Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 23:05 UTC
Permalink for comment 535570
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-14
Yeah, I was a little confused by that comment as well. My guess was that the previous version of office doesn't suck, so why buy a newer version that won't be better enough to justify the cost. Back in 2001 you had office 2000 which was good, but screwed up compatibility with previous versions of office. If a user opened an access document with access 2000 and wanted to edit something, it was transformed into a format that users still with office 97 couldn't use. Office XP fixed that, allowing users to edit access docs in any previous version without transforming it into a newer version.