tedj@hpcilzb.UUCP (11/25/87)
What are the differences between the latest version of Excel (1.05?) and version 1.00? I have been running 1.00 on a SE HD20 with System/Finder 4.1/5.5 and have encountered NO problems except for the Calendar 1.7 DA occasionally crashing my machine. What sort of bug fixes/enhancements are there in Excel 1.05? -Ted
cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (11/29/87)
In article <870049@hpcilzb.HP.COM> tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) writes: > >What are the differences between the latest version of Excel (1.05?) and >version 1.00? I have been running 1.00 on a SE HD20 with System/Finder >4.1/5.5 and have encountered NO problems except for the Calendar 1.7 DA >occasionally crashing my machine. > >What sort of bug fixes/enhancements are there in Excel 1.05? > 1.05? I wasn't aware of a version since 1.04. I'm no Excel expert, but here's what I noticed in 1.04 vs 1.00: (1) No more copy protection/key disk scheme. (2) You can now link files that reside in different folders. Also, Microsoft claims that problems with desk accessories have been cleared up a bit, but I haven't been able to confirm this. I'm sure there are other changes that I haven't noticed yet. No color or 3-D charting ability--yet.
cute@sphinx.UUCP (11/30/87)
In article <1211@uhccux.UUCP> cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (Jeff T. Segawa) writes: >In article <870049@hpcilzb.HP.COM> tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) writes: >> >>What are the differences between the latest version of Excel (1.05?) and >>version 1.00? I have been running 1.00 on a SE HD20 with System/Finder >> >1.05? I wasn't aware of a version since 1.04. I'm no Excel expert, but >here's what I noticed in 1.04 vs 1.00: >(1) No more copy protection/key disk scheme. >(2) You can now link files that reside in different folders. <<flame on>> There's still one HUGE problem, though. I discovered it while trying to bring up Excel 1.04 in a 2mb MultiFinder partition on the 4mb Mac Plus here at work. (Plenty of memory, right? No problem, right?) Wrongo. MultiFinder puts up an alert: "Insufficient application memory" Huh?? "About the Finder..." says I have enough free space. What's the problem?? Well, a call to Microsoft tech. support (very helpful, BTW) reveals that Excel is HARD-CODED (gack) to address ONLY the LOWEST 1mb of RAM!!! Since the bottom meg. of RAM was already in use, Excel refused to load! The tech. support guy said the biggest partition possible is about 768K. He also said that the problem is so deeply embedded in the guts of the code that it won't be fixed until 3rd quarter '88!! Excel 1.5 is due in January '88, and will have color and other nice cosmetic goodies, but THIS GIGANTIC PROBLEM won't be addressed for NEARLY A YEAR!!! They could at least MENTION the problem somewhere in the manual! <<flame off>> -- ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cute --John Cavallino The train is the same, only the time is changed. Ecce homo, ergo elk.
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (12/02/87)
In article <1211@uhccux.UUCP> cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (Jeff T. Segawa) writes: |In article <870049@hpcilzb.HP.COM> tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) writes: ||What are the differences between the latest version of Excel (1.05?) and ||version 1.00? I have been running 1.00 on a SE HD20 with System/Finder |here's what I noticed in 1.04 vs 1.00: ... |there are other changes that I haven't noticed yet. No color or |3-D charting ability--yet. FLAME ON! How about a *decent* charting ability? Or how about some other program that can patch and link (read integrated charting) to excel to replace the present kludge? Maybe Cricket should pay attention. FLAME OFF! I'm sure anyone who has used Excel knows what I'm talking about. -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."
hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Robert Joseph Hammen) (12/03/87)
In article <2799@sphinx.uchicago.edu> cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu.UUCP (John Cavallino) types: <Discussion of Excel 1.05 differences from earlier versions> > >There's still one HUGE problem, though. I discovered it while trying to >bring up Excel 1.04 in a 2mb MultiFinder partition on the 4mb Mac Plus >here at work. (Plenty of memory, right? No problem, right?) Wrongo. >MultiFinder puts up an alert: "Insufficient application memory" Huh?? >"About the Finder..." says I have enough free space. What's the problem?? >Well, a call to Microsoft tech. support (very helpful, BTW) reveals that >Excel is HARD-CODED (gack) to address ONLY the LOWEST 1mb of RAM!!! Since the >bottom meg. of RAM was already in use, Excel refused to load! It was my understanding that MultiFinder allocates RAM from the top down (to allow for room for the heaps to grow). So, to use Excel with MultiFinder, you'd have to fill up the other 3MB of RAM before loading Excel. This application strangeness is related to Microsoft's development systems (you know the ones that cause Word 3.0 not to use resources except for a huge 337K PCOD resource, and who knows what other problems). <.> (Line counter fodder) <.> <.> <.> <.> >...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cute --John Cavallino ========================================================================= Robert Hammen Computer Applications, Inc. hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Delphi: HAMMEN GEnie: R.Hammen CI$: 70701,2104
chow@batcomputer.UUCP (12/04/87)
|| || Well, a call to Microsoft tech. support (very helpful, BTW) reveals that || Excel is HARD-CODED (gack) to address ONLY the LOWEST 1mb of RAM!!! || Since the bottom meg. of RAM was already in use, Excel refused to load! | | allow for room for the heaps to grow). So, to use Excel with MultiFinder, | you'd have to fill up the other 3MB of RAM before loading Excel. This | application strangeness is related to Microsoft's development systems | (you know the ones that cause Word 3.0 not to use resources except for a | huge 337K PCOD resource, and who knows what other problems). | Actually, Excel works fine on my 2Mb Mac II so you can use Excel under MultiFinder. I heard that Apple actually put hooks into Multifinder so that Microsoft products wouldn't be broken. What I don't understand is *why* ? A long time ago Apple stopped bundling MacPaint and MacWrite with the Mac to stimulate software development by third parties. More recently, a similar step was taken when Apple split of its application software group to form a new company (Claris). So it seems that Apple is making a concerted effort to promote the growth of Macintosh software by third party vendors. Looking back, Microsoft has been the other giant in the Macintosh software field, and its my feeling that they have taken advantage of their size in the Macintosh field to produce bad software. In particular, their development system, makes trashy applications. By trashy, I mean that although you can create quality software (e.g. Excel), the applications have fatal flaw(s). Most notable is the stupidity with the 1-Meg memory limit. It seems that Microsoft thought that the Macintosh software arch. dosen't allow for anything over 1-Meg...I guess we're lucky that they didn't decide to set a lower limit...like 640K. Furthermore, its not as if Microsoft didn't have the time to change their development system -- they were in the Macintosh software market as far back as the original Mac. So why did Apple put hooks into Multifinder for Microsoft? Granted the Excel and Word are important products, but they will still continue to function under System 4.1 and Finder 6.0. Thus, people can still work with Excel and Word so they wouldn't get mad at Apple. But now suppose that Apple didn't put in Multifinder hooks for MS products. Then people would have observed that while most programs worked with Multifinder, and that Multifinder is nice environment, Excel and Word don't work. If most things worked and a few things didn't then something is wrong with the few things. This would either force Microsoft to immediately clean up its act, or help foster an environment where someone else can write "correctly written" programs of similar power. In the end, the user community wins. Condoning Microsoft's mistakes dosen't help the user community. Before anyone flames me, think on this for a moment: Word 3.01 is a very sucessfull program, yet it comes directly from Word 3.00 which had over 475 documented bugs. Yet Microsoft thought that 3.00 was correct enough to release. What other third party vendor could have survived and have a very sucessful product after a start like Word 3.00? Does a company that can do something like this stifle competition? Christopher Chow /---------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Internet: chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35) | | Usenet: ...{uw-beaver|ihnp4|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow | | Bitnet: chow@crnlthry.bitnet | | Phone: 1-607-253-6699, USPS: 7122 N. Campus 7, Ithaca, NY 14853 | | Delphi: chow2 PAN: chow | \---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
