...
> > The likely costs of the
> > complete conversion of say 4000+ seats worth of documents will no doubt
> > exceed the MS licensing costs
>
> That depends on the nature of the use and it will be different in
> different circumstances. Even if in the short term the cost exceeds the
> license f
On 5/18/05, Maria Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for example:
>
> - 200 licenses for Office at a cost of $66,000 (approximate OEM cost)
> - 10 macros that will cost a total of $20,000 to transition
> - A necessary upgrade that will cost just slightly more to deploy OO.o vs.
> Office (intern
On 5/18/05, cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Chad,
>
> I train people in groups of 4 to 6 persons. That takes them 4 hours.
> After that, they not only know where the differences between MsO and OOo
> are, they also have learnt:
> a - how to use an editor as it has to be done; (know how many
that's not what I said. I didn't say that MS would never use OOo.
What I said was the only major companies that *do* use OpenOffice.org
are in direct competition with Microsoft. (at least the only ones
that people talk about.)
On 5/18/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Chad S
cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I train people in groups of 4 to 6 persons. That takes them 4 hours.
> After that, they not only know where the differences between MsO and
> OOo are, they also have learnt:
> a - how to use an editor as it has to be done; (know how many time
> people lose day af
On 5/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You seem to not have understood my point.
>
> MS users _have_ to upgrade their applications because the next version
> document format is not documented.
No they *don't*. I use MS 98 (for Mac) at work just fine. It works
with MSO 2001,
That's complete crap, Jonathon. I *use* an older version of MSO
*EVERYDAY* and it interacts just fine with files created on other
versions of MSO almost daily.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but from my
personal experience first hand, I can tell you that you are wrong.
-Chad
On 5/19/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rigel wrote:
>
> > what "things" are those Johnathon that can be done with 1.13 but can't be
> done since then?
>
> SwitchLang is the most obvious, though 2.0 will, in theory,
> incorporate something similar.
> Bidi support is the most blata
As dogmatic as you may be - my personal experience wins out against
your vaunted claims. the document may have a slight formating shift -
but the data (and that is the word that was used eariler "those who
want to use their *data*") the *DATA* is reproducable throughout the
various versions of MSO
Jonathon Blake wrote:
Chad wrote:
he will *HAVE TO* up grade. When a MSO 97 or 98 user comes across a MS Word 2004 file, a .doc, he double clicks on it, and it opens without a hitch. He does not *HAVE TO* upgrade.
He _will_ have to upgrade. No ifs, ands, or buts,.
MSO97 can not correctly read
Even my copy of MS Word has 97-2001 as a single file format. (It *is*
Office 2001, so 2003 and 2004 aren't included since they didn't exist
when the dialog box was writen.
On 5/20/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathon Blake wrote:
> > Chad wrote:
> >
> >
> >>he will *HAVE TO* up
Am Freitag, den 20.05.2005, 13:00 -0400 schrieb Chad Smith:
> the document may have a slight formating shift -
> but the data (and that is the word that was used eariler "those who
> want to use their *data*") the *DATA* is reproducable throughout the
> various versions of MSO.
>
I wonder w
Maria Winslow a Ãcrit :
There can be a lot of guessing here, so having a realistic assessment of the
costs of migration is very important. If you take the time to investigate how
many macros you actually have and what it would cost to transition, then you
can show management a cost per seat of N
Chad Smith wrote:
You leave out the re-education process. Going from MS Office XP to MS
Office 2003 does require a slight readjustment period (some icons look
different, more buttons on the screen, a few menu choices may have
moved) but not as much as it would to go from Office XP to OOo 2.0.
