[discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:54:31 +0100, Tony Pursell wrote: > On 6 Jul 2005 at 3:25, Greg Bulmash wrote: > >> Mail Merge: With Microsoft it's simple. Create a table or spreadsheet, >> use the first row as headers, and then just punch in the data in the >> following rows. The headers are taken as field names when you do a mail >> merge. If they don't match a predefined set, no problem. It's easy to >> plug in your custom fields. >> >> > Sorry eveyone, but I just have to agree 100%. Even in 2.0, OOo doesn't > come near Word97 when it comes to mail merge. I use OOo for all my > general word processing, but always go back to Word 97 for any mail merge > work. > > Tony Pursell Please see http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=51638 and help get this integrated. -- Documentation Co-lead "Dinna meddle wi' things ye ken nuthin' aboot!" J.H. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:11:53 +0300, Alexandro Colorado put fingers to keyboard and said: > Hi Greg, please understand that openoffice.org is **NOT** a MSO clone. That > means that no, we won't have all the features, neither are we thinking on > implementing them. Also means that we think about higher scalability and care > less about creating backward compatibility at the cost of innovation or > improving the way we do things. Quoting from http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html "OpenOffice.org 1.1 gives you everything you'd expect in office software." "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." Either of those statements, when taken alone (especially the second), could be taken as a statement that "OOo is a clone of MSO". It is not, IMHO, reasonable to make those 2 claims and then tell folks that "we don't have all the features and we're not thinking of implement them" Don't get me wrong, OOo is a FANTASTIC product, but for many of us, until it's "bug for bug compatible*", it's not going to be a wholly viable product. Bruce *of cource I don't mean that literally :-) -- +---+---+ Bruce Bowler| He's the kind of man who picks his friends - to 1.207.633.9600 | pieces. - Mae West [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +---+---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
G. Roderick Singleton wrote: Please see http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=51638 and help get this integrated. my two votes -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Quoting Bruce Bowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:11:53 +0300, Alexandro Colorado put fingers to keyboard and said: Hi Greg, please understand that openoffice.org is **NOT** a MSO clone. That means that no, we won't have all the features, neither are we thinking on implementing them. Also means that we think about higher scalability and care less about creating backward compatibility at the cost of innovation or improving the way we do things. Quoting from http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html "OpenOffice.org 1.1 gives you everything you'd expect in office software." "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." Either of those statements, when taken alone (especially the second), could be taken as a statement that "OOo is a clone of MSO". It is not, IMHO, reasonable to make those 2 claims and then tell folks that "we don't have all the features and we're not thinking of implement them" Don't get me wrong, OOo is a FANTASTIC product, but for many of us, until it's "bug for bug compatible*", it's not going to be a wholly viable product. That is why we say you are 'locked in', since you don't have the freedom to jump from one app to the next. Same thing could be said of Windows vs. Mac. I dnt think Mac want t be considered a windows clone (perhaps just a Unix one) ;) Bruce *of cource I don't mean that literally :-) -- +---+---+ Bruce Bowler| He's the kind of man who picks his friends - to 1.207.633.9600 | pieces. - Mae West [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +---+---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Alexandro Colorado Co-Leader of OpenOffice.org Spanish http://es.openoffice.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Bruce Bowler wrote: Quoting from http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html "OpenOffice.org 1.1 gives you everything you'd expect in office software." "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." Either of those statements, when taken alone (especially the second), could be taken as a statement that "OOo is a clone of MSO". NO NO NO!! Look, giving you what you'd expect in an "office suite" does not mean "just like MS Office". Heck, it doesn't even imply MS Office in particular. It means that it has the set of features that an office suite should have. It has a word processor, spread sheets, etc. The second statement is *not* specific to MS Office either. It says "other office suites" and mentions MSO as an EXAMPLE of another office suite. OOo has all the features that an office suite is expected to have. Just like Corel Office, just like KOffice. Are you also going to claim that OOo is a clone of Corel Office? And MS Office is a clone of Corel? Think people think! Having the functionality that an office suite should have is lightyears away from cloning one particular brand of office suite. Geesh! Don't get me wrong, OOo is a FANTASTIC product, but for many of us, until it's "bug for bug compatible*", it's not going to be a wholly viable product. Well too bad then. If what you need is an office suite precisely like MS Office and no variation will be acceptable, then please grab MS Office. But don't expect OOo or anyone else to just try to clone that program. We have a different product and have some different ideas of what an office suite should provide even if the base system (word processor, spread sheet and presentations) are fairly standard. We still expend that base concept in our own direction. We focus a lot more on styles, we focus a lot more on vector graphics. We focus a lot more on XML and open standards. These are not cloning acts. Sincerely, Daniel Carrera OpenOffice.org volunteer. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Quoting Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Bruce Bowler wrote: Quoting from http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html "OpenOffice.org 1.1 gives you everything you'd expect in office software." "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." Either of those statements, when taken alone (especially the second), could be taken as a statement that "OOo is a clone of MSO". NO NO NO!! Look, giving you what you'd expect in an "office suite" does not mean "just like MS Office". Heck, it doesn't even imply MS Office in particular. It means that it has the set of features that an office suite should have. It has a word processor, spread sheets, etc. The second statement is *not* specific to MS Office either. It says "other office suites" and mentions MSO as an EXAMPLE of another office suite. OOo has all the features that an office suite is expected to have. Just like Corel Office, just like KOffice. Are you also going to claim that OOo is a clone of Corel Office? And MS Office is a clone of Corel? Think people think! Having the functionality that an office suite should have is lightyears away from cloning one particular brand of office suite. Geesh! Don't get me wrong, OOo is a FANTASTIC product, but for many of us, until it's "bug for bug compatible*", it's not going to be a wholly viable product. Well too bad then. If what you need is an office suite precisely like MS Office and no variation will be acceptable, then please grab MS Office. But don't expect OOo or anyone else to just try to clone that program. We have a different product and have some different ideas of what an office suite should provide even if the base system (word processor, spread sheet and presentations) are fairly standard. We still expend that base concept in our own direction. We focus a lot more on styles, we focus a lot more on vector graphics. We focus a lot more on XML and open standards. These are not cloning acts. Sincerely, Daniel Carrera OpenOffice.org volunteer. Cloning is the highest degree of admiration - Why would someone try to imitate MSO??? ;) -- Alexandro Colorado Co-Leader of OpenOffice.org Spanish http://es.openoffice.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Daniel Carrera wrote: Bruce Bowler wrote: Quoting from http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html "OpenOffice.org 1.1 gives you everything you'd expect in office software." "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." Either of those statements, when taken alone (especially the second), could be taken as a statement that "OOo is a clone of MSO". NO NO NO!! Look, giving you what you'd expect in an "office suite" does not mean "just like MS Office". Heck, it doesn't even imply MS Office in particular. It means that it has the set of features that an office suite should have. It has a word processor, spread sheets, etc. The second statement is *not* specific to MS Office either. It says "other office suites" and mentions MSO as an EXAMPLE of another office suite. OOo has all the features that an office suite is expected to have. Just like Corel Office, just like KOffice. Are you also going to claim that OOo is a clone of Corel Office? And MS Office is a clone of Corel? Think people think! Having the functionality that an office suite should have is lightyears away from cloning one particular brand of office suite. Geesh! Oeps ... Hi Daniel, The one who writes "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." should be fully aware that people using the Ms version of Office, shall expect that thay can just work as they are used to do. If that is not what is intended, nor the idea/ taste/ feeling that we want people to have, it would be better to write something as: "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll experience very little trouble in using OpenOffice.org xx, since most functions can be handled in the same way." Kind regards, Cor -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
cono wrote: The one who writes "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." should be fully aware that people using the Ms version of Office, shall expect that thay can just work as they are used to do. When I read this kind of marketing-speak I generally assume that it's exaggerating a bit. "you'll be completely at home" translates as "you shouldn't have any problems". "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll experience very little trouble in using OpenOffice.org xx, since most functions can be handled in the same way." Can you see any marketing guy writing something as honest as that? :-) Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 18:33 -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote: > cono wrote: > > > The one who writes > > "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office > > - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." > > should be fully aware that people using the Ms version of Office, shall > > expect that thay can just work as they are used to do. > > When I read this kind of marketing-speak I generally assume that it's > exaggerating a bit. "you'll be completely at home" translates as "you > shouldn't