Do You Share ODF Documents With MS Office Users?

users
#41

Tom, well done.

       Maybe those at LO will listen, but I don't know what more they could
do;
           the problem probably originates from the States due to the
massive use of MSFT products ... hackers attack these ... MSFT responds
with their endless stream of fixes ... hackers continue to attack the
loop-holes ... ... ...
              yet folks still are afraid to get away from MSFT products :wink:

Hi :slight_smile:

#42

        Tom, well done.

        Maybe those at LO will listen, but I don't know what more they could
do;
            the problem probably originates from the States due to the
massive use of MSFT products ... hackers attack these ... MSFT responds
with their endless stream of fixes ... hackers continue to attack the
loop-holes ... ... ...
               yet folks still are afraid to get away from MSFT products :wink:

Spreading FUD about other options other than MS products is very common. I do not know how often I have seen someone say how difficult Linux is to use or that most users need to use advanced features in MSO. The last IMHO is silly, most users do not use more than a few of the features regularly and do not know of many of the advanced features in MSO. The only real issue I see is that exact layout of the GUI is somewhat different and this may cause some issues initially.

I remember trying to get others to use Word templates many years ago and failing. They could not grasp the concept of a pre-defined, standard template. If users have trouble with a fairly basic and very handy feature I doubt they use any advanced features.

While I do not share ODF formats because the others I work with have MSO versions from 2003 to 2010, I have not found either the files I receive or send to be much more than "plain Jane" spreadsheets or Word/Write documents. Basically there is minimal formating and only basic features are used. Other than being displayed in a pretty format, these documents are not much more complex than typical documents from the mid to late 80's.

#43

Jay, you're speaking logically; too few people today seem to think
logically - or to even think :wink:

#44

The problem doesn't seem to be so much with management not wanting to change - it seems to be with fear of the IT dept. Many companies still seem to be under the dictat of the IT dept and allow the IT dept to do what it wants rather than management telling the IT dept what it wants and please implement it! The IT dept is there to provide a SERVICE to the company, not the other way around!

The howls of anguish that came from USERS when their IT depts foisted the ribboned Office 2007 on them had to be heard to be believed.
But of course to trot out the old saying - "no-one gets fired for buying Microsoft....."

#45

I remember when the saying was "No one gets fired for buying IBM". In some cases it is the IT department but I think many times it is management. I had very technically illiterate bosses who would follow the rule of "No one gets fired for buying Microsoft" even when you had a strong case for not buying MS.

Also, I remember that some of the office suite competitors of the 80's and early 90's never adapted their suites to use a GUI effectively. Wordperfect on a Mac was a disaster while Word and Excel worked very well on the late 80's Macs. When MS introduced Win95 they were well positioned to implement a good GUI for MSOffice, they had already do it once on the Mac.

#46

Jay Lozier wrote:

When MS introduced Win95 they were well positioned to implement a good GUI for MSOffice, they had already do it once on the Mac.

Check out Novell vs Microsoft for info on how Microsoft used hidden API on Windows to ensure their apps worked better than the competition. That case is in relation to Word Perfect, but Borland also found the same thing re hidden APIs.

#47

95On 08/08/2012 03:59 PM, James Knott wrote:

Jay Lozier wrote:

When MS introduced Win95 they were well positioned to implement a good GUI for MSOffice, they had already do it once on the Mac.

Check out Novell vs Microsoft for info on how Microsoft used hidden API on Windows to ensure their apps worked better than the competition. That case is in relation to Word Perfect, but Borland also found the same thing re hidden APIs.

From using Wordperfect, Word, and others on a Mac years ago, Wordperfect was a miserable, rabid dog. Yes, MS played dirty but there was a good bit of incompetence with Wordperfect (and others) well before the Win95 era. I am talking late 80's on a Mac. Many vendors had no trouble writing good software for the Mac back then. Wordperfect was harshly criticized for their sloppy Mac port. I was a Mac user back then. If they could not implement the Mac GUI why would you expect them to implement any other GUI correctly? I did not back then. The hidden API's only made things worse and their incompetence more glaring.