This
on 05/18/05 15:07 'Chad Smith' wrote:
On 5/18/05, Maria Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
for example:
- 200 licenses for Office at a cost of $66,000 (approximate OEM cost)
- 10 macros that will cost a total of $20,000 to transition
- A necessary upgrade that will cost just slightly more to deploy
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 u
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 04:07 pm, Chad Smith wrote:
> On 5/18/05, Maria Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > for example:
> >
> > - 200 licenses for Office at a cost of $66,000 (approximate OEM cost)
> > - 10 macros that will cost a total of $20,000 to transition
> > - A necessary upgrade that w
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 04:45 pm, Chad Smith wrote:
> On 5/18/05, cono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Chad,
> >
> > I train people in groups of 4 to 6 persons. That takes them 4 hours.
> > After that, they not only know where the differences between MsO and OOo
> > are, they also have learnt:
>
On Wed, May 18, 2005 15:39:16 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> on 05/18/05 15:07 'Chad Smith' wrote:
> >So, that's 25 hours * the average pay of the office worker * the
> >number of seats...
> >
> 25 Hours? Per user? Do you have any idea how much time that really is?
> You a
On Wed, May 18, 2005 17:00:42 PM -0400, Maria Winslow
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention that out of all the case studies I've written...
Maria (and everybody else on list)
please do NOT repost every time screens and screens of text that we
have already received (sometimes paying
on 05/18/05 16:18 'M. Fioretti' wrote:
I think that you have no exact idea of how most big companies and big
public administrations work. I'm *not* saying the list above does
always make sense, but it *is* how many big organization decide.
Private individuals and small businesses are an entirely di
Chad wrote:
>so they'd have to pay you for your time.
a) When a company does a systemwide upgrade, they do it by department.
b) If they are smart, the contract will not be on hours worked, but on
people trained.
>so their lost productivity doesn't start going down until they get to
be with you.
You need to factor in the costs over time with licensing/training and such.
A snap shot look at the initial switch isn't the whole picture. What are
the cost differences over a single year, maybe not much but, how about over
a 3 year stretch, or 5 years. The benefits really start to add up the
-Chad Smith :
OOo is no where near ready for corporations. Not ones that aren't in
direct competition with Microsoft anyway. That's the only reason IBM,
Sun, and Novell use OOo - they don't want to use Microsoft.
.
And Microsoft being in competition with Apple would certainly not use
Apple'
Chad Smith wrote:
that's not what I said. I didn't say that MS would never use OOo.
What I said was the only major companies that *do* use OpenOffice.org
are in direct competition with Microsoft. (at least the only ones
that people talk about.)
There are a lot of large corporations that use OOo.
And I think your analysis is wrong.
THe key word is "alternative", "option".
What matters is not so much the box you use but the fact that it is
able to communicate and share data with other boxes. This is the
network paradigm. Now people have the ability to opt MS out of the
process necessary t
Chad wrote:
> that's not what I said. I didn't say that MS would never use OOo.
Slight off topic, but did you that the most popular browser at 1
Microsoft Way is Firefox? And the number 1 email client is
Thunderbird? [This includes everybody from the filing clerk to board
room.]
Which leads me
On Wed, May 18, 2005 16:30:54 PM -0500, Steve Kopischke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't agree. I have seen organizations toss GroupWise and Lotus Notes
> out the door in favor of Microsoft Exchange in close to a hearbeat, in
> spite of Gigabytes of messages that got munged in the process be
On Jeu 19 mai 2005 4:01, Daniel Carrera a écrit :
> Chad Smith wrote:
>> that's not what I said. I didn't say that MS would never use OOo.
>> What I said was the only major companies that *do* use OpenOffice.org
>> are in direct competition with Microsoft. (at least the only ones
>> that people
On Thu, May 19, 2005 09:21:46 AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'll add this :
>
> 1. large corps can switch to OO.o because they have inhouse IT
> expert groups that do all the support needed on the solutions they
> chose.
Many large corps have outsorced IT to other large
I like this articles, I trully believe that Linux is ready for the
desktop. But
however there are some basic tasks that I dont think a newbie might get right
away.