have any problems". I think its the fact that the user interface is mostly similar where there is no good reason not to be. What is behind the user interfact is fairly different but that really doesn't matter to an end user. "At home" I think means that what is presented to the user should be mostly familiar even if there are a few differences -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Bruce wrote: > "OpenOffice.org 1.1 gives you everything you'd expect in office software." So what do you expect in an Office Suite: i) Database functionality; ii) Spreadsheet functionality;; iii) Word Processing functionality; iv) Graphics functionality; v) Contact Management functionality; vi) Project Management functionality. vii) Presentation creation/editing; Some have also argued for inclusion of the following: viii) Email read/write/send ix) Accounting functionality; x) Scheduling functionality Look at MSOffice Small Business Edition: i) Database: Neither included, nor kludges available. Must buy and install Access or other database program; ii) Spreadsheet: included; iii) Word Processing: Included; iv) Graphics functionality: Included v) Contact management: Requires Outlook to be installed. vi) Project management: Neither included, nor kludges available. Must buy and install Project Manager or other software vii) Presentation: Neither included, nor kludges available. Must buy and install Presentation Manager or other software. viii) Email: Requires installation of Outlook. ix) Accounting: Neither included, nor kludges available. Requires installation of Money, or other accounting program. x) Scheduling: Neither included, nor kludges available. Can somebody explain why MSoffice Small Business Edition qualifies as an office suite, since it leaves out so many things that an office suite is expected to have. OOo 1.1.x i) Database functionality; Included ii) Spreadsheet functionality;; Included iii) Word Processing functionality; Included iv) Graphics functionality; Included v) Contact Management functionality; Template used to be available. Recommendation is to use SunBird. vi) Project Management functionality. Template used to be available. Recommendation is to use another program for project management. vii) Presentation creation/editing; Included viii) Email read/write/send. Neither included, nor kludges available.Install Thunderbird ix) Accounting functionality; Templates are available. Recommendation is to use SQL Ledger. x) Scheduling: Templates used to be available. Recommendation to use project management software. Of those, the only one that OOo can not do is email. Three other programs are recommended, instead of using OOo. OOo 2.0 is in the same situation as OOo 1.1.x. > "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - > you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." This refers to ease of use. If one knows how to use one office suite, one can easilly learn to use another office suite --- in this instance OOo. > could be taken as a statement that "OOo is a clone of MSO". Following that logic, MSoffice is a clone of GeoWorks, and Lotus SmartSuite is a clone of AppleWorks. >"we don't have all the features and we're not thinking of implement them" You are confusing functionality with specific features. > it's "bug for bug compatible*", it's not going to be a wholly viable product. In taht case MSOffice doesn't fit your needs either. Or did you not know that different versions of MSOfficeXP have different bugs? [The same thing is also true of MSoffice97, MSOffice, and MSOffice98.] xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
On 7/7/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Look at MSOffice Small Business Edition: > i) Database: Neither included, nor kludges available. Must buy and > install Access or other database program; > ii) Spreadsheet: included; > iii) Word Processing: Included; > iv) Graphics functionality: Included > v) Contact management: Requires Outlook to be installed. -Um, so? Outlook is a part of MS Office! That's like saying OOo doesn't have a graphics program because you have to install Draw. You are making it sound like it's not a part of the suite, when it most certainly is. > vi) Project management: Neither included, nor kludges available. > Must buy and install Project Manager or other software > vii) Presentation: Neither included, nor kludges available. Must buy > and install Presentation Manager or other software. That's a bald faced lie. Powerpoint is a presentation program. It's a part of every single version of MSO available on the market today. > viii) Email: Requires installation of Outlook. Again, Outlook is a part of MSO. And, btw, where is OOo's email client? > ix) Accounting: Neither included, nor kludges available. Requires > installation of Money, or other accounting program. > x) Scheduling: Neither included, nor kludges available. Outlook does scheduling. OOo doesn't. OOo doesn't do accounting either. > > Can somebody explain why MSoffice Small Business Edition qualifies as > an office suite, since it leaves out so many things that an office > suite is expected to have. I could much easier ask the same question of OpenOffice.org based on your criteria. -Chad Smith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Chad wrote: > -Um, so? Outlook is a part of MS Office! It wasn't part of the first version of Office I looked at [Looked at the CD. (Can Microsoft not afford to hire web designer that knows what the phrase "accessible format" means?)] > a part of every single version of MSO available on the market today. I looked at three versions of MSO, small business edition, and it was _not_ included. [OK, it is included in MSOffice 