Chad Smith wrote:
>in fact, have some version of MS Office already installed and running
on them. Either MS Office, MS Word, or MS Works (Suite).
MS Works is incompatible with MS Office. [Not that thast excludes it
from being described as MSO. I've come to the conclusion that MSO is
specifically designed to be incompatible with MSO.]
> And those businesses that don't have the hardware to run
MS Office 2007, then need to upgrade anyway, (or at least that what
their IT department will tell them
What IT requests, and what IT is granted are two different things.
And if the PHB is determined to remain on a five year cycle, then the
only hardware that will be upgraded this year is the hardware that was
scheduled to be upgraded this year.
>Look at the system requirements for MS Office 2007 Basic
> Computer and processor 500 MHz processor
> Memory 256 MB RAM
Triple those values, and you are in the ballpark, if you are only using
one program, with one document.
>Operating system MS Windows XP SP2, Windows Server
2003 SP1, or later Windows OS
That requirement omits roughly 25% of the computers used by companies
that use any version of windows.
IOW, from your 80%,we are down to 55%.
>use, the "Ultimate" edition of MS Office 2007 has the same
requirements,except double the HD space (to 3 GB).
Don't forget to adjust the amount of RAM that is required to _realistic_
figures. Not the no other programs, and no operating system installed
figure that Microsoft spouts.
>the hardware specs are pretty minimal.
The stated specs are also incredbly misleading, if not outright fraudulent.
>And more businesses use Macs in there offices than Solaris/SPARC,
Debian PPC, OpenBSD on ARM, Fedora on x86-64, or OS/2 Warp ... combined.
All the examples you cite are for platforms that are not designed for
Joe Sixpack to use on his desktop. It is akin to expecting your house
to include a fully installed pipe organ.
>You don't understand what "backwards compatible" means.
You don't understand the implications of either "backwards compatible"
or "future proofing". For the PHB, the implications of those two
concepts are important. MSO2007 fails both of them.
>In your opinion it is a must have. There are millions and millions of
computer users who do not agree.
There are half a dozen governments, and over a hundred companies where
the first thing on their checklist is ODF compatibility. If it is
absent, then it is off their list.
Then there are thousands of companies that _should_ be using ISO file
formats,to retain their existing ISO certifications. [The fun will
really start when companies that are ISO certified suddenly discover
that they have lost that certification, becuase their IT people failed
to adhere to ISO standards.]
>Kind of like penOffice.org's default file format that 90%+ of the
office suite/word processors in use today *CAN NOT OPEN*.
How familiar are you with the concept "Vendor Lock In"?
a) A company can choose any program they want to, to
create/read/write/open ODF documents. They are not restricted to a
single vendor. This is not the case with microsoft office formats.
b) With ODF as a formal ISO file format standard, it means that it is
economically feasible to create an office suite specifically designed
for individuals with specific a11y issues. This might not mean much to
you, but for those with a11y issues, it means that there is a
possibility of an office suit for them, that was not deliberatly
designed to minimize productivity for all users, with special
enhancmments to ensure zero productivity by anybody who has even a
slight a11y issue.
xan
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