I did try Wordperfect on a Mac in the late 80's because it had some features at that time no one else had available but found it almost impossible to use. My impression then was they did not try to understand how any GUI worked and did not want to understand. So the fact they failed was not a surprise to me.

I know circa 85 early versions of Word and Excel available on the Mac and worked very well. At the time MS paid attention to the Mac API's and GUI concepts. When Win95 came out MS had about 10 years of successful experience with GUI's. Personally, I think the hidden API's issue was partly true and partly an excuse for being caught unready. GUI's had been successfully commercialized by Apple and Amiga in the 80's. Those that made good software for GUI's had an advantage when Win95 came out even with MS playing dirty.

#48

Sounds a lot like the battered wife syndrome.
steve

#49

        Tom, well done.

        Maybe those at LO will listen, but I don't know what more they could
do;
            the problem probably originates from the States due to the
massive use of MSFT products ... hackers attack these ... MSFT responds
with their endless stream of fixes ... hackers continue to attack the
loop-holes ... ... ...
               yet folks still are afraid to get away from MSFT products :wink:

Spreading FUD about other options other than MS products is very common. I do not know how often I have seen someone say how difficult Linux is to use or that most users need to use advanced features in MSO. The last IMHO is silly, most users do not use more than a few of the features regularly and do not know of many of the advanced features in MSO. The only real issue I see is that exact layout of the GUI is somewhat different and this may cause some issues initially.

I remember trying to get others to use Word templates many years ago and failing. They could not grasp the concept of a pre-defined, standard template. If users have trouble with a fairly basic and very handy feature I doubt they use any advanced features.

While I do not share ODF formats because the others I work with have MSO versions from 2003 to 2010, I have not found either the files I receive or send to be much more than "plain Jane" spreadsheets or Word/Write documents. Basically there is minimal formating and only basic features are used. Other than being displayed in a pretty format, these documents are not much more complex than typical documents from the mid to late 80's.

Without going into too much of the detail that is in another thread, I was talking about basic functionality in Calc with things like pivottables and charts. In the environment I work in I don't think there is a spreadsheet that non-automatically produced, right across the business, that does not have a pivottable. Excel allows features that either Calc refuses to allow, or Calc implements (in my view) in a really archaic way. Charts are the same. Also I'm a SAS developer, and I write lots of processes that automatically produce excel spreadsheets without the requirement to use excel, and, as far as I am aware it does not provide facilities for anything other than excel, so we couldn't migrate.

regards,
Steve

#50

There are very sound reasons that businesses are conservative. Businesses don't like change because change costs money. You don't argue for change by saying something is "just as good" or "not as bad as you think." You must argue that change is BETTER than not changing and will ultimate increase productivity, which increases profits.

The difference in cost of the initial license, when considered from the full deployment/productivity calculation of an IT manager, is often not the deciding factor. The primary cost of changing software is not the license, but installation, configuration, training, and lost productivity during conversion. If you put all of this on a balance sheet for a company that is currently using MS Office, the cost of "upgrading" the existing software is often much lower than the cost of changing new software, even when that new standard has a free license.

Cheers,
             tod

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com

#51

When at home it is a case of using LO but when at work and school it is
a matter of using Mo as that is what everybody else uses.

I prefer to use LO for the simplicity that it has attached with it. I
remember being taught as a 5 year old to use MO 2003 and becoming quite
proficient in its use. Now as a High School Student I was forced to
crack MO for the first few years as I had no Knowledge of LO. Now since
I have made the switch I have not looked back as NZ now has severe
copyright laws in which I was breaching.

Long live Open Source!

Anthony

#52

Tod, you're correct;
           although the businesses fail to consider the cost of
safeguarding their machines;
              a cost which would be considerably reduced by not using the
MSFT products.

