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: JEDIDIAH on 14 Jan 2010 09:41 On 2010-01-14, Hadron <hadronquark(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:49:03 -0600, Rick wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:44:40 +0100, Hadron wrote: >>> >>>> Rick <none(a)mail.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:18:07 +0000, Conor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <slrnhkstrh.uit.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2010-01-13, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > In article <slrnhksal6.5sr.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... [deletia] >> We went through all this last week when somebody published a MS Word DOCX >> file the OO couldn't render properly. The only thing was, MS Word viewer >> with the DOCX service pack couldn't render it either, the only program >> that could was the version of Word that created it. > > Only after you claimed 100% compatability. > > Look, the issue is not all different versions of word. Its simply the > version the corporation/business uses and the versions clients use. > > You guys can harp on all you like about a certain DOCX file, but the > fact is that OO does not render too many MSO docs properly. EOS. That is simply your fantasy. -- Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \
From: JEDIDIAH on 14 Jan 2010 09:39 On 2010-01-14, Ivor Jones <ivor(a)thisaddressis.invalid> wrote: > > > On 14/01/10 04:18, Conor wrote: >> In article<slrnhkstrh.uit.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... >>> >>> On 2010-01-13, Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> In article<slrnhksal6.5sr.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says... >>>> >>>>> Open Office is good enough to apply negative price pressure to MSO. >>>> >>>> OOo is no use to anyone who wants to do more than a basic expenses >>>> spreadsheet or homework. >>> >>> ...which as I said before is the vast majority of users. >>> >> Wrong. The vast majority of office users are in a corporate environment. >> OOo is not suitable for their needs. >> > > Oh I don't know. My business needs would be met quite adequately by OOo. Like I've said before. The main thing about msoffice is the fact that it has the appearance of being most compatable with itself. If you have to deal with other people exchanging RW documents with you then you might need MSO just to ensure 100% accuracy (or as close as you can expect to that). "features" are likely irrelevant. A 10 year old copy of msoffice or one of it's other commercial competitors would probably do equally well. -- Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \
From: Tom Shelton on 14 Jan 2010 10:13 On Jan 14, 1:57 am, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlm...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > Gordon wrote: > > Conor wrote: > > >> Quite probably. You'll also find they're using MS Office as well. > > > For the few users only who need functions which are not in OO. And > > that's not many. > > Well, what function exactly would be missing? > > The widiots simply claim that MSO has functionality that is missing in OO.. > And when asked for specifics, usually slink away red faced 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? -- Tom Shelton
From: Ezekiel on 14 Jan 2010 10:27 > >"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >news:a2eef03b-401c-4043-99de-f7e6c572d722(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >On Jan 14, 1:57 am, Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlm...(a)t-online.de> >wrote: >> Gordon wrote: >> > Conor wrote: >> >> >> Quite probably. You'll also find they're using MS Office as well. >> >> > For the few users only who need functions which are not in OO. And >> > that's not many. >> >> Well, what function exactly would be missing? >> >> The widiots simply claim that MSO has functionality that is missing in >> OO. >> And when asked for specifics, usually slink away red faced > >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... Years ago (and I mean *YEARS* ago) - I automated a ROM burner using MS-Word macros. You ran the macro, answered a few questions and it would create a table and pre-generate the key entries for you including which control-software to load into the ROM. The user then manually filled in the desired switch matrix into the table in MS-Word, hit a button and the ROM was burned. (This is before EEPROM was common.) > >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? I really, really like OneNote. I think that it's the most *under rated* application in the entire MS-Office suite. It's a great app that few have ever heard of.
From: Gordon on 14 Jan 2010 10:29
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... |