Outlining in Word 2004: Outline levels inserted in documet, but get Error

[MBWD]

I have a word document to which I attempted to assign TOC levels to
create an outline. So, I went to the particular text in the document,
highlighted it, and then selecgted Format>Paragraph>Outline Level and
assigned an outline level (e.g., Level 1, Level, 2 ... Body Text).
(Note: in the PC version, there is a handy-dandy Outlining toolbar
that has a drop-down menu for this task. If anyone can point me to
this on the Mac, I would be grateful).

Anyway, I went through the document and assigned the appropriate levels
to the appropriate paragraphs. To create a TOC I went to Insert>Index
and Tables and hit the Table of Contents tab. But when I hit OK, I
received the error: Error! No table of contents entries found.


I know that the outlining levels are there, as I can check via the
Format>Paragraph method. It shows the right paragraphs are outlined
and the right others are Body Text.

So what gives? I have no idea how to make this work. Were I on a PC,
it would work perfectly. In fact, I can transfer the file to a PC and
hit the Reference>Index and Tables and hit OK, and it works great.

Any ideas??? Thanks.

 

[Elliott Roper]

I have a word document to which I attempted to assign TOC levels to
create an outline. So, I went to the particular text in the document,
highlighted it, and then selecgted Format>Paragraph>Outline Level and
assigned an outline level (e.g., Level 1, Level, 2 ... Body Text).
(Note: in the PC version, there is a handy-dandy Outlining toolbar
that has a drop-down menu for this task. If anyone can point me to
this on the Mac, I would be grateful).

Anyway, I went through the document and assigned the appropriate levels
to the appropriate paragraphs. To create a TOC I went to Insert>Index
and Tables and hit the Table of Contents tab. But when I hit OK, I
received the error: Error! No table of contents entries found.


I know that the outlining levels are there, as I can check via the
Format>Paragraph method. It shows the right paragraphs are outlined
and the right others are Body Text.

So what gives? I have no idea how to make this work. Were I on a PC,
it would work perfectly. In fact, I can transfer the file to a PC and
hit the Reference>Index and Tables and hit OK, and it works great.

Any ideas??? Thanks.

This might be simple. In Insert » Index and tables.. » Table of
Contents » Options... tick the box labelled 'styles'

It might currently be looking for hand entered contents fields.

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

First get into Outline view: The Help topic "About ways to view a Word
document" will tell you how. The toolbar you want will automatically appear
when you are in Outline View.

Word cannot create a Table of Contents using only Outline Levels. You can
use Outline Levels to adjust the level in a table of contents at which
custom styles appear, but the TOC generator can't use the Level parameter on
its own.

I would use the built-in Heading series styles instead. If you do, they
have the correct outline levels pre-set so the TOC "just works".

If you must use your own styles, see the following Help topic: " Create a
table of contents by using custom styles"

I have a word document to which I attempted to assign TOC levels to
create an outline. So, I went to the particular text in the document,
highlighted it, and then selecgted Format>Paragraph>Outline Level and
assigned an outline level (e.g., Level 1, Level, 2 ... Body Text).
(Note: in the PC version, there is a handy-dandy Outlining toolbar
that has a drop-down menu for this task. If anyone can point me to
this on the Mac, I would be grateful).

Anyway, I went through the document and assigned the appropriate levels
to the appropriate paragraphs. To create a TOC I went to Insert>Index
and Tables and hit the Table of Contents tab. But when I hit OK, I
received the error: Error! No table of contents entries found.


I know that the outlining levels are there, as I can check via the
Format>Paragraph method. It shows the right paragraphs are outlined
and the right others are Body Text.

So what gives? I have no idea how to make this work. Were I on a PC,
it would work perfectly. In fact, I can transfer the file to a PC and
hit the Reference>Index and Tables and hit OK, and it works great.

Any ideas??? Thanks.

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

Some related notes--since I researched this, I'm sharing‹

The TOC Options dialog for WinWord has a "build with outline levels"
checkbox that does not exist in the TOC Options dialog for MacWord 2004.
MWBD, you could request that MacWord add this option using Help | Send
Feedback.

