Micoshaft oriffice no more! - Use OpenOffice
in [UK Linux]
|
Prev: (F3) Find Files can't work, after installing SP3 ; os says a
Next: Installing package ending rpm.run ?
From: Peter Köhlmann on 15 Jan 2010 11:31 TMack wrote: > Gordon wrote: >> Tom Shelton wrote: >>> >>> >>> Well, the biggest thing I can see is automation support. I know that >>> OOo has scripting capabilities - but that's not what I'm talking >>> about. MSO goes way beyond just having macro's and scripting. You >>> can completely automate the whole suite of applications from 3rd >>> party apps.. I think OOo does have an sdk for Java or something, >>> but MSO is exposes it's api as a com interfaces, making it >>> accessible from pretty much any programming language that can be >>> used to develop on windows... >>> >>> I work for a very large company, bigger then MS, and and sometimes, I >>> think this whole company runs on excel. They use access and excel >>> all the time, and use lots of automation. In fact, my next big >>> project is a whole suite of excel add-on's using VSTO - which is >>> something I've never had to do before, not normally and office guy :) >>> >>> Anyway, OOo is a capable product - a bit slow, clunky, and memory >>> hungry, but still suitable for many applications - but for many >>> enterprise needs it doesn't seem nearly as capable. For instance, >>> people here are really begining to use OneNote a lot. We are a >>> pretty distributed team with members all over the US - and OneNote >>> makes it easy to do collaborative work. Is there anything like >>> OneNote in the OOo suite? >> >> Hmmm. I've worked for several large corporations in the UK and never >> saw anyone using VBA or Macros, never mind automation. Most people >> couldn't tell me what Pivot tables were either... > > This whole debate about OOo vs MSO is missing the major point. The vast > majority of MS Office users in the workplace barely understand the basic > functions of Word. They haven't a clue about Excel or PowerPoint. They > might (just) be able to view an Excel spreadsheet or a PowerPoint file > but actually doing anything else with either is beyond them. It took > them ages to master the few basic Word functions that are within their > capability. Employers know that the real cost of migrating to OOo would > be a substantial proportion of their workforce being rendered useless > overnight and huge costs associated with training people to use OOo > instead. It is almost impossible to underestimate the competence of many > computer users in the > workplace. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to > explain slowly and carefully that the best way to search for a file is > to use My Computer or Windows Explorer and that the "open file" function > in Word does > not work the same way! These people would NOT adapt easily despite the > extent to which OOo and MS Office are alike in basic functions. > And you are totally ignoring that OO has nearly the same menu structure of MSO. In fact, it is *much* more similar to the versions pre-MSO2007 than the newer MS versions. So, in order to use the new versions of MSO, those "Snot Glasser student" types of users would need years of retraining, and basically none for OO -- I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
From: Conor on 15 Jan 2010 11:48 "PeterK�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message news:hiq59v$llv$02$1(a)news.t-online.com... > And you are totally ignoring that OO has nearly the same menu > structure of > MSO. In fact, it is *much* more similar to the versions pre-MSO2007 > than > the newer MS versions. > Thankyou for demonstrating your complete ignorance of the corporate market. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Gordon on 15 Jan 2010 11:52 Conor wrote: > > "PeterK�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message > news:hiq59v$llv$02$1(a)news.t-online.com... > >> And you are totally ignoring that OO has nearly the same menu >> structure of >> MSO. In fact, it is *much* more similar to the versions pre-MSO2007 >> than >> the newer MS versions. >> > Thankyou for demonstrating your complete ignorance of the corporate > market. > How is that ignorance? Many many corporations are NOT "upgrading" to Office 2007 because of that very fact!
From: chrisv on 15 Jan 2010 13:23 TMack wrote: >This whole debate about OOo vs MSO is missing the major point. I don't think it is being missed... >The vast >majority of MS Office users in the workplace barely understand the basic >functions of Word. They haven't a clue about Excel or PowerPoint. They >might (just) be able to view an Excel spreadsheet or a PowerPoint file but >actually doing anything else with either is beyond them. The above I agree with, and is, essentially the point that some of us have been making all-along. Most users just need the basic functions. The vast bulk of MSO, or OO, is waste, for most users. >It took them ages >to master the few basic Word functions that are within their capability. This I do not agree with. The basic font/formatting/printing options that are mostly used are easy and fast to learn, for all but the most "technically challenged" people. >Employers know that the real cost of migrating to OOo would be a substantial >proportion of their workforce being rendered useless overnight and huge >costs associated with training people to use OOo instead. Nonsense. If you can use one word processor, you can use another. You might stumble-around a little bit at first, finding things. Big deal. >(snip) >These people would NOT adapt easily despite the >extent to which OOo and MS Office are alike in basic functions. Nonsense, IMO.
From: Conor on 15 Jan 2010 14:36
In article <pan.2010.01.14.22.20.43.533501(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil Stovell says... > > Thankyou for confirming you've never worked in a corporate environment. > > 20 years ago I used to advise on software for a large bank in the City of > London. > Irrelevent experience. Sorry I'll rephrase it then: Thankyou for confirming you've not worked in a corporate environment recently. > >> Are you saying that MSO won't format OO ODF documents properly? > >> > > No, I'm saying OOo doesn't format .doc properly. > > That isn't what I asked. Does MSO format OO documents correctly? > It doesn't have to. MSO is the defacto standard, everyone else needs to support it. > > In business, the only thing that counts is if it works in the most > > popular application used worldwide. > > I give up. Because you've just been told the reality of it? -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. |