![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
huh ???
Am 25.07.2012 21:29, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
Every MS Office user can save the much more compatible doc and xls
easily.One of the major problems with Windows 7 (and possibly Vista - I can't
remember) is that the "Show file extensions for known file types" is
switched OFF by default (God knows why) so the user may not even KNOW
they are working with docx or xlsx instead of .doc or .xls...
This default setting is one of the most serious issues since Windows '95. They know very well why they install it like that. Every knowledgable user knows why this is the one of the first option to be turned off for each new Windows installation.
Stock exchange names are not necessarily the same as a trading name - the normal (non-financial) abbreviation for Microsoft is MS, not MSFT....
Absolutely. Just another little niggle in the consumer lock-in armoury of MS....
The problem is that many users are not even aware they can change the setting. Many malware packages exploit this file extension hiding. The last time I reset it I believe I had to drill down about 3 or 4 levels before I could change it.
omega
The
Omega sector
America's Last
Line of
Defense
*haha I only use MS office crap to do to Thomas's stuff and that is inside of virtual box and I drop files on the Win-crap folder on the linux desktop and then open it in windows with MS Office trying to get something done in Linux libreoffice calc to avoid windows crap . . I have not yet learned Ink scape vector Graphics yet it is close to Corel Draw
Me too
Keith Bainbridge
PO Box 324
BELMONT Vic 3216 Australia
+61 (0)408 522 706
Hi, absolutely agree about the hide extensions crap, this is indeed one of the first things I fix on any computer I am working on for anyone. I knew it went back a long way but pretty much the first version of windows I had a screen reader for was win98. It continues to be the same up through windows 7 and I am sure Windows 8 will be no better.
Just to keep this message in line with the subject yes I routinely share ODF documents with Office users because they insist on running MS crap where I work whereas I refuse to give the bastards at MS any more money than absolutely necessary.
Best regards,
Tom
Hi 
Excellent name btw chap!
I just let one of my users login as admin and she 'had to' change a file-name. In Windows by default it includes the file-extension in the name when you try to rename files so she changed the pdf to something with no ending and then Windows couldn't find the right program to open it with! [sighs deeply]
Regards from
Tom too
omega
The
Omega sector
America's Last
Line of
Defense
*you got a real ahumm computer helper there LMAO Just because you change a name of the file does not change the type of a file . . tell her to change it back to the .pdf and it will once again work ! . . . got to tell her it has to be saved as a doc or what ever in windows crap . . In Linux I can tear a PDF apart and piece it back together so it has every thing turned backwards and re send it out the door
haha can't re name a jpg a gif or a bmp just does not work ! !
Congratulations! I do so wish everyone with such problems would and could handle it the way you have.
Thanks!
David Teague
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Why did they need to upgrade their MS licenses to read ODF files? IT reads that they had old version of MSO, but it would have been nice for them to use the FREE alternative instead. Besides, was there not threads about issues with MSO's version of reading and writing ODF formats? I never heard any news that the newest versions of MSO worked well with ODF.
Still, any way that gets businesses to use the ISO standard file formats [ODF not MSO XML] is a good thing. Then the next step is for those businesses to try and use LO instead of paying for newer version of MSO. MSO 2013 [or Office 15] is still having problems, but so is Win8 which is due out in 2 months. So why bother. Just use LO and not worry about MS's problems with lost revenue and their ways to get more money out of less work.
webmaster-Kracked_P_P wrote:
Why did they need to upgrade their MS licenses to read ODF files? IT reads that they had old version of MSO, but it would have been nice for them to use the FREE alternative instead. Besides, was there not threads about issues with MSO's version of reading and writing ODF formats? I never heard any news that the newest versions of MSO worked well with ODF.
Still, any way that gets businesses to use the ISO standard file formats [ODF not MSO XML] is a good thing. Then the next step is for those businesses to try and use LO instead of paying for newer version of MSO. MSO 2013 [or Office 15] is still having problems, but so is Win8 which is due out in 2 months. So why bother. Just use LO and not worry about MS's problems with lost revenue and their ways to get more money out of less work.
Another way is to use the Sun ODF plugin, which is a free download. It'd trust it more than MS to do things right.