I tried to figure out what the switch was for outline levels (maybe "\u" ?)
and see if it worked on the Mac even without documentation, but my guesses
at the switch produced the same error message. (MacWord Help specifically
does *not* say what MWBD wanted to do is possible)

However, building a TOC from styles is a much better idea anyhow (and for
that reason a feature request may not be successful)--and indeed, by default
the Outlining toolbar applies heading styles, not just outline levels. MWBD,
you can customize the Heading styles so that you like the look.
Alternatively, do all creating and updating of the TOC on the PC.

What's funny, is that the conjunction of the Doc Map and building a TOC from
outline levels has caused much angst in WinWord when random text shows up in
the TOC, and I never noticed that the same thing didn't happen in MacWord,
despite writing a page on it.

Daiya

 

[MBWD]

Thanks for all the information. I am not a big fan of this lack of a
feature in the Mac version. I don't want to have to create a header
style each time I create an outline. Rather, I much prefer the WinWord
version's ability to simply highlight the text that I want to be part
of my outline, and ascribe a level. It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version.

Unfortunately, I guess I will have to use a PC for this function. My
outlines change styles from paper to paper and it would be a waste of
time to keep making different header styles for each.

Thanks, though, for everyone's efforts and suggestions.

 

[Clive Huggan]

Dear [whoever],

I use PC and Mac versions of Word, and "build with outline levels" is yet
another feature that I'm glad Microsoft's Mac Business Unit did not bring
across from the PC version (possibly on cost grounds: who knows?).

The reason: consistent with what Daiya said, nothing can be simpler than
using styles to format a document, since Word is a styles-based application.
We don't format in heading (not "header" btw ­ that's what goes at the top
of each page) styles specifically to provide an outline, but to save time
and bother when formatting the document; a ready-made outline is a
side-effect. When you apply a style, you apply a whole group of formats in
one simple step. On page 83 of the downloadable document shown below is a
table showing how, in 3 seconds, you can apply a style through two actions,
which brings 13 useful consequent features; and how you take 30 seconds to
apply manual formatting to achieve the same visual appearance, via 12
actions, with only 2 or 3 useful consequent features.

You don't need to contrive, via what you are doing, to develop a structure
to work in Outline View. I respect your utilizing PC Word to apply your
method, and I'm not denigrating that at all if it's what suits you, but of
the hundreds of professional-level Word document developers I know, not one
of them does the formatting other than by styles. And many of us use
outlining as a core feature for developing long documents. It follows,
therefore, that I don't agree with your comment "It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version" -- because it isn't nearly
so simple as doing it via styles.

For further details of styles, see the article "Styles and templates ‹ the
keys to consistency and saving time", starting on page 81 of some notes on
the way I use Word for the Mac, titled "Bend Word to Your Will", which are
available as a free download from the Word MVPs' website
(http://word.mvps.org/Mac/Bend/BendWordToYourWill.html). Some notes on
Outline View are on page 134.

[Note: "Bend Word to your will" is designed to be used electronically and
most subjects are self-contained dictionary-style entries. If you decide to
read more widely than the item I've referred to, it's important to read the
front end of the document -- especially pages 3 and 5 -- so you can select
some Word settings that will allow you to use the document effectively.]

I hope you find this gives food for thought and, if you look into it, that
the world of styles is exciting.

Cheers,

Clive Huggan
Canberra, Australia
(My time zone is 5-11 hours different from the US and Europe, so my
follow-on responses to those regions can be delayed)
============================================================

 

[MBWD]

Clive, I appreciate the suggestions in your comments below as well as
the document to which you provided a link. I will continue to read
through that document and decide whether styles are the way to go.
They may be.

I still like the simplicity of being able to select a particular text
and ascribe a TOC level to it. I also still dislike the prospect of
creating a set of headings for each outline that I use in different
documents (assuming, of course, that I require different looking
outlines for each). But I appreciate your advice and the passion that
you have for word.

You have, however, given me food for thought. Thanks.


[Side note: the word "embolden," which is used throughout the linked
document, does not mean to make text appear (and print) in bold
characters. Though it does sound better than "make bold" or "ascribe
bold attributes to."]

Dear [whoever],

I use PC and Mac versions of Word, and "build with outline levels" is yet
another feature that I'm glad Microsoft's Mac Business Unit did not bring
across from the PC version (possibly on cost grounds: who knows?).

