Re: [users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
PIERRE Francois SPP wrote: I am using Open office 2.0.2 and 1.1.5 on 2 computers(home,company). The MS doc file Runion.doc does not look correctly with Open office 2.0.2, and is OK with 1.1.5(see the corresponding .doc and pdf files, first page in : http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07.doc http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo2.0.2.pdf http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo1.1.5.pdf). Second problem with 2.0.2, the pdf file is much larger. I see the issue but I think it is related to styles as I see that the line for the title is a level 9 WW8Num14 style. Somehow the style issue is forcing the text to the right and causing the line to wrap. Same for the presenters list. Maybe 2.0.2 is displaying the document correctly and 1.1.5 was displaying it wrong. Just a thought which would mean that it isn't a bug. The main title is a level one with a level of 1. The next line is a level 7. To add to this, in the Para 3 3 .ARBRES et REMBLAI (talus TENNIS RER) : part, after the first line, the (Tennis club) returns back to the level 9 WW8Num14 style and again forces the text to the right. I say this because I had issues with the styles being displayed from Word Documents in 1.1.x that were corrected in 2.0.x. FWIW, I am learning styles and prefer reveal codes myself. -- Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server, anything that is a priority, please phone. Robin Laing - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
to whom should I sent a bug report? The URL is below. You'll need to create a login first: http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/pre_submission.html Thanks, /paul -- Vista is dramatically more secure than any other operating system released Bill Gates Huh ?? Defender doesn't stop spyware (Webroot) ; firewall is only 50% effective (Zdnet) ; UAC can be turned off and is annoying ; SP1 (incl security reasons) due end of 2007... - Try Torpark; a small portable, open-source, built on Firefox browser that enables anonymous browsing. Requires no installation : http://www.torrify.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
I am using Open office 2.0.2 and 1.1.5 on 2 computers(home,company). The MS doc file Runion.doc does not look correctly with Open office 2.0.2, and is OK with 1.1.5(see the corresponding .doc and pdf files, first page in : http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07.doc http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo2.0.2.pdf http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo1.1.5.pdf). Second problem with 2.0.2, the pdf file is much larger. -- -- François PIERRETél: 00-33-1-69084267 Service de Physique des particules.Fax confidentiel : néant CEA SACLAY - DSM/DAPNIAFax de Service : 00-33-1-69086428 F - 91191 Gif/Yvette cedex MEL : [EMAIL PROTECTED] !!attention CEA: je ne suis PAS «PIERRE François 136265»(homonyme)!! !!attention CEA: je ne suis PAS [EMAIL PROTECTED](homonyme)!! - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
The MS doc file Runion.doc does not look correctly with Open office 2.0.2, and is OK with 1.1.5(see the corresponding .doc and pdf files, first page in : http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07.doc http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo2.0.2.pdf http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo1.1.5.pdf). Agree - they look very different. I think these would form the basis for a bug report since it does clearly show the different outputs of a single file. Second problem with 2.0.2, the pdf file is much larger. Agree. Again I would include in the bug report. /paul -- Vista is dramatically more secure than any other operating system released Bill Gates Huh ?? Defender doesn't stop spyware (Webroot) ; firewall is only 50% effective (Zdnet) ; UAC can be turned off and is annoying ; SP1 (incl security reasons) due end of 2007... - Try Torpark; a small portable, open-source, built on Firefox browser that enables anonymous browsing. Requires no installation : http://www.torrify.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 06:17:26 +1300 Paul wrote: The MS doc file Runion.doc does not look correctly with Open office 2.0.2, and is OK with 1.1.5(see the corresponding .doc and pdf files, first page in : http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07.doc http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo2.0.2.pdf http://pierre.web.cern.ch/pierre/Runion07_Oo1.1.5.pdf). Agree - they look very different. I think these would form the basis for a bug report since it does clearly show the different outputs of a single file. Second problem with 2.0.2, the pdf file is much larger. Agree. Again I would include in the bug report. Before doing a bug report, update 2.0.2 to the latest and repeat your tests. -- Michael Those that can, do; those that can't, teach. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