robertj@yale.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <3078@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Christopher Chow writes: >Actually, Excel works fine on my 2Mb Mac II so you can use Excel under >MultiFinder. I heard that Apple actually put hooks into Multifinder so that >Microsoft products wouldn't be broken. What I don't understand is *why* ? ... >Looking back, Microsoft has been the other giant in the Macintosh software >field, and its my feeling that they have taken advantage of their size in >the Macintosh field to produce bad software. In particular, their I don't understand why Microsoft would deliberately produce bad software simply because they are the only company big enough to possibly survive the ensuing firestorm of criticism. How would such a move help them? All it brought them with Word 3.00 was a lot of bad feeling. >So why did Apple put hooks into Multifinder for Microsoft? Granted the >Excel and Word are important products, but they will still continue to >function under System 4.1 and Finder 6.0. Thus, people can still work with >Excel and Word so they wouldn't get mad at Apple. But now suppose that Apple >didn't put in Multifinder hooks for MS products. Then people would have >observed that while most programs worked with Multifinder, and that >Multifinder is nice environment, Excel and Word don't work. If most things >worked and a few things didn't then something is wrong with the few things. >This would either force Microsoft to immediately clean up its act, or help >foster an environment where someone else can write "correctly written" >programs of similar power. In the end, the user community wins. Condoning >Microsoft's mistakes dosen't help the user community. Releasing a Microsoft-unfriendly Multifinder doesn't really help the user community either. Most business users (the kind who <hypothetical statement> RELY on Microsoft's business products) would not be able to analyze the situation and conclude that Microsoft was at fault for Excel's inability to run under Multifinder. Instead, they would see "The application Excel has unexpect- edly quit (ID=01)", and wonder why the files they used every day in their business were suddenly unusable under Apple's new System, which was supposed to make their Macs so much *more* useful. They would wind up blaming Apple. And most people are not willing to say "Oh, it still works without Multifinder. I'll use it that way." If it doesn't work with the latest and most modern system software, they get nervous. Witness the current Hypercard/Multifinder flame war. >Before anyone flames me, think on this for a moment: Word 3.01 is a very >sucessfull program, yet it comes directly from Word 3.00 which had over 475 >documented bugs. Yet Microsoft thought that 3.00 was correct enough to >release. What other third party vendor could have survived and have a very >sucessful product after a start like Word 3.00? Does a company that can do >something like this stifle competition? As I remember, Microsoft got MASSIVELY flamed for the release of Word 3.00. They even recalled it a couple of months after its release. I agree that Microsoft should have been better on its beta testing, and I agree that they are possibly the only company that could have survived such a debacle, but I believe that their response to the situation was adequate: admit the problems, recall the software, and release a (bug-free?) update. The other reason why Microsoft survived the Word 3.00 mess is because Word 3 is simply a superior product, and users recognized that. Users were willing to put up with the initial buggy release because they recognized that a bug-free Word would be worth waiting for. Word 3.01 is, right now, the most powerful word processor available for the Macintosh. (No flames, please; e-mail with dissenting opinions.) As for stifling competition...? MS Word 3.01 HAS no competition in the high-end Mac WP market. The only package with a CHANCE against it is Fullwrite "Vaporware of the Decade" Professional. If anything, I would say that the Word 3.00 debacle was actually a window of opportunity for some other WP company to blow Microsoft away. "Word 3.00? Don't buy buggy, overloaded software? Instead buy OUR package!" The sad fact is that no other company had a product that was anything LIKE Word for power word processing. Getting back briefly to Multifinder compatibility: As I understand it, Microsoft isn't the only company with products that have the 1MB bug. Who knows what else might be breaking under Multifinder if not for those patches? But in any case, I have heard that Microsoft is working (hard) to fix this bug in their current products. There is no shortage of flames about this bug, even though the current versions *do* run under Multifinder. In fact, one might even say that Multifinder's release has made the bug MORE visible: it enables one to visually see (in the Finder's "About..." box) how memory- inefficient Microsoft's products are. I would say that Microsoft has made several mistakes in the past, but they have had a fairly good track record on fixing them. And I don't see that they have crushed all the competition; new eager Fullwrite rumors appear almost every day.... >Christopher Chow >/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\ >| Internet: chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35) | >| Usenet: ...{uw-beaver|ihnp4|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow | >| Bitnet: chow@crnlthry.bitnet | >| Phone: 1-607-253-6699, USPS: 7122 N. Campus 7, Ithaca, NY 14853 | >| Delphi: chow2 PAN: chow | >\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/ Thanks for a thought-provoking posting. Rob Jellinghaus | "Lemme graze in your veldt, jellinghaus@yale.edu.UUCP | Lemme trample your albino, ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | Lemme nibble on your buds, !..!ihnp4!hsi!yale!jellinghaus | I'm your... Love Rhino" -- Bloom County
psych@watdcsu.UUCP (12/04/87)