The reason: consistent with what Daiya said, nothing can be simpler than
using styles to format a document, since Word is a styles-based application.
We don't format in heading (not "header" btw ­ that's what goes at the top
of each page) styles specifically to provide an outline, but to save time
and bother when formatting the document; a ready-made outline is a
side-effect. When you apply a style, you apply a whole group of formats in
one simple step. On page 83 of the downloadable document shown below is a
table showing how, in 3 seconds, you can apply a style through two actions,
which brings 13 useful consequent features; and how you take 30 seconds to
apply manual formatting to achieve the same visual appearance, via 12
actions, with only 2 or 3 useful consequent features.

You don't need to contrive, via what you are doing, to develop a structure
to work in Outline View. I respect your utilizing PC Word to apply your
method, and I'm not denigrating that at all if it's what suits you, but of
the hundreds of professional-level Word document developers I know, not one
of them does the formatting other than by styles. And many of us use
outlining as a core feature for developing long documents. It follows,
therefore, that I don't agree with your comment "It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version" -- because it isn't nearly
so simple as doing it via styles.

For further details of styles, see the article "Styles and templates ‹ the
keys to consistency and saving time", starting on page 81 of some notes on
the way I use Word for the Mac, titled "Bend Word to Your Will", which are
available as a free download from the Word MVPs' website
(http://word.mvps.org/Mac/Bend/BendWordToYourWill.html). Some notes on
Outline View are on page 134.

[Note: "Bend Word to your will" is designed to be used electronically and
most subjects are self-contained dictionary-style entries. If you decideto
read more widely than the item I've referred to, it's important to read the
front end of the document -- especially pages 3 and 5 -- so you can select
some Word settings that will allow you to use the document effectively.]

I hope you find this gives food for thought and, if you look into it, that
the world of styles is exciting.

Cheers,

Clive Huggan
Canberra, Australia
(My time zone is 5-11 hours different from the US and Europe, so my
follow-on responses to those regions can be delayed)
============================================================

Thanks for all the information. I am not a big fan of this lack of a
feature in the Mac version. I don't want to have to create a header
style each time I create an outline. Rather, I much prefer the WinWord
version's ability to simply highlight the text that I want to be part
of my outline, and ascribe a level. It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version.

Unfortunately, I guess I will have to use a PC for this function. My
outlines change styles from paper to paper and it would be a waste of
time to keep making different header styles for each.

Thanks, though, for everyone's efforts and suggestions.

 

[Clive Huggan]

Thanks for your kind remarks!

I must admit to having a somewhat imperfect understanding of your intended
use of outlining and formatting; and when you say "I also still dislike the
prospect of creating a set of headings for each outline that I use in
different documents (assuming, of course, that I require different looking
outlines for each)", I remain perplexed [warning here: it would not be the
first time it has taken a while for something obvious to dawn on me.]

One thing occurs to me: by outlines, do you mean the display of the
structure of the document via View menu -> Outline? If not, that will
greatly clarify things, I expect.

Another idea: If I explain how I format a document, perhaps you can tell me
more about your method and intentions.

When I write a document from scratch, I type text into a blank document
based on the Normal template. When I want a paragraph to be a Heading 1,
for example, I type the text, then with the insertion point still in that
paragraph, at the end of it, I key Command-Option-1, then press the Return
key ("Enter" key on the PC) to produce a new blank paragraph, in body text
style (out-of-the-box Word makes this Normal style, but that's another
story).

In practice, because I develop fairly long strategic plans and policies and
frequently receive contributions from others, more often I drop text into my
document from collaborators or the web. Since most of my collaborators'
formatting is idiosyncratic if not feral, I find it easiest to format the
document from scratch -- in the process avoiding the potential corruption
and manually applied changes inherent in manual (direct) formatting.

I do this by pasting the contributed material in as unformatted text (by a
customized keyboard shortcut, but the little blue-line thingy achieves the
same thing). I paste it into a body text paragraph because that's what the
majority of paragraphs are; the text takes on that style. Then I go through,
and click on a plain-text paragraph that's destined to be the first major
heading. I apply a Heading 1 style via Command-Option-1, and apply
subsequent instances of this style by clicking (not selecting) in the
appropriate paragraph and keying it again -- or because I do this with
non-heading styles I tend to key Option-Return or Command-y (Word has all
sorts of wonderful alternatives, doesn't it?), which simply repeats the last
keyed action.