#53

The total costs of all that would be FAR lower by converting from Office 2003 or any of its predecessors to LO compared to converting to Office 2007/2010.....users could at least get going almost immediately with LO whereas the new ribbon seemed to be almost unfathomable to a lot of people, so yes, going from one version of MS Office to a SIMILAR version (as in Office XP to Office 2003 or Office 2007 to 2010) I agree. Going from a menu-based Office to a ribbon-based Office no, I don't agree.

#54

When at home it is a case of using LO but when at work and school it is
a matter of using Mo as that is what everybody else uses.

You have to consider WHY "everybody" uses it (and that's a bit of a generalisation anyway...)
In the dim distant past when the default Spreadsheet suite WASN'T Excel but was Lotus 123, MS began giving away free unrestricted copies of MS Office with their server software. That gave them a dominant position in the market, even though many users considered that Excel was inferior to Lotus (and even today there are those who still say that) and that WordPerfect was superior to Word. It's like the Betamax/VHS argument.
Thus MS Office became the "norm" purely because no organisation is going to look a freebie in the mouth are they, even if it isn't quite up to scratch.

Now, with the increasing use of LO, particularly by home users, what are MS doing? Giving away freebies yet again. Most new computers come with a trial version of Office 2010 - if you don't want to buy it, at the end of the trial it converts to a crippled adware version of Excel and Word. The User doesn't know any better and that does all that they need so why bother looking for any alternative?

I remember being taught as a 5 year old to use MO 2003

Really? Is that a typo? That would make you a maximum of 14 years old! :wink:

#55

The costs for upgrading to newer version of MSO still has some people I know using MSO 2003, in business and home. Then there are those who send out complex MSO 2010 .docx documents to people that cannot view them, even on their MSO 2007 versions. I remind people that not everyone has the newest version of MSO, due to budgets, etc., so they need to either send out .doc files or .pdf files if those documents are not going to be edited by the receivers. Using ODF could be the same problem for business and home users.

Tod H. and others are correct about the cost of software also includes the installation and the training involved. Adding the filters to current version MSO so it can properly read/write ODF file would be a good, if their version of MSO does not already have the ODF ability. But, it will take a long time to get users to share ODF files with other as a standard option.

The problem I am facing for home users is that they are being told by others that you must use MSO if you have .doc files on your old computer, when you get a new computer. I had one lady use OOo and use .doc as the default format. Then she goat a laptop and her son convinced her that she had to buy a copy of MSO for her new laptop, instead of using LO as a replacement to OOo. She was using OOo since it could read/write .doc files. I got her to use it. But since everyone told her that she now has to use MSO for her .doc files, she felt that she must buy it instead of the free software that she had been using for years. It is the pressure to use MSO over any free alternatives that we need to go up against.

In the 3.6.0 announcement, there was a list of governments/groups that now use LO. It really think that there needs to be a list of these governments, agencies, businesses, educational institutions, etc., etc., so they we can point to that list and say - these organizations/governments have switched to LO and/or FOSS for they needs so maybe you should look into doing so as well. If we can show people that governments and big businesses have switched, then there is more evidence that switching to LO might not be a bad idea.

#56

AFAIK, MSO 2007/2010 are the only major packages that use the ribbon interface. All other recent Windows software I have seen still uses the traditional menus. IMHO most users can adapt to a reasonable menu layout fairly quickly; it is more about finding how to access a command than fighting the interface and finding the command.

I would expect most users could "learn" the LO fairly quickly because it is same familiar menu style interface they are using on most packages.

The total cost to install includes rolling out the software to the users. If a company is not planning a major office suite roll out then converting to any other suite will not occur. The ideal time to convert an organization is when they are planning to replace their current suite. Then the a comparison of all costs makes sense.

#57

The total costs of all that would be FAR lower by converting from Office 2003 or any of its predecessors to LO compared to converting to Office 2007/2010.....users could at least get going almost immediately with LO whereas the new ribbon seemed to be almost unfathomable to a lot of people, so yes, going from one version of MS Office to a SIMILAR version (as in Office XP to Office 2003 or Office 2007 to 2010) I agree. Going from a menu-based Office to a ribbon-based Office no, I don't agree.