Also is one of the basic tasks:
- Insert a floppy (without automount)
- Connect to the internet
- Connect to the network
- Burn a CD
Considering a corporate environment, the support staff, not the newbie,
would take care of connecting to the LAN/Internet as well as ensuring that
automount is set up. Permissions are simpler (rwx for user or group) than
most file sharing systems like AFS or Novell's Netware, but require a bit
I do agree with Joseph asumtion but then again, this is a migratory
'reason' and
not cost. I mean long term savings are good, but the actual cost to achieve to
savings is what at least employees need to justify, if there is a second or
third migration (OpenOffice.org 1.x to 2.x) is *not* a tiny mi
There is no migration in OOo.
It is necessary to keep updating MS stuff because the proprietary file
format keeps changing _and_ is not documented.
OOo 1.1.n and OOo 2.0 basically use the same format, and it is
documented, and access to the data does not necessitates OOo itself.
OOo file format
On 5/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no migration in OOo.
There is a migration from 1.1.x to 2.0.
The question is whether or not the migration is cost-effective.
[Actually, there also is a migration between 1.1.2 and 1.1.3, and
1.1.3 and 1.1.4.
In retrospect, for m
what "things" are those Johnathon that can be done with 1.13 but can't
be done since then?
Rigel
On 5/19/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no migration in OOo.
>
> There is a migration from 1.1.x to 2.0.
> The qu
Rigel wrote:
> what "things" are those Johnathon that can be done with 1.13 but can't be
> done since then?
SwitchLang is the most obvious, though 2.0 will, in theory,
incorporate something similar.
Bidi support is the most blatant.
xan
jonathon
--
A Fork requires:
Seven systems with:
You seem to not have understood my point.
MS users _have_ to upgrade their applications because the next version
document format is not documented.
OOo users don't have to.
Similarly, sx*/od* formated files users don't have to use OOo to use
the files since the format is documented XML, there ca
Chad wrote:
> he will *HAVE TO* up grade. When a MSO 97 or 98 user comes across a MS Word
> 2004 file, a .doc, he double clicks on it, and it opens without a hitch. He
> does not *HAVE TO* upgrade.
He _will_ have to upgrade. No ifs, ands, or buts,.
MSO97 can not correctly read files created
Chad Smith wrote:
That's complete crap, Jonathon. I *use* an older version of MSO
*EVERYDAY* and it interacts just fine with files created on other
versions of MSO almost daily.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but from my
personal experience first hand, I can tell you that you
James wrote:
>was rebooting the server.
I'm sure youre PHB appreciates that.
xan
jonathon
--
A Fork requires:
Seven systems with:
1+ GHz Processors
2+ GB RAM
0.25 TB Hard drive space
-
To unsubscrib
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 13:00 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
> Say whatever you wish to say, Jonathan, the facts are there. MSO can
> open and edit and save files from MSO. I do it several times a week.
*You* haven't seen a problem. That does not mean that those problems
don't exsist. Simple test- I can
Okay. I am going to set a particular record straight here. Chad.
You're right, and you're wrong. Jonathon. You're right, and you're...
Sort of wrong.
A: Microsoft Word / Spreadsheet / and OLE formats are based on a
series of TTF font conventions and RTF(Rich Text Format) conventions
B: Microsoft
on 05/20/05 14:09 'Rigel' wrote:
Okay. I am going to set a particular record straight here. Chad.
You're right, and you're wrong. Jonathon. You're right, and you're...
Sort of wrong.
Rigel:
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Jonathan, Chad, et al:
Can we put this one to bed now. Please?
oldgn
Steve wrote:
> Can we put this one to bed now. Please?
I'm going to suggest that Rigel's answer be put in FAQ, as part of the
explanation of why OOo is not 100% compatible with MSO.
xan
jonathon
--
A Fork requires:
Seven systems with:
1+ GHz Processors
2+ GB RAM
0.25
You're Welcome Steven. I do my best :)... btw: Microsoft Writer,
shouldn't be confused with OOo writer... MS Writer was the old name
for WordPad.