I loaded the file with 2.1 and it looks the same as the 2.0.2 pdf. It appears that some parts of the document that have the default style are taking the characteristics of the 'heading 5' style, which is used in various places in the doc. The file looks right when loaded in Word97. tc Michael Adams wrote: Before doing a bug report, update 2.0.2 to the latest and repeat your tests. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
On 02/28/2007 11:01 AM, Anthony Chilco wrote: I loaded the file with 2.1 and it looks the same as the 2.0.2 pdf. It appears that some parts of the document that have the default style are taking the characteristics of the 'heading 5' style, which is used in various places in the doc. The file looks right when loaded in Word97. tc Verified here same as above. 2.1 on linux, Word97, and StarOffice8. Interesting note though: export to pdf in 2.1 results in a 126.6KB file (vs 675KB for 2.0.2 18.6KB for 1.1.5) and StarOffice results in a 143KB file; both using standard default for export to pdf. Michael Adams wrote: Before doing a bug report, update 2.0.2 to the latest and repeat your tests. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
unsubscribe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
I would have to both agree and disagree with Terry on this one. There have been huge improvements in OpenOffice since I first discovered the program around 1.1.4 when I went to Uni and all the machines ran linux. Back then it was a bit of a novelty that anything existed as a free alternative to MSOffice, and one that was compatible at that. Now for OpenOffice to compete it has to be more than just a novelty free version and in my humble opinion this is happening. I do however agree with the sentiment that whoever is in charge seems not to have a clue, but only to a certain extent. It was my belief that this being an OpenSource community project, we are somewhat in charge... Can anyone name me a complex piece of software that does not have new bugs with each release (anybody heard of Windows? MSOffice? Linux? I do believe that all these have regular updates to fix bugs old and new) as new functionality is added? There are also many examples of bugs being left in software, such as the leap year date bug in MSOffice I have read about on this forum. Hopefully the bug filing problems will be sorted at some point and we can all help OpenOffice.org become a better program, it is a community project after all and we would all benefit. To Pierre: Microsoft formats are closed. As I understand it this requires a certain amount of reverse engineering for OpenOffice's programmers and so is not a precise art. My best advice would be to keep the file in the native ODF format until you need to share it with somebody who does not have OpenOffice. If the file contains complex elements they may not translate perfectly in Word format. If the person you are sharing the file with is willing, then they can install a plug-in on their computer that will enable them to read ODF files http:// sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter There is also a tool within that which allows you to convert a number of files at one time (batch). The conversion may or may not be better that OpenOffice's attempt. Finally with the prevalence of broadband and increasing capabilities of computer hardware, I would not be too concerned about the size of your PDF. You may be able to change some settings in the dialogue you get such as reducing the quality of the pictures. Sorry to go on and on, but I hope some of this has been of use Tom On 27 Feb 2007, at 05:50, Kenn Goutal wrote: TerryJ wrote: It is no news that the software is not improving overall with new releases. Since 2.0.3, it seems that the releases have become increasingly experimental and unreliable. Bugs remain unfixed and new bugs are created. Whoever is in charge (if anyone is) seems not to have a clue. Hmmm. This is not good news. It is *not* what we need to be able to tell people when we encourage them to abandon M$, especially in an office environment. As it happens, I'm using just plain v2.0, not v2.0.2, and it does seem to be an improvement over v1.n. However, it does still seem to have some limitations and awkwardnesses that I had hoped were being addressed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Tom Chilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[users] Re: Open office 2.0.2 not as good as 1.1.5(.doc)
TerryJ wrote: It is no news that the software is not improving overall with new releases. Since 2.0.3, it seems that the releases have become increasingly experimental and unreliable. Bugs remain unfixed and new bugs are created. Whoever is in charge (if anyone is) seems not to have a clue. Hmmm. This is not good news. It is *not* what we need to be able to tell people when we encourage them to abandon M$, especially in an office environment. As it happens, I'm using just plain v2.0, not v2.0.2, and it does seem to be an improvement over v1.n. However, it does still seem to have some limitations and awkwardnesses that I had hoped were being addressed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
