Chad wrote:
> You leave out the re-education process. Going from MS Office XP to MS Office
> 2003 does require a slight readjustment period .... but not as much as it
> would to go from Office XP to OOo 2.0.
_If_ they were trained properly in the first place, the cost of
teaching them how to use OOo x.x will be no more than the cost of
teaching them how to use MSO x+1.
I _think_ that most training for OOo is actually how to teach people
to use their tools correctly.
>Even at $5.15 an hour (minimum wage in the US)
That is the federal level. Some states, and local government bodies
have set it higher.
[The highest is around $9.85/hour. The lowest is around $3.13 per hour]
>One that doesn't have *ANY* third party support (ie, macros,
templates, hooks, readers, tools, viewers, etc.)?
This is partially true.
>One that doesn't come with on-call professional support?
Please explain why you consider the companies that charge $100 per
hour for on call support for OOo do not provide "on-call professional
support"?
> One that doesn't offer 100% compatiblity with their clients or suppilers?
You have the same issue with MSO. [How many people realize that
different editions of the same version of MSO have slightly different
file formats.]
> OOo is no where near ready for corporations.
For corporations where real time collaboration is _required_, that is true.
For corporations that rely on their spreadsheets, that is true.
For the rest of Corporate America, OOo is more than capable of
replacing MSO today.
xan
jonathon
--
A Fork requires:
Seven systems with:
1+ GHz Processors
2+ GB RAM
0.25 TB Hard drive space
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