Rigel
On 5/20/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> > Can we put this one to bed now. Please?
>
> I'm going to sugges
Friday, May 20, 2005 Shoshannah Forbes wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 12:38 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
>> Yes, I'm sure a large number of corporations will
>> not touch OOo 2.0 because of the lack of Bidi support. ::-|
> Indeed. Many many corporations in Israel and the Arab countries (and
> intern
Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Rigel wrote:
>
>> what "things" are those Johnathon that can be done with 1.13 but can't be
>> done since then?
>
> SwitchLang is the most obvious, though 2.0 will, in theory,
> incorporate something similar.
> Bidi support is the most blatant.
You should explain that. O
Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you're getting your information, but from my personal
>> experience first hand, I can tell you that you are wrong.
>
>
> My personal experience is that MSO XP files can not be read by MSO 97y.
> MSO2003 files can not be read by MSO XP
In my "day job", I work for a Fortune 100 company (which forbids me
even mentioning it... sigh), and they are thoroughly dependent on the
MS office suite, MS win desktops. Those are part of their "corporate
standard." OTOH, I use linux and solaris for "security exception"
reasons and have
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: May 20, 2005 9:21 AM
To: discuss@openoffice.org
Subject: [discuss] Re: Reason corporates won't touch OO.o
snip..
I thought that this discussion is so good that I have linked it on the Digital
Tipping Point
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 17:01 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> I think you and Chad take your personal experience too seriously.
There is a marketing issue in all this. If people have a file problem
with MSO they will tend to say "oh, that's just bad luck, all technology
has some peoblems and I just h
Hi all,
I'm jumping here. For those of you who are able to read French, the
consortium MutualInfo, which is grouping 3 corporates : EDF/GDF (energy)
Peugeot/PSA (cars) and National Education in France, has written a white
paper on the influence of alternative suites in corporations, you'll
fi
Sophie Gautier a écrit :
Hi all,
I'm jumping here. For those of you who are able to read French, the
consortium MutualInfo, which is grouping 3 corporates :
EDF/GDF (energy)
EDF and Gaz de France are separating so I guess we can say 4 corporates
now :)
(Never write/say GDF BTW - the peop
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Sophie Gautier a écrit :
Hi all,
I'm jumping here. For those of you who are able to read French, the
consortium MutualInfo, which is grouping 3 corporates :
EDF/GDF (energy)
EDF and Gaz de France are separating so I guess we can say 4 corporates
now :)
(Never wr
Le mardi 24 mai 2005 à 06:50 +0100, Sophie Gautier a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Sophie Gautier a écrit :
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm jumping here. For those of you who are able to read French, the
> >> consortium MutualInfo, which is grouping 3 corporates :
> >
> >
> > EDF/GDF (en
Mathias wrote:
> You should explain that. OOo2.0 supports Bidi in the same way as OOo1.1
Except OOo 1.1.2 has better support for Semitic languages than the
current OOo 1.9.x
> and none of the versions supported switching languages (if you mean the GUI
> language).
So what is changing, if not t
--- Lars D. Noodén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering a corporate environment, the support staff, not the newbie,
> would take care of connecting to the LAN/Internet as well as ensuring that
> automount is set up. Permissions are simpler (rwx for user or group) than
> most file sharing s
Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Mathias wrote:
>
>> You should explain that. OOo2.0 supports Bidi in the same way as OOo1.1
>
> Except OOo 1.1.2 has better support for Semitic languages than the
> current OOo 1.9.x
This statement is still too general to allow a useful answer. If you
found specific probl
Mathias wrote:
> possible to find out if it is a bug or what else might be the root cause.
If I listed them all here, will they be changed to something more
appropriate than "won't fix". Like priority 1 --- which most of them
are?
Most of them are listed in Issuezilla.
> Those are obviously
Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Mathias wrote:
>
>> possible to find out if it is a bug or what else might be the root
>> cause.
