Why is it so hard???

Kenetixx · 2007-06-17 04:01:21

Why is it hard to get an office word processing package that can match MS Word?
Linux has alot fo other apps that perform as well or better then MS, but when it comes to office it fails.
OO is ok but you cannot export from OO to MS word with out it looking whacked.
OO seems not to read tables correctly at all.
SO why is it so hard to match but others are not?

Thoughts?

mitchell · 2007-06-17 04:41:33

If it was so easy, nobody would use Office and Microsoft would not be making money off of it.

pecan · 2007-06-17 05:08:23

I just started using crossover office with word 2000. Spend the money, its worth it. Everything works.

Echo · 2007-06-17 06:00:29

Kenetixx wrote:

OO is ok but you cannot export from OO to MS word with out it looking whacked.

Are you talking .odt >> .doc files? I've had good luck with that myself. I've heard this comment before, I've just not ran into the problem yet.

iphitus · 2007-06-17 06:02:30

if you need to ensure perfect formatting and the destination does not need to modify, export a PDF.

Don't use complex options and excessive features. more often than not, it's just not neccesary.

And if you require identical and pixel perfect layout, you shouldnt be using Word, as you can't even guarantee that between different copies of word.

James

Last edited by iphitus (2007-06-17 06:05:21)

Kenetixx · 2007-06-17 06:06:05

iphitus wrote:

if you need to ensure perfect formatting and the destination does not need to modify, export a PDF.
Additionally, don't use complex options and excessive features. more often than not, it's just not neccesary.
James

The thing is i make them complex as it is our standard for training docs at work. I might look into crossover as i hate having to boot to windows for 1 hours work.

lloeki · 2007-06-17 10:09:53

OO is ok but you cannot export from OO to MS word with out it looking whacked.
OO seems not to read tables correctly at all.

it's (half) funny when people blame OOo (and others) for oututting whacked .doc when the culprit is the wicked format, not the app. if one is to blame, that's MS. so, why don't you go and blame MS for not outputting to ODT, which now is an ISO standard (when .doc is not).

And if you require identical and pixel perfect layout,

ah, indeed people seem not to get it that these formats (even odt) are work formats, not output formats (like ps, dvi or pdf). yet word is particularly successful in f*cking up its own layout (which should never happen).

you shouldnt be using Word, as you can't even guarantee that between different copies of word.

so true, and even across identical copies (so don't get me started on different versions, or even windows/mac versions), and in many cases, only OOo saved me and loaded the damn thing correctly.

oh and it's also funny that a third party ODT saver word plugin is available and better performing that MS's own xmldoc => odt.

The thing is i make them complex as it is our standard for training docs at work

then your training is bad. once trained properly, people should be able to do the same things in both apps. even then, you're doing them (and everyone) a disservice at training them and vendor locking them. well, maybe you don't have the choice and MSO is imposed to you, but it may be time to get people up above you that there's something else than MSO. I personnally faced this, it took time and diplomacy, but I managed to convert many non-tech people at work (and from their experience, they won't ever switch back).

Last edited by lloeki (2007-06-17 10:11:39)

tlaloc · 2007-06-17 10:21:36

Well spoken, lloeki.

dongiovanni · 2007-06-17 11:19:40

I read somwhere some time ago, that there is a plugin for MS Office that makes it support .odt

shining · 2007-06-17 13:15:35

There are probably many things you can reproach to OOo, but poor support of a proprietary and closed format is definitively not one of them.
That's exactly why it's proprietary and closed in the first place, to make its support impossible or at least very hard.

dtw · 2007-06-17 13:38:32

lloeki wrote:

The thing is i make them complex as it is our standard for training docs at work
then your training is bad...<snip>

He means the docs he creates are a standard template by design...and the docs happen to be about training...it has nothing to do with what you said

Kenetixx · 2007-06-17 14:12:02

Yes dtw got it

Im not blaming anyone i was just annoyed at the time, i know diff versions of word give different problems, which is one of the many reasons MS suck.

Acid7711 · 2007-06-17 15:46:58

+1 for Cxoffice. Not that I enjoy still using MS products, but for the times you must (as for my school), it's a godsend.

lloeki · 2007-06-17 17:36:41

He means the docs he creates are a standard template by design...and the docs happen to be about training...it has nothing to do with what you said

oh sorry. I misunderstood. my mistake, and apologies.

i know diff versions of word give different problems, which is one of the many reasons MS suck.

even worse is when the same version yields different outputs! (seriously!)

I read somwhere some time ago, that there is a plugin for MS Office that makes it support .odt

in my post above perhaps? sadly I can't remember the name, and the link where it was compared to MS work-in-progress xmldoc=>odt, which is plain non-functional, and how that highlights that their xmldoc format is badly designed from the ground up... 'twas an interesting read. I like scientifically-proved MS bashing.

There are probably many things you can reproach to OOo, but poor support of a proprietary and closed format is definitively not one of them.
That's exactly why it's proprietary and closed in the first place, to make its support impossible or at least very hard.

even though, the .doc format has been reverse-engineered, and proved to be b0rked in many aspects (e.g some sequences are ambiguous, and what apps write is not what they will read)

Kenetixx · 2007-06-17 17:48:00

Well just redisigned our stupid work template to look and work better in OO and all is good, i bet the rest dont even notice it .

lloeki · 2007-06-17 19:23:44

i bet the rest dont even notice it .

well, that's the whole dumbness of the thing: some people fight valiantly against OOo, yet when you sneakily substitute their MSO with OOo, they blindly use it, failing to notice the difference for some long time...

oh, weird world...

chaosgeisterchen · 2007-06-17 20:57:00

It's the mere truth that the majority of computer users are not aware of what they are doing with their machines. They simply do _not care what's happening as long as it works.

For them, Linux sucks, because it lets them control the machine and not the machine control them. They would rather like to be controlled and thereby comforted than to have the freedom of choice how to use them and achieving (nowadays essential) knowledge.

Weird, as you state it. But computers aren't the focus of interest of these people.

detto · 2007-06-18 13:13:23

Very well said chaosgeisterchen! May i copy this into signature?

Arch Linux

#1 2007-06-17 04:01:21

Why is it so hard???

#2 2007-06-17 04:41:33

Re: Why is it so hard???

#3 2007-06-17 05:08:23

Re: Why is it so hard???

#4 2007-06-17 06:00:29

Re: Why is it so hard???

#5 2007-06-17 06:02:30

Re: Why is it so hard???

#6 2007-06-17 06:06:05

Re: Why is it so hard???

#7 2007-06-17 10:09:53

Re: Why is it so hard???

#8 2007-06-17 10:21:36

Re: Why is it so hard???

#9 2007-06-17 11:19:40

Re: Why is it so hard???

#10 2007-06-17 13:15:35

Re: Why is it so hard???

#11 2007-06-17 13:38:32

Re: Why is it so hard???

#12 2007-06-17 14:12:02

Re: Why is it so hard???

#13 2007-06-17 15:46:58

Re: Why is it so hard???

#14 2007-06-17 17:36:41

Re: Why is it so hard???

#15 2007-06-17 17:48:00

Re: Why is it so hard???

#16 2007-06-17 19:23:44

Re: Why is it so hard???

#17 2007-06-17 20:57:00

Re: Why is it so hard???

#18 2007-06-18 13:13:23

Re: Why is it so hard???

Board footer