scrapbook

Kill Microsoft Word

Why the Popular Word Processing Program Should Be Scrapped

Commentary
By John C. Dvorak
PC Magazine

Aug. 24, 2004 -- When is the last time anyone talked about Microsoft Word? Here's a program on its last legs that should probably be discarded and rethought completely. It has become a kludge. This is apparent with the latest version in Office 2003.

Let me start out with a couple of my current complaints. My biggest annoyance with the current version is that it keeps reinstalling features, which requires me to reinsert the master disc over and over. I'm not sure if this is a trick to check with Microsoft's database to make sure I'm a registered user or if the program is just stupid.

Here's the scenario. I get a .doc file as an e-mail attachment. I click on it and Word boots. Then I'm told I need to add a feature to read the file. It's always the same feature, apparently. I say Yes to adding the feature. It installs it, then loads the file from the e-mail. The next time I click on the e-mail, the same thing happens, and so on. Obviously the feature is never actually added.

While that was an eye-roller, within six months a more ominous error cropped up. Now when I start Word I get a message saying, "An error occurred and this feature is no longer functioning properly. Would you like to repair this feature now?" It never says what feature it wants to repair. I click Yes and it asks for the disc, and then it repairs the feature -- at least until the next time I start Word, when I get the same message.

If I stop repairing, I get another dialog that says, "The document contains macros. Macro language support for this application is disabled. Features requiring VBA are not available. Would you like to open this document read-only?" Whether I click Yes or Cancel makes absolutely no difference, as there is no document involved! I merely started the program. After bypassing these roadblocks, the program runs fine.

I suppose I should reinstall Word, but other people have told me they have the same problems. So why bother?

Messy Markups

My irritation with Word began last year when we were finishing Online! The Book for Prentice-Hall. The editing required a lot of markups using Word, since the publisher seemed enamored with Word's markup capability, whereby you can track changes. This was great, except that between the various versions of Windows (Word 97, Word 2000, Word XP, Word 2003, and a couple of Mac versions) used by the authors and editors, we had a huge mess.

This was laughable -- actually, a nightmare. I concluded that the program is out of control and needs to be scrapped. Users should all be given some new program for an upgrade charge of $10 ? just to get everyone on the same page.

Meanwhile, let's not forget the historical issues with Word. Let's list a few.

Previous Problems

• The ever-changing .doc format.
  
  Even saving to older .doc formats or .rtf seldom gets perfect results. I'm always amused by the warning that things will change if I save in some format or other, yet after the save absolutely nothing has changed.


• Dubious HTML creation.
  
  How hard is it for Word to create a simple brain-dead HTML file without embedding a ton of junk? It can't seem to handle any moderate formatting either. The newest version can create some sort of XML file too, but for what purpose I have no idea. Because its HTML creation is so poor, though, why would I trust it to do anything fancier?


• Plain-text conundrum.
  
  Users of plain-text editors know that Microsoft has never been able to get Word to generate a simple ASCII file without issues. First, there is no option to create a plain ASCII file. Instead, we can create a variety of so-called "plain text" files, none of which seem to be plain text.

End of the Line?

With the newest version of Word, when you want to save plain text you get a dialog box with a near infinite variety of "plain text" options, including a variety of IBM EBCDIC, Icelandic-Macintosh code, and a laundry list of weird options. The user has to now determine if line breaks are to be added and must choose between 4 different EOL (end of line) options and whether or not to allow character substitutions.

Microsoft must have concluded that there is no such thing as a plain-text file; this new option box proves it in some sick way.

There are many more issues than these. It's clear the program is in decline, with too many patches and teams of coders passing in the night. It's about time that it's junked and we get something new. This code can no longer be fixed.

[original article]

Posted by thinkum at August 25, 2004 04:22 PM