I then repeat this for instances of Heading 2: one quick application of the
style, then Option-Return, and so on. This sounds laborious, but in practice
it's remarkably quick, even with long documents.

That gives me a document that is least likely to corrupt, is consistent in
formatting (see "Minimum maintenance" formatting in appendix A of "Bend Word
to Your Will"); compiles a table of contents automatically (not always by
compiling the headings only ­ sometimes I instruct Word to include other
special styles as well); and can be manipulated in Outline View.

Different clients have different formatting preferences. For that I either
attach a different template to the document to import the template's style
definitions before unlinking the template. Or I simply redefine the body
text style (e.g. if it's only a case of the body text being in Arial rather
than say Times New Roman).

I'd be interested to learn how you meet your particular needs via your
methods ­ if only to expand my knowledge of how other people follow
different practices.

Ah, "embolden" ­ I used it in the second sense (Oxford US dictionary; others
too):
"2. cause (a piece of text) to appear in a bold typeface: center, embolden,
and underline the heading."

Looking forward to hearing back from you,

Clive Huggan
============

Clive, I appreciate the suggestions in your comments below as well as
the document to which you provided a link. I will continue to read
through that document and decide whether styles are the way to go.
They may be.

I still like the simplicity of being able to select a particular text
and ascribe a TOC level to it. I also still dislike the prospect of
creating a set of headings for each outline that I use in different
documents (assuming, of course, that I require different looking
outlines for each). But I appreciate your advice and the passion that
you have for word.

You have, however, given me food for thought. Thanks.


[Side note: the word "embolden," which is used throughout the linked
document, does not mean to make text appear (and print) in bold
characters. Though it does sound better than "make bold" or "ascribe
bold attributes to."]

Dear [whoever],

I use PC and Mac versions of Word, and "build with outline levels" is yet
another feature that I'm glad Microsoft's Mac Business Unit did not bring
across from the PC version (possibly on cost grounds: who knows?).

The reason: consistent with what Daiya said, nothing can be simpler than
using styles to format a document, since Word is a styles-based application.
We don't format in heading (not "header" btw ­ that's what goes at the top
of each page) styles specifically to provide an outline, but to save time
and bother when formatting the document; a ready-made outline is a
side-effect. When you apply a style, you apply a whole group of formats in
one simple step. On page 83 of the downloadable document shown below is a
table showing how, in 3 seconds, you can apply a style through two actions,
which brings 13 useful consequent features; and how you take 30 seconds to
apply manual formatting to achieve the same visual appearance, via 12
actions, with only 2 or 3 useful consequent features.

You don't need to contrive, via what you are doing, to develop a structure
to work in Outline View. I respect your utilizing PC Word to apply your
method, and I'm not denigrating that at all if it's what suits you, but of
the hundreds of professional-level Word document developers I know, not one
of them does the formatting other than by styles. And many of us use
outlining as a core feature for developing long documents. It follows,
therefore, that I don't agree with your comment "It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version" -- because it isn't nearly
so simple as doing it via styles.

For further details of styles, see the article "Styles and templates ‹ the
keys to consistency and saving time", starting on page 81 of some notes on
the way I use Word for the Mac, titled "Bend Word to Your Will", which are
available as a free download from the Word MVPs' website
(http://word.mvps.org/Mac/Bend/BendWordToYourWill.html). Some notes on
Outline View are on page 134.

[Note: "Bend Word to your will" is designed to be used electronically and
most subjects are self-contained dictionary-style entries. If you decide to
read more widely than the item I've referred to, it's important to read the
front end of the document -- especially pages 3 and 5 -- so you can select
some Word settings that will allow you to use the document effectively.]

I hope you find this gives food for thought and, if you look into it, that
the world of styles is exciting.

Cheers,

Clive Huggan
Canberra, Australia
(My time zone is 5-11 hours different from the US and Europe, so my
follow-on responses to those regions can be delayed)
============================================================

Thanks for all the information. I am not a big fan of this lack of a
feature in the Mac version. I don't want to have to create a header
style each time I create an outline. Rather, I much prefer the WinWord
version's ability to simply highlight the text that I want to be part
of my outline, and ascribe a level. It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version.