Just my 2 cents worth. Businesses with a heavy investment in office can't migrate to LO, as LO is not a functional replacement for office 2002, let alone 2010. A lot of business functionality that is used from day to day and is critical to the organisation in order for their various business units to operate, from say excel, that libreoffice does not provide, even in 3.6, and features that excel allows that Calc disallows (as far as I can see for no good reason). Another reason for not migrating is also the steep learning curve, both with front end functionality and macros, that business cannot afford to undertake due to the loss of time and resources.
regards,
Steve
From my experience of working in the IT department of a very large college
with over 10 000 computers, it has nothing to do with functionality. 99.9%
of employees use office to type letters and send emails. For the .1% that
would use advanced features, policy probably disallows them anyway. Plus,
it is fairly trivial to have different images for those that need/want them.
The reason they don't migrate is because it would create more work for the
IT department, it is that simple. Plus there is no benefit as far as the IT
department is concerned. Office 2003 works, and whoever approves the budget
is just going to accept however much is put in there for it, that is if it
is actually a separate item and not bundled in with the other microsoft
licences.
Office = safe.
LO = risky + more work.
>From my experience of working in the IT department of a very large college
with over 10 000 computers, it has nothing to do with functionality. 99.9%
of employees use office to type letters and send emails. For the .1% that
would use advanced features, policy probably disallows them anyway. Plus,
it is fairly trivial to have different images for those that need/want them.The reason they don't migrate is because it would create more work for the
IT department, it is that simple. Plus there is no benefit as far as the IT
department is concerned. Office 2003 works, and whoever approves the budget
is just going to accept however much is put in there for it, that is if it
is actually a separate item and not bundled in with the other microsoft
licences.Office = safe.
LO = risky + more work.
I would second that most users do not use advanced features of any the MSO parts. Very few can actually program/write a macro and macro execution should normally be turned off for security reasons.
The reasons for not updating MSO version or using another office suite (LO, AOO, etc) are roll out costs, roll out time, inertia (no real business reason to change), and perceptions about users finding the new suite difficult to use.
Just my 2 cents worth. Businesses with a heavy investment in office can't migrate to LO, as LO is not a functional replacement for office 2002,
IMHO that's not true
let alone 2010. A lot of business functionality that is used from day to day and is critical to the organisation in order for their various business units to operate, from say excel, that libreoffice does not provide, even in 3.6, and features that excel allows that Calc disallows (as far as I can see for no good reason).
Having worked for 20-odd years as a Management/Systems accountant in many varieties and sizes of organisations ranging from one-man band traders to medium/large PLCs I have never seen any business use Office in that manner.
Usually Excel is used to interpret data extracted from an Accounting/CRM/ERM database, which Calc can do perfectly well.
Word is used mostly for typing letters - complex documents are few and far between. Presentations can be produced equally well using PowerPoint or Impress.
Another reason for not migrating is also the steep learning curve, both with front end functionality and macros, that business cannot afford to undertake due to the loss of time and resources.
Given my experience as above, most businesses I worked in didn't use macros at all. In fact in some they were deliberately disabled as a security risk.
As to the "learning curve" - there's a far smaller learning curve migrating from MS Office 2003 and prior to LO than there is migrating to Office 2007/2010 - so that doesn't stack up either.
Hi
I have forwarded this to the marketing team for them to discuss because there are a lot of the BoD on that list. However i am far more unpopular there than i am on this list so they will probably just ignore it as "trolling" or some-such.
If, like me, you want to see LO succeed and believe some of these issue may indeed be "holding LO back" or setting up bigger problems for the future then feel free to take up the discussion there or even better forwards it to the "discuss" list.
I think the original op of this thread wanted to avoid getting bogged down in all this and just wanted practical comments on issues arising from trying to share with the 90% (or thereabouts, depending on geography) of computer users that still use MSO. Perhaps just a few pointers on how to get better results from sharing.
Regards from
Tom
I would add another problem is a lack of diligence about what the company actually needs and what alternatives are available: cloud, FOSS, and commercial. As much FUD I see about how difficult it is to use Ubuntu I would expect there is some FUD about how difficult any other office suite/cloud solution is to use. The basic interface of LO/AOO is a typical program GUI interface users have seen before. The only difference is exactly where some of the tools are and the all the basic tools are there.
Gordon, you're correct, but trying to convince many - especially
businesses - of this logic, can be next to impossible 
For some reason, the training is done on MSFT machines with MSFT
programs and the idea of change is scary even if this change will protect
their machines from these hackers ...; and sending the documents can be
done in various formats to suit the receiver.
The only thing I do after clicking on to send to another format, is
to check to see if all is as I had prepared; I've found that documents
transfer well but the timing in Impress files is off - this takes merely a
moment to fix.