2003 --- I don't have a copy of that one.] > Outlook does scheduling. Sorry, I didn't realize that I could schedule work shifts for 500 people using Outlook When did they add that capability? BTW, that can be done using OOo 1.1.2. > OOo doesn't do accounting either. Accounting _can_ be done using OOo. Your auditor will probably scream, rant, and rave if you use OOo for accounting, but it can be done. > I could much easier ask the same question of OpenOffice.org based on OOo can do more of those than MSOffice can. More to the point, the only that can not be done with Ooo is email. xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Chad Smith wrote: I could much easier ask the same question of OpenOffice.org based on your criteria. The *point* Jonahton is making is that you this kind of argument could just as well we be used with MS Office. It's a way of illustrating how stupid this line of reasoning is. Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
> Sorry, I didn't realize that I could schedule work shifts > for 500 people using Outlook When did they add that capability? Planner is a neat GPL Gantt chart and resource allocation app It's available under Gnome and there is a pretty complete windows port It looks like a good alternative for scheduling. These days when I install OO.o on an office PC I include Planner As well as GIMP/Audacity as part of a 'OpenSource' collection that is much more useful than the apps MS offers. Anyone have other suggestions I could add to my standard apps ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
On 7/7/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i) Database functionality; Included Going along with your "you have to install Outlook" line of reasoning - you have to install *Java* for the Database to work. > vii) Presentation creation/editing; Included So Impress does presentations, but Powerpoint doesn't? That's ridiculus! > viii) Email read/write/send. Neither included, nor kludges > available.Install Thunderbird > ix) Accounting functionality; Templates are available. Recommendation > is to use SQL Ledger. > x) Scheduling: Templates used to be available. Recommendation to use > project management software. It seems to me that MSO has more includes than OOo, once you include Outlook, which is a part of MSO, and automagically installed as Outlook Express on every version of Windows on earth. You get 6 includes for MSO, and only 5 includes on OOo. Your argument fails for several reasons, you put up unreasonable arbitrary limitations, you fail to recognize included software, you try to make you arguments on the current version of OOo and an outdated version of MSO, you compare apples to oranges (Small Business Edition to the full version of OOo) and you then try to prop up OOo by including reference to software that is not affliated with, much less a part of, OpenOffice.org. But even just fixing one of those problems, failing to recognize included software, IE Outlook and Powerpoint, MSO wins in your little experiment. If you were to go with the more powerful Professional edition of MSO, then OOo would lose hands down. It's pretty bad when a lot of your "includes" of OOo start with "Template used to be available." - that means, A) the functionality really isn't there, just a template that sort of does what you are wanting it to do, and B) even the template is missing now. What the heck is that? When did we start removing templates? One of the most often heard complaints is "not enough templates, clip art, or wizards" - so we're removing them now? That's ridiculus! You may have thought you were making OOo look good, or maybe just making MSO look bad - but you failed to do either. If anything, you did the exact opposite. If you want to make OOo look good, talk about its strengths, like *PRICE* and cross-platformness, and alterablity, and open licensing, and - if you must - open standards. But don't try to do a point-for-point includes of functionality where MSO is the *clear* winner. (By going Pro with MSO, the number jumps from 6 to 8, and going to Corporate edition, it gets a perfect 10.) I'm glad this was on "Discuss" and not "Marketing". -Chad Smith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Chad Smith wrote: Going along with your "you have to install Outlook" line of reasoning - you have to install *Java* for the Database to work. No you don't. You can use dBase without Java or any addons. It seems to me that MSO has more includes than OOo, once you include Outlook, which is a part of MSO, and automagically installed as Outlook Express on every version of Windows on earth. You get 6 includes for MSO, and only 5 includes on OOo. I think that just blindly doing a feature count is really stupid. If you were to go with the more powerful Professional edition of MSO, then OOo would lose hands down. Depends on your criteria. For example: I want to run an office suite on Linux. OOo gives me many features on Linux; MS Office gives me 0 (since it won't install). Likewise, OOo provides several other features that are important to me and MS Office doesn't have, or has but they work less reliably. I have no doubt that for many people, MS Office wins hands down. Saying that one is definitely better than the other in all scenarios is plain dumb. If you want to make OOo look good, talk about its strengths, like *PRICE* and cross-platformness, and alterablity, and open licensing, and - if you must - open standards. But don't try to do a point-for-point includes of functionality where MSO is the *clear* winner. Depending on what features you need. Maybe you need an office suite that includes vector graphics, maybe you want an office suite with reliable master