Unfortunately, I guess I will have to use a PC for this function. My
outlines change styles from paper to paper and it would be a waste of
time to keep making different header styles for each.

Thanks, though, for everyone's efforts and suggestions.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version.

It's fewer clicks by default, whether manually or using the outlining
toolbar, to apply a heading than to apply an outline level. That'd be one
reason (although you can work around that)--another is that Mac users never
noticed this was missing (at least I didn't). The outline-level method is
not recommended on the WinWord side either, by the way--in general it's
considered less confusing all around to have a visual marker of the
structure. In Outline View, the indent serves to do this, but once you leave
Outline View, outline levels are fairly invisible.

Although you can Hide Formatting in the Outline View, the Outlining toolbar
does apply headings, not just outline levels, by the way.

 

[Phillip Jones]

IF you thought about it the way Gates does, you'd understand. If you put
out a product with lots of missing Features from it, that is on the
platform you want them to go to; you might aggravate them enough to
leave their platform of choice. :-(

Thanks for all the information. I am not a big fan of this lack of a
feature in the Mac version. I don't want to have to create a header
style each time I create an outline. Rather, I much prefer the WinWord
version's ability to simply highlight the text that I want to be part
of my outline, and ascribe a level. It is so simple; I can't
understand why folks put up with the Mac version.

Unfortunately, I guess I will have to use a PC for this function. My
outlines change styles from paper to paper and it would be a waste of
time to keep making different header styles for each.

Thanks, though, for everyone's efforts and suggestions.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Phillip!!!

You're trolling again

Well, you're NOT going to catch anyone this time

Cheers

IF you thought about it the way Gates does, you'd understand. If you put
out a product with lots of missing Features from it, that is on the
platform you want them to go to; you might aggravate them enough to
leave their platform of choice. :-(

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Phillip Jones]

No I 'm not trolling. Microsoft and Apple's Relationship at best from
the Start has been Apple laying on the floor sprawled out with With
Microsoft Sitting on top choking them to the point of passing out and
just letting up to let them gain their breath. When when
they(Apple)regains their breath they (MS) starts choking again. :-(

Steve and Steve's worse decision, was snubbing Gates in College, when
they decided to Start Apple and not let him be a partner.

If MS would just get over the old grudges and just work with Apple to
come out with software that was equal of parity. Instead of leaving a
little out here and a little out their to to deliberately infuriate Mac
users and make them throw up their hands and go to the Dark side just to
get features that should be on both platforms.

Software should be built so that it can run on any major platform. There
is enough business for everyone. Its not trolling. I've been aggravated
and my blood pressure raised from the first time I owned a Mac (Mac
SE/30) just because the Mac version of MS Products are missing features
that the PC version has. And based on my experience with PC Hardware
when I worked for a school system I'd rather run out in front of Mac
truck and get hit, than resort to using one :-<

Phillip!!!

You're trolling again

Well, you're NOT going to catch anyone this time

Cheers

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Elliott Roper]

No I 'm not trolling.

Steve and Steve's worse decision, was snubbing Gates in College, when
they decided to Start Apple and not let him be a partner.

Not only is that a troll, it's a re-write of history.

If MS would just get over the old grudges and just work with Apple to
come out with software that was equal of parity. Instead of leaving a
little out here and a little out their to to deliberately infuriate Mac
users and make them throw up their hands and go to the Dark side just to
get features that should be on both platforms.

You Phillip, are suffering from passive featuritis. It is like passive
smoking, but instead of getting polyps on your lungs, you get embedded
fonts in your documents.

Software should be built so that it can run on any major platform. There
is enough business for everyone. Its not trolling. I've been aggravated
and my blood pressure raised from the first time I owned a Mac (Mac
SE/30) just because the Mac version of MS Products are missing features
that the PC version has.

It is not that easy. Do you really want to wish ActiveX on Mac users?
When the operating systems (I *hate* the way 'platform' is misused)
offer different services it is no longer a simple matter to make
application software bug-for-bug compatible across them.
Me, I'd like 'em to rip features out until the product becomes
maintainable again, and 'bug-for-bug compatibility' returns to its
former role of ironic approbation.