>
> If I listed them all here, will they be changed to something more
> appropriate than "won't fix". Like priority 1 --- which most of them
> are?
>
> Most of them are list
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Jonathon Blake wrote:
Mathias wrote:
and none of the versions supported switching languages (if you mean the GUI
language).
So what is changing, if not the language of the GUI, in the
Thai/English or Russian/Hebrew/English versions of OOo. Or in OOo
1.1.3 ZA?
Joerg wrote:
> Even if you had such an installation, the OpenOffice.org application did not
> support switching languages after initial (user) setup.
Which explains why the user was able to change the GUI language
_after_ installation.
That also was one of the selling points.
xan
jonathon
--
Jonathon Blake wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Even if you had such an installation, the OpenOffice.org application did not
support switching languages after initial (user) setup.
Which explains why the user was able to change the GUI language
_after_ installation.
Huh?
Do you mean that the user c
Joerg wrote:
> > Which explains why the user was able to change the GUI language _after_
> > installation.
> >
> Do you mean that the user could change it (only, once, forever) at user
> installation time?
I mean that the user could have it in language a today, switch to
language b tomorrow, th
Jonathon Blake wrote:
Why one should use OOo instead of MSO. The user could select the
language of the GUI.
You can do this with MS Office 2000+ as well.
(yes, it is a good thing to have, no, we are not original here)
--
Shoshannah Forbes
http://www.xslf.com
--
Hi Jonathan,
Jonathon Blake wrote:
Which explains why the user was able to change the GUI language _after_
installation.
Do you mean that the user could change it (only, once, forever) at user
installation time?
I mean that the user could have it in language a today, switch to
language
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Shoshannah Forbes wrote:
> Jonathon Blake wrote:
>>
>> Why one should use OOo instead of MSO. The user could select the
>> language of the GUI.
> You can do this with MS Office 2000+ as well.
If I'm not mistaken, under the condition that you had the
other language inter
Joerg wrote:
> How? We were talking about OOo 1.1.x and there I said that the
">Start >Program >OpenOffice.Org >Change Language"
And that brings up "Open Office Language >Select Language" and a
choice of languages.
Highlight the appropriate language.
Click on the "Apply Changes" button.
Start O
Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>
>> Even if you had such an installation, the OpenOffice.org
>> application did not support switching languages after initial
>> (user) setup.
>
> Which explains why the user was able to change the GUI language
> _after_ installation.
Maybe I don't understa
And on OSX (sorry, with NeoOffice/J) you go to system
preferences/international and change the language, restart NO/J and you
have the GUI in that languages (help files must be installed
separately).
JC Helary
How? We were talking about OOo 1.1.x and there I said that the
">Start >Program
Hi Jonathan,
Jonathon Blake wrote:
">Start >Program >OpenOffice.Org >Change Language"
And that brings up "Open Office Language >Select Language" and a
choice of languages.
Highlight the appropriate language.
Click on the "Apply Changes" button.
Start Openoffice.
To describe how it works in
Hi Joerg,
> > ">Start >Program >OpenOffice.Org >Change Language"
> >
> > And that brings up "Open Office Language >Select Language" and a
> > choice of languages.
> > Highlight the appropriate language.
> > Click on the "Apply Changes" button.
> > Start Openoffice.
> >
> > To describe how it w
Hi,
Craig Adams wrote:
">Start >Program >OpenOffice.Org >Change Language"
I have never heard of that feature. It certainly was never announced on
any our our feature announcement lists. This comes as no surprise, as
the OOo project never supported multi-lingual installations out of the box.
Hi Joerg,
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 11:17 +0200, Joerg Barfurth wrote:
> That reinforces my claim that is wrong to assert that "OpenOffice.org
> 1.x does this". There is no such feature in OpenOffice.org 1.1.x.
>
> This is a feature of "Translate.org ZA Office" even if they misleadingly
> distribut
75 matches
Mail list logo