documents, maybe you want an office suite with a navigator. Saying that MSO beats OOo on a point-for-point comparison is dumb (and saying the converse is dumb too). Look, in my case, if OOo and MSO had the same license, came from the same people, had the same cost and ran on the same platforms, I would still picl OOo because for me it is better. Cheeers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Chad wrote: > - you have to install *Java* for the Database to work. Psst., WRONG answer. You can use the database component, without having Java installed. > It seems to me that MSO has more includes than OOo, once you include Seems to me that you didn't read what I wrote. OTOH, that is par for you. >auto magically installed as Outlook Express on every version of Windows on earth. My windows system did not auto magically install outlook, nor outlook express. > You get 6 includes for MSO, and only 5 includes on OOo. In the counting sequence I learned, Ten less one is equal to nine, not five. [You don't need the templates, but they do help in setting up those functions.] > you fail to recognize included software, You fail to accurately count. >you compare apples to oranges (Small Business Edition to the full version of OOo) Maybe I should compare it against the standard version of MSO? That has even fewer components. > including reference to software that is not affliated with, much less a part > of, OpenOffice.org. Strip out the components of MSO, that did not originate with Microsoft, and you have even fewer components than I listed. > included software, IE Outlook and Powerpoint, MSO wins in your little > experiment. If you How? Oh, I forgot, you do not know how to count. A) the functionality really isn't there, It means that you can do it, but instead of having a template as a starting point, you'll have to create it yourself. [Which should not be a problem to anybody who understands how to use those tools.] >That's ridiculous! That is a side effect of the decentralization of OOo addons. > If you want to make OOo look good, talk about its strengths, I realize that you have a marked inability to comprehend writing. But even you should have been able to read what I was writing. >like *PRICE* Price is a non-issue --- nothing gets sold on the basis of price alone. > point-for-point includes of functionality where MSO is the *clear* winner. Thanks for the demonstration that you did not learn the three r's. > (By going Pro with MSO, the number jumps from 6 to 8, IOW, OOo still beats MSO Pro. Thanks for the confirmation. >Corporate edition, it gets a perfect 10.) So you have to jump to a version of Office that is not normally found in offices, nor individual end users, to get something that has one function --- email --- more than I listed. xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Daniel Carrera wrote: cono wrote: The one who writes "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." should be fully aware that people using the Ms version of Office, shall expect that thay can just work as they are used to do. When I read this kind of marketing-speak I generally assume that it's exaggerating a bit. "you'll be completely at home" translates as "you shouldn't have any problems". "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll experience very little trouble in using OpenOffice.org xx, since most functions can be handled in the same way." Can you see any marketing guy writing something as honest as that? :-) Maybe needs a little restyling... however, a honest product deserves a honest marketing! Too much marketing-speak, results in just complaints as the OP has (or had). Also in contact with potential users/customers, one should not be shy and too modest, however exaggerating is potentially harmful, IMHO. greetings, Cor -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Quoting cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Daniel Carrera wrote: Bruce Bowler wrote: Quoting from http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html "OpenOffice.org 1.1 gives you everything you'd expect in office software." "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." Either of those statements, when taken alone (especially the second), could be taken as a statement that "OOo is a clone of MSO". NO NO NO!! Look, giving you what you'd expect in an "office suite" does not mean "just like MS Office". Heck, it doesn't even imply MS Office in particular. It means that it has the set of features that an office suite should have. It has a word processor, spread sheets, etc. The second statement is *not* specific to MS Office either. It says "other office suites" and mentions MSO as an EXAMPLE of another office suite. OOo has all the features that an office suite is expected to have. Just like Corel Office, just like KOffice. Are you also going to claim that OOo is a clone of Corel Office? And MS Office is a clone of Corel? Think people think! Having the functionality that an office suite should have is lightyears away from cloning one particular brand of office suite. Geesh! Oeps ... Hi Daniel, The one who writes "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." should be fully aware that people using the Ms version of Office, shall expect that thay can just work as they are used to do. If that is not what is intended, nor the idea/ taste/ feeling that we want people to have, it would be better to write something as: "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll experience very little trouble in using OpenOffice.org xx, since most functions can be handled in the same way." Kind regards, Cor What if I haven't experience any 'little trouble' using OpenOffice.org? -- Alexandro Colorado Co-Leader of OpenOffice.org Spanish http://es.openoffice.