One can permit oneself a note of guarded optimism with XML file formats
and the fall of VBA in upcoming versions of Office for both Windows and
Mac OS X.

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Phillip:

You were too trolling

No I 'm not trolling. Microsoft and Apple's Relationship at best from
the Start has been Apple laying on the floor sprawled out with With
Microsoft Sitting on top choking them to the point of passing out and
just letting up to let them gain their breath. When when
they(Apple)regains their breath they (MS) starts choking again. :-(

Yes. Quite. Well, you're American, you ought to understand this behaviour
perfectly well. It's what American corporations describe as "Business As
Usual"

You're not allowed to actually kill the opposition, because that gets you
into trouble with the Department of Justice. But you certainly don't want
to leave them walking around selling stuff...

Steve and Steve's worse decision, was snubbing Gates in College, when
they decided to Start Apple and not let him be a partner.

I happen to think it was one of his finest decisions, for all of us. I am
much more a PC user than a Mac user. I depend on Apple to set the high
water mark in the marketplace.

Without Apple, we would still be using a Pentium 90 and Windows 3.1 on the
PC. Everyone needs to understand that. The only other serious contender
out there was IBM OS/2. OS 2 really was a lovely product and it would have
utterly creamed Windows. But IBM was determined never to develop it to the
point where it could begin to encroach on its big iron sales. So it starved
to death in the market place.

If MS would just get over the old grudges and just work with Apple to
come out with software that was equal of parity. Instead of leaving a
little out here and a little out their to to deliberately infuriate Mac
users and make them throw up their hands and go to the Dark side just to
get features that should be on both platforms.

Yeah, well... I think you might find that iDVD and iMovie have one or two
features we don't have on the PC side too.

Software design has changed. It used to be that the application provided
all of its own functions and even drew its own images on the screen. The
Disk Operating System (that's where the name came from...) used to handle
the exchange of data between the disks, the CPU and the memory. And that's
ALL it did.

Now, the operating system is a giant Leggo set of building blocks. The
compilers marketed these days have huge toolkits of "functions" that expose
the building blocks of the target operating system. And the "Application"
these days is little more than a script that calls the functions and
building blocks in the correct order. A retail application these days
contains only a tiny amount of "business logic" that actually performs the
useful functions: well over 80 per cent of the work is performed by code
that is part of the operating system.

So when you need a function that the operating system does not provide, you
have two choices: build it yourself, or wait for the target operating system
to provide it. Building it yourself is painfully labour-intensive. It
often has to be done in Assembly Language: raw CPU instructions. There's
some of that in Microsoft Office (they keep trying to claim they've gotten
rid of all the assembler in Word, but I don't believe it... There are
functions that simply operate too quickly to have been done in a
higher-level language: the spelling checker is one...)

The reason we do not have right-to-left support in Microsoft Office on the
Mac yet is because it relies on a set of functions built into Windows.
Apple has promised RTL support for OS X, but it hasn't so far arrived in a
useable form.

Microsoft is not going to spend squillions re-inventing that particular
wheel on the Apple platform, only to have to rip it out and switch to the
Apple functions when they arrive. That would simply be commercially stupid!

Software should be built so that it can run on any major platform.

No. Any platform should be built so it can run any of the required software
There's not a lot of demand for Word or iChat on a mainframe...

And based on my experience with PC Hardware
when I worked for a school system I'd rather run out in front of Mac
truck and get hit, than resort to using one :-<

PCs are built down to a price. Always have been. That's why we bought
them: the price! Have a look inside a recent Dell from their corporate line
and you may be pleasantly surprised. The level of engineering and design is
the equal of anything out of Cupertino.

And it's worth remembering that these days, Dell puts out three lines of
products: Business, Home, and Enthusiast. The Business lines are boring and
basic but very solid. The Home lines are disposables. They'll run three
years and you throw them away. The Enthusiast stuff is built for gamers.
It will last 20 minutes before they have the side off it, and after that,
strange and unusual things will happen. They *may* be screamingly faaast...
More likely, they will be down more often than they're up

Cheers
--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410