OFFICE 265 FOR MAC FOR MAC OS
OFFICE 265 FOR MAC ARCHIVE
OFFICE 265 FOR MAC PLUS

OFFICE 265 FOR MAC FOR MAC OS

Still I’m interested in what’s going on in the region of commercial software, especially if they are made for Mac OS X, one of my favourite OS platforms, right next to UNIX. I think this does say more than my use of MICROS~1. What does it say about my credibility? I invite you to have a look at my profile, and maybe you like to compare it to yours. I think it’s better to use MICROS~1 instead of screaming around “this shitty company produces bloaded malware to spread viruses and spam and dumbes down the users everywhere they can, abusing their monopoly” or similar things. On the other hand, I’m working in the IT sector so I know about problems others have with MICROS~1 products, I do head many complains. This shows bias? Hmmm… maybe, but I tend to say I’m usually not interested in them at all because I don’t use their products and I’ve never seen any need for them. “DocPain: First of all referring Microsoft as MICROS~1 etc shows your bias against them so your views really hold much lower credibility.”ĭear CrazyDude1, I always refer to them as MICROS~1 because it’s kind of my individual style here at OSNews. 🙂 (Refer to human history for more examples.) sharpened corners while everything else is rounded), but I bet most OS X users will tend to use NeoOffice or OpenOffice instead of this expensive product that lacks some important standard compatibility and interoperability features…įrom the article: “ the path of least resistance suggest that using Word is for the best.” - Here, I would reply that the path of least resistance usually is the path into oblivion. I won’t say it looks bad, because it does not look bad, and it seems to follow Mac OS X’s native look and feel better than expected, while on the other hand it explicitely rejects them (e. Just judging from the screenshots, it seems to waste much vertical space with the default set of icon bars.

OFFICE 265 FOR MAC ARCHIVE

(The best word processor can only output garbare in terms of layout, typography, orthographical correctness and content if it is not used the way it should be, and, on the other hand, a mechanical typewriter can output a document where nobody will find any reason to complain if it is used correctly.) And it will not prevent users from putting a RAR archive that contains a video into a “Word” document and export it to HTML to e-mail it to somebody else, saying “Look at this video clip I found!” 🙂Īs always, typography isn’t really one of MICROS~1 strengths, even if they develop something that should be used on Mac OS which is the top system for professional DTP and typesetting. In most cases, it’s the user who determines the look of a document, not the word processor used.

OFFICE 265 FOR MAC PLUS

“The most important aspect is that the new Word produces really nice looking documents and that is a big plus in my eyes.”īut this will not prevent users without any clue to produce documents that look like crap.

Office 265 for mac