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Alexandro Colorado wrote: Quoting cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The one who writes "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." should be fully aware that people using the Ms version of Office, shall expect that thay can just work as they are used to do. If that is not what is intended, nor the idea/ taste/ feeling that we want people to have, it would be better to write something as: "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll experience very little trouble in using OpenOffice.org xx, since most functions can be handled in the same way." Kind regards, Cor What if I haven't experience any 'little trouble' using OpenOffice.org? Hi Alexandro, Wonderful! And/or lucky? I did have some trouble at some points, just to find my way. And I know I´m not the only one. Not the fault of OOo, of course. best wishes, Cor -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Quoting cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Alexandro Colorado wrote: Quoting cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The one who writes "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll be completely at home with OpenOffice.org 1.1." should be fully aware that people using the Ms version of Office, shall expect that thay can just work as they are used to do. If that is not what is intended, nor the idea/ taste/ feeling that we want people to have, it would be better to write something as: "If you're used to using other office suites - such as Microsoft Office - you'll experience very little trouble in using OpenOffice.org xx, since most functions can be handled in the same way." Kind regards, Cor What if I haven't experience any 'little trouble' using OpenOffice.org? Hi Alexandro, Wonderful! And/or lucky? I did have some trouble at some points, just to find my way. And I know I´m not the only one. Not the fault of OOo, of course. best wishes, Cor -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl That's exactly my point, the difference is that a simple user will feel right at home in OOo. A power user will actually have to relearn some of the most higher end tools. So the problems really depend on the user. Again I think they expect that when we have icons such as 'new, copy, cut, paste, print' they did exactly that. So they will feel right at home doing creating documents, they will be able to open and see the documents. But that doesnt mean we are a clone. Think Palm vs. any other PDA in the market. They have the same interface and they all have PIM. Even more, think cellphone, every cellphone does the same on the basic level and all of them does things different on the higher end 'new features'. Still I dont see many people saying if you used the Motorola 620c you will be at home with the Sony Ericsson T234. Yet a lot of people 'expect' to make calls with no hassle and thats the whole point. -- Alexandro Colorado Co-Leader of OpenOffice.org Spanish http://es.openoffice.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Alexandro Colorado wrote: That's exactly my point, the difference is that a simple user will feel right at home in OOo. A power user will actually have to relearn some of the most higher end tools. So the problems really depend on the user. [...] with no hassle and thats the whole point. For both simple users and for power users it's OK if they feel well by what is promised. -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Quoting cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Alexandro Colorado wrote: That's exactly my point, the difference is that a simple user will feel right at home in OOo. A power user will actually have to relearn some of the most higher end tools. So the problems really depend on the user. [...] with no hassle and thats the whole point. For both simple users and for power users it's OK if they feel well by what is promised. -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl So if it's about feelings we don't really need to pay more attention on words since feelings are completely different message. And that is why we say you will feel right at 'home'. We make the words sound as 'warm and tender' so it inspires feelings of security which is the one we want to inspire when doing a migration. Just ask apple about feelings. Of course happiness is just one, but what about other more powerful feelings like vanity. -- Alexandro Colorado Co-Leader of OpenOffice.org Spanish http://es.openoffice.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
Alexandro Colorado wrote: So if it's about feelings we don't really need to pay more attention on words since feelings are completely different message. Of course I do agree that feelings are personal. And that people are not realistic, when they expect to have a copy of the Ms-version-of-Office, when they download OOo. However, the words we use, do have influence on the feelings that arise by our public. Words do matter. And if part of the public complains, because the words choosen, give a wrong idea for him/her, it's something we maybe can improve... Kind regards - Cor -- Cor Nouws http://www.nouenoff.nl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Re: Why I had to switch back to MS Word
cono wrote: Hi Alexandro, Wonderful! And/or lucky? I did have some trouble at some points, just to find my way. And I know I´m not the only one. Not the fault of OOo, of course. I hadn't any migration problems at all. Then again, I didn't have a migration per se. I was never an MS Office user. :-) Cheers, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
