documents created with all previous
incarnations of the product (Word XP will open a Word 5 for DOS document
that is 10 years old).
If you have something created with a real archaic version, the converter
may not be installed by default, but with some massaging, you can get word
to open it. This also doesn't mean this process isn't a pain.
In many cases, the bigger problem is that 10 years ago, the more popular
Word Processing program (particularly if you didn't use Windows yet) was
Word Perfect. I continued to use Word Perfect at home primarily until
about 4 years ago. Although I have yet to find a Word Perfect file Word
can't open, it is again the matter of having the right converters
installed. Although I don't see the market share of MS Word declining
significantly in the near future, there is always the possibility the
dominant format today is archaic tomorrow.
The bigger problem I find in this situation is when Microsoft changes
formats in new versions and I need to open documents from that
version. From what I've seen, Word 97 / XP / 2000 formats all seem to be
opened by Word 97 (my latest version). That file won't open on a Word 95
or Word 6.0 (the last Win 3.1 version of Word) unless you get a converter
from Microsoft. Although these formats may seem archaic, there probably is
someone out there still using them because they are what they have (I was
still using Word 6.0 at home until last spring).
The storage space issue has been discussed here already. If you create a
MS Word Document that has exactly 1 character in it, the size of the file
will be 19,456 bytes. Adding more text will take more space. Add in fancy
formatting or graphics (like the graphic of the APO crest you put in your
signature) and you've got a 50 to 100 (or more) KB file to get a 1kb text
message across. Use the 12% MIME file size increase Robert Dean mentioned
and it gets even worse. Thats inefficient.
As one who avoids MS Outlook except for work situations where I can't avoid
it, I further hate attachments due to management issues. I use Eudora Pro
for email. It downloads attachments to a separate directory, away from the
original mail message. When it comes time for me to archive messages,
rather that putting all messages on a similar topic in a single text file
in order of message, I also have to keep track of all the attachments, and
keep them near the message file, often renaming things to make organization
easier. It is a pain.
So far in this thread, REV seems to be the only one who wants
attachments. This is again a case where I ask:
What will we gain by the formatting of these attachments?
Does that gain enhance the ability to get the information across?
Does the enhancement prevent people form easily seeing the information?
I haven't seen a clear answer to the first question. The second question
seems to be a No. The third question seems to be a yes. Based on those
answers, the answer seems to be No to attachments.
Yours in LFS,
Scott Begin scott@thebegins.com Oak Forest, IL
Epsilon Beta Alumnus, Central Michigan University
Gamma Sigma Advisory Chair/Scouting Advisor, University of Chicago
Region VI Rep. to APO National Scouting & Youth Services Committee