Actually, I not only totally agree, I am currently arguing for LO on precisely those grounds. The cost of licensing only gets me a hearing. The argument that converting from early MO to current LO is a smoother transition than upgrading to MS2011 is the one I think will carry the day.

I also argue that:
LO is showing significant strength, acceptance, and vigor, and therefor has a sufficient secure future (important)
That ODT is the international "standard," not DocX (there is widespread distaste for DocX so this works well politically)
LO is a better "cross-platform" product (the "media" business has a large Mac population, unfriendly to MS)

Unfortunately, my arguments are largely unproven. All it would take would be one important client raving about their conversion to LO. That could happen as our clients are largely non-commercial. But, it has not. Rather, they use very old versions of MS.

So back to the original thread. No, we don't share ODT docs. We share MS2000 docs. In fact, all documents are stored as MS2000, whether created by LO or MO. I still advocate the MS2000 format as the default, as it is still the single most widely supported document format in my corner of the world... other than text/rtf. We have never had a problem with a client opening an MS2000 format doc. Well, not in this decade anyway.

Cheers,
             tod

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com

#58

The ribbon interface is definitely MO's big vulnerability.

I would also argue that continuing development and promotion of Base is important. In particular, decreasing the accessibility curve and making the usefulness of Base more apparent to users.

Cheers,
               tod

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com

#59

I have one users that only uses Windows due to his need to access a database he created using MSO 98[?] and now using MSO 2000 or 2003. With no real Base documentation for me to deal with, I cannot figure out how to make it work with Base.

So this guy has to deal with a slow computer running XP instead of a faster/newer computer I can give him running Ubuntu.

Base is the real problem for some. We need to have good documentation on how to take an existing Access database and make it work under LO's Base. If I could take his database and make it editable and have good templates for viewing and printing of it, then I could get this guy using LO. Corel Draw 11 would be switched to Inkscape as well. I switched, with very little issues. He would do fine there as well. It is just his large personal book inventory database, and his hobby related one as well, that is the stalling point.

The ribbon interface is definitely MO's big vulnerability.

I would also argue that continuing development and promotion of Base is important. In particular, decreasing the accessibility curve and making the usefulness of Base more apparent to users.

Cheers,
                tod

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com

<snip>

#60

Am 09.08.2012 18:51, webmaster-Kracked_P_P wrote:

I have one users that only uses Windows due to his need to access a
database he created using MSO 98[?] and now using MSO 2000 or 2003. With
no real Base documentation for me to deal with, I cannot figure out how
to make it work with Base.

So this guy has to deal with a slow computer running XP instead of a
faster/newer computer I can give him running Ubuntu.

Base is the real problem for some. We need to have good documentation
on how to take an existing Access database and make it work under LO's
Base. If I could take his database and make it editable and have good
templates for viewing and printing of it, then I could get this guy
using LO. Corel Draw 11 would be switched to Inkscape as well. I
switched, with very little issues. He would do fine there as well. It
is just his large personal book inventory database, and his hobby
related one as well, that is the stalling point.

Connecting a Base document to some tabular data is the same procedure for csv, dBase, spreadsheets, mail client address books and all kinds of connectable true databases (MySQL, Access, Oracle, ...).

MS Access (database in a single *.mdb file) is a Windows only database because the required drivers are made by MS for Windows only:

Database...

[X] Connect to existing database
Type: <MS Access>
Point to the *.mdb file
[X] Register database
Save database.

Now you have a backend database which is contained in the *.mdb file and a frontend database which is the *.odb file connected to the *.mdb (see status bar). It shows all the tables.
Base needs a primary keys in order to edit a table. Tables without primary key are read-only.

[Tutorial] MS Access and OOo Base:

http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=25300

[Tutorial] Read-Only in Base: