Word in 2010

[Kevin Amery]

On 5/8/07, Chris Borokowski <athloi at yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's a balance. Too many options means we get
> hyperspecialized by toolset, and so face an upward
> battle. Too few and we're stuck with a tool with no
> incentive to evolve. Microsoft needs the competition
> as much as we do, but if there's too much, we all end
> up spending more of our time learning software that
> does the same thing in different forms.
>

I don't know about you, but what I do is either a) learn the tool that
my organization has chosen (if I don't know it already) or b) evaluate
the tools that are available, pick one that matches my needs, and
learn that. I don't make a point of learning every available tool just
because it's there: I learn specific tools because they're necessary
and/or useful.

Yes, learning fifty four vendor's approaches to reusing content is a
waste of time... but why would the OP or anyone else take that to mean
that fifty one of them must go out of business in order to apply
sanity to it?

This may be unfair, but I look at Microsoft's tools as the lowest
common denominator. I certainly wouldn't want that to be the de facto
standard (especially if it's chosen, as the OP said earlier, "because
it comes with the machine").

(Speaking as someone who is currently using Flare and wouldn't want to
think about trying to do the same thing in Word....)

-- 
Until next time...

Kevin Amery