Christopher Chow wrote a long stinging article about Microsoft especially Excel and Word 3. Rob Jellinghaus replied with a rebutal. I do not wish to repeat everything but each made some valid points. I would like to add a few thoughts that I have had. I believe that Microsoft has become too complacent about its position in the market place. They have started to loose ground to almost anyone producing a comparable product. When I originally started to look for a word processor to support within our department, I got a copy of word 3.00. It had problems but was the most powerful WP at the time. I discussed with MS about getting a site license or some other deal. Their response was $395 per copy. Word is not worth $11,000 dollars to us so we decided not to get it. I believe that the price scared a lot of people from buying Word. I speculate that the major sales of Word are to people who got an upgrade from 1.05. In the retail and business market I don't think it did well. MS finally relented and I can now buy it for $175. But, its too late. I have seen Word Perfect in action. It appears to have considerably more power than Word including macros, is much easier to use, and I can get it for less than $175 under our site license. The kind of unrealistic attitude that MS has I believe will hurt it badly in the future. Rob Jellinghaus implied in his earlier reponse that Word 3.01 is bug free. This is completely unfounded. I have discovered many problems in Word 3.01. Every once in a while it starts printing very wierd on an imagewriter. The cure is to do Show Rulers, select the entire document, move the left margin in a few ticks and then move it back. The printing problem is fixed. Another odd ball problem is one day it wouldn't open documents by double clicking on them. I had to open Word and then Open the document. The solution was to quit word while holding the Command and Option keys. This rebuilt the desktop and it works again (this has happened to 2 or 3 other people as well). Richard Crispin Dept. of Psychology University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ont. Canada N2L 3G1 (519)885-1211 ext 2879
stew@endor.UUCP (12/05/87)
In article <19851@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> robertj@yale.UUCP writes: >Releasing a Microsoft-unfriendly Multifinder doesn't really help the user >community either. Most business users (the kind who <hypothetical statement> >RELY on Microsoft's business products) would not be able to analyze the >situation and conclude that Microsoft was at fault for Excel's inability to >run under Multifinder. Instead, they would see "The application Excel has >unexpectedly quit (ID=01)", and wonder why the files they used every day in >their business were suddenly unusable under Apple's new System, which was >supposed to make their Macs so much *more* useful. They would wind up blaming >Apple. And most people are not willing to say "Oh, it still works without >Multifinder. I'll use it that way." If it doesn't work with the latest and >most modern system software, they get nervous. Witness the current >Hypercard/Multifinder flame war. I've had the opposite experience. I'm a Macintosh software developer. I released ChemDraw 1.0 in July, 1987, not too long after System 3.2 was released. It was developed using Megamax C, so when System 4.1 came out, ChemDraw was among the applications which died. So who did my customers blame, me or Apple? Who did they expect to supply them with an immediate fix? Without exception, the attitude of my customers was that ChemDraw was broken and that I was to blame. When I developed a new version, using the new Styled TextEdit, and sent it out to Beta testers, it bombed frequently, due to bugs in Styled TextEdit in System 4.1. Who did the beta testers blame? Me, of course. So I couldn't even speed the release of the new version in order to provide a version that worked with System 4.1 - it was way too fragile. Luckily, the Megamax bug was such that I could apply a binary patch to the application using FEdit, and create a version 1.01 which ran under System 4.1. Now System 4.2 and MultiFinder are here, and I'm heavily into long- delayed beta testing, trying to get the new version out. In the last month, I've reported something like seven bugs in System 4.2 and LaserWriter 5.0 to Macintosh Technical support. I've spent the better part of a month finding workarounds to Apple's bugs. Sigh... Stew Rubenstein Cambridge Scientific Computing, Inc. UUCPnet: seismo!harvard!rubenstein CompuServe: 76525,421 Internet: rubenstein@harvard.harvard.edu MCIMail: CSC
ruiu@tic.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) (12/05/87)
In article <3078@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, chow@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Christopher Chow) writes: > > Looking back, Microsoft has been the other giant in the Macintosh software > field, and its my feeling that they have taken advantage of their size in > the Macintosh field to produce bad software. In particular, their [deletion] > release. What other third party vendor could have survived and have a very > sucessful product after a start like Word 3.00? Does a company that can do > something like this stifle competition? > > Christopher Chow > | Internet: chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35) | > | Usenet: ...{uw-beaver|ihnp4|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow | > | Bitnet: chow@crnlthry.bitnet | It is interesting to note the growing anti-Microsoft sentiment here, and in other groups (ibm.pc, anc c). Some people have even gone so far to state they won't use Microsoft products in principle. Could it be that Microsoft's cavalier attitude, ("We're the big guys here and what we say goes!") lousy user support for users that buy less than $50K of products yearly, and things like the Silver Surfer debacle could catch up to them ? They are trying to play all the fields (Mac, IBM, Xenix) and as a result they have just wound up with a lousy track record of buggy software. (Listen to the MSC 5.0 discussion.) They have shown time and time again, that they do what they want to do, and it doesn't necessarily coincide with the good of the market, or the machines (certainly not the customer). And it seems that it takes IBM, AT&T or Apple to even sway the path that they take. -dragos First there was MS-Clunk....NOW OS/Clunk, coming to a theater near you. (You are in a room full of hot mist :-) -- Dragos Ruiu Disclaimer: My opinons are my employer's, I'm unemployed! UUCP:{ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135,ihnp4}!alberta!edson!tic!dragos!work (403) 432-0090 #1705, 8515 112th Street, Edmonton, Alta. Canada T6G 1K7 Never play leapfrog with Unicorns...