On 9/5/2010 6:08 PM, Jerry wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:15:10 -0400 Charles Marcus CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com articulated:
On 9/5/2010 7:27 AM, Jerry wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:55:27 -0400 Charles Marcus CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com articulated: The HTML rendering engine in Word (2007 and 2010) blows goats. MS's decision to switch from IE to Word for the Outlook (2007 and 2010) HTML rendering engine was brain-dead.
You stated: "force people to use Office". I simply pointed out that, that is not true. They were all ready using Office.
Who says? We have never used MSO in our offices (with the exception of our Accountants), so when MS made this switch, they effectively would have killed HTML rendering in Outlook - had we been using it. Or... maybe you aren't aware that you can buy Outlook by itself, or that many Exchange hosting companies provide 'free' copies of Outlook for every licensed user of their service?
And what I meant was: 'force people to use office (guess I should have been more precise and said 'MS Word') *if* they want to be able to view HTML emails'... I thought that was rather obvious.
Switching between IE & Office by Microsoft is a subjective evaluation.
Absolutely wrong. The difference in html rendering quality between the two is HUGE - especially since IE8 was released.
Market share is what counts, and 2010 still has vastly less market share than any of the others. 2000 and 2003 probably each have the largest market share.
It was only recently released. Give it time.
Even if it had 90% of the market share, Office 2007 and even 2003/XP would still not be 'deprecated'...
Whether or not it is officially "end of life" is immaterial. The older versions have been deprecated by the release of "Office 2010".
No, they haven't - you apparently don't know what 'deprecated' means.
This is getting way OT though...
I agree! I will discuss if OL if you want.
No need/point... it is irrelevant, so I won't say any more on the subject...
--
Best regards,
Charles