> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:37:01 GMT, Joerg
> removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>

>> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:20:26 +0000, Brendan Gillatt
>>> brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>>>

>>>> If the files were writeable with Vista they'd be writeable with
>>>> any other version of windows.

>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Encrypted file systems are only accessible to OSes that are compliant
>>> with such file systems. That would not include "any other version of
>>> windows". Also even an non-encrypted NTFS file system on Vista is not
>>> able to be accessed on an older Windows box that has not been upgraded,
>>> and there are thousands of them.

>>
>> You mean they blew yet another backwards compatibility? ...

>One of my neighbors[...]was trying to sell me
>on the 'save myself before the Rapture'.
>His sect believes that it will happen within a decade.
>
>So I asked him if he was participating in his companies 401K plan.
>Or saving for his children's college fund.
>
>No answers. Now that was funny.

>>>>>If the files were writeable with Vista
>>>>>they'd be writeable with any other version of windows.
>>>>>

>>>>Wrong.
>>>>Encrypted file systems[...]
>>>>

>>>Luckily I don't have to deal with that.
>>>

>>Money?
>>

>Nope, nothing to do with money. I don't have to deal with Vista.
>It won't enter this here office ;-)

> Brendan Gillatt wrote:

>>>>>> If the files were writeable with Vista
>>>>>> they'd be writeable with any other version of windows.
>>>>>>

> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> Encrypted file systems[...]
>>>>>

> Joerg wrote:

>>>> Luckily I don't have to deal with that.
>>>>

> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

>>> Money?
>>>

> Joerg wrote:

>> Nope, nothing to do with money. I don't have to deal with Vista.
>> It won't enter this here office ;-)

>
> It's simple really: "We retain the right ...

>JeffM wrote:

>> Brendan Gillatt wrote:

>>>>>>> If the files were writeable with Vista
>>>>>>> they'd be writeable with any other version of windows.
>>>>>>>

>> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

>>>>>> Wrong....

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:44:37 GMT, Joerg
> removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>

>> JeffM wrote:

>>> Brendan Gillatt wrote:

>>>>>>>> If the files were writeable with Vista
>>>>>>>> they'd be writeable with any other version of windows.
>>>>>>>>

>>> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>> Encrypted file systems[...]
>>>>>>>

>>> Joerg wrote:

>>>>>> Luckily I don't have to deal with that.
>>>>>>

>>> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

>>>>> Money?
>>>>>

>>> Joerg wrote: ...

>>JeffM wrote:

>>>It's simple really: "We retain the right
>>>to refuse correspondence in proprietary data formats.
>>>Please use an *open* document format.
>>> We prefer OpenDocument Format."
>>>

>>My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format.
>>Can be read by all clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine.

>The OO format itself is not widely used in industry

>>so I could not use it. Works for me.
>>

>Received any specifications in "docx" format yet ?:-)

>>>JeffM wrote:

>>>>It's simple really: "We retain the right
>>>>to refuse correspondence in proprietary data formats.
>>>>Please use an *open* document format.
>>>> We prefer OpenDocument Format."

>...

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:21:25 -0800 (PST), JeffM email.com>
> wrote:
>

>>>> JeffM wrote:

>>>>> It's simple really: "We retain the right
>>>>> to refuse correspondence in proprietary data formats.
>>>>> Please use an *open* document format.
>>>>> We prefer OpenDocument Format."
>>>>>

>> Joerg wrote:

>>>> My rule WRT text documents is Word-97 format.
>>>> Can be read by all clients, and OpenOffice also handles it just fine.

>>> The OO format itself is not widely used in industry

>>>> so I could not use it. Works for me.
>>>>

>> It's not OOo's format. It's ODF sponsored by these folks:
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:OASIS
>> "Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards"
>> ...

>>>Received any specifications in "docx" format yet ?:-)

>>

>>They say that the memory is the 2nd thing to go, Old Timer. 8-)
>>You even posted to that thread.
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/829613d0...

>

>No. Looks like Joerg (and perhaps you, as well :-)
>that have memory problems.
>