![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
But Andreas is not talking about DOC vs ODF. He is talking about DOC vs DOCX.
I agree with him - DOC was around earlier, it has pretty good (but not
perfect) support in LibreOffice. MS Office 2007 and 2010 are capable of reading
and writing old binary DOC format.
When interoperability with MS Office users is concerned, then DOC is the best
option you can choose.
I think you are trying to find some universal criteria of "business-readiness",
which simply does not exist.
Let's say that LO 3.6.0 has some serious bug in one of Calc's economical
functions. Does it make it not ready for business users? It depends. If you
are copywriter, who runs Calc few times in a month just to sum some numbers,
then you can freely start using 3.6.0. If your job involves stock market, then
perhaps you will prefer to stay with earlier version and wait for 3.6.x with
bug fixed to come out.
For academic writers, virtually none of OOo/LO is ready for business user due
to poor bibliography management implementation (although you can use some
other bibliographic management software, e.g. Zotero or Mendeley, with
success).
There is no simple answer for that question. Perhaps most conservative users
should stick with 3.x.6 releases - as latest in each line, they have lowest
number of bugs.
If you have time, you can check what bugs are know and what are fixed for each
release. When there are no bugs known in procedures you are using, then
perhaps you can mark that version as "ready for business users".
Hi 
I pushed this question to the marketing list (again) and got this standard official TDF line
"3.5.x is stable, although there are some regressions which impact on
some users. Of course, this is not implying that 3.5.x is perfect, and
we will never have a perfect software as bugs and regressions are part
of the process especially when you are developing new features on a 20
years old code base.
Unfortunately, as it is the case for proprietary software as well, the
only way to check if bugs and regressions impact your usage patterns is
to install the software and start using it."
Note that almost everyone is agreeing that newer releases may have regressions. Also almost everyone except the official TDF line agrees that for greater stability you may want to go back to a previous branch that has ironed-out it's problems.
So, there are 2 contradictory cases that people may be happy accepting one or the other but are hopefully realistic enough to know that both are not possible at the same time (as everyone agrees)
1. Stable and reliable but probably lacking some of the latest fancy new features (not necessarily "old", just focussing more on fixing things rather than adding new stuff)
2. New features, better support for more alien formats, enhanced Draw or Impress features, UI changes such as newer icon sets, better wording in pop-ups and menus. Not all at once, maybe, although it often does seem that way. Possibly not 100% stable all the time and maybe some regressions
Obviously some people do want both at the same time and some people want to deliver both at the same time or wish that we did but it's just not possible.
The problem and the reason this thread started was because; marketing, the devs and the websites team decided to try to pretend that the 2nd one was really the 1st when it clearly wasn't! Just wishful thinking rather than a deliberate lie - i think.
Now we don't know who to trust but we know for certain that we can't trust marketing, the devs or the websites team about this issue because they just give us wishful thinking instead of objective reality and because they are embarrassed about it they can't admit their earlier mistake.
The mistake was trying to simplify the downloads page. Noobs can't handle it there is more than just 1 simple big green button. Adobe, Firefox and many other sites go through long explanations of how downloading does not automatically install for you and that people need to take the extra step of doing the install for themselves. Most of those are screen-shots showing to just click "Next" but the fact that it does show the list confuses the people that also complain if they are not shown each and every step.
I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps 1 big green button for the stable corporate version and 1 big gold(? perhaps shimmering?) button for the ultra-latest version? Hmmm, but then the internal help pages need another littler button, errr and then add the languages. This is all tooo hopelessly complicated for most people!! So you can see why people here wanted to simplify it all!! t was a good effort that just seems to have back-fired a bit.
"Never believe incompetence when stupidity explains the facts". In this case trying to eliminate certain potential new people's confusion and inability to read and comprehend has led to "a right old muddle"!
Regards from
Tom
Right now, the web site makes you do a lot of clicking on new links to get to a different version of LO than the one that automatically given to you, which is the most cutting edge. In a few months when 3.6.0 comes out, I bet we will get that one as the "recommended" version over the 3.5.5 version.
Yes, each personal and business user will have to make their own choices on which version to use. What we must do is make it easier to choose and give them an easy way to make that choice. The feature page for the 3.4.x line does not have a bug report link, while 3.5.x does.
Can there ever be a list of features and a side by side "check-mark" stating if 3.4.6 and/or 3.5.x can do that listed feature/option? That would help the business user, and others, choose which version to try/use.
I do not have the Print to Tray "x" issue, since my non-default trays are all manual feeding trays [except my new printer that can have 10+ sheets in the manual feeding tray]. There are other issues that look bad for some of my business users, that I have given DVDs to, but I do not know enough of all the features they would use LO for to decide for myself if the current like is ready for them. Most of my users would not know that you never use a x.x.0 version for their use in business and personal work that cannot have downtime for "new line" bugs.
My choice of MS formats is done for*political* reasons not technical.
Some people I interact with need to feel comfortable that I can read a
MSOX format file and the best way to convey this is to send them MSOX
format files. Thus they do not need to worry if I can open a file they
send me and most do not know that the file was created on a Linux box
using LO unless I tell them. I assume many of the other users are not
technically skilled enough to use Save As and will only use the default
format of their version of MSO. If I have no idea what a person uses
other than a version Windows I use the older formats as a precaution. My
guerrilla campaign is not use Windows and thus MSO at all and to use
Linux/LO and show others over time that they do not need to depend on MS
for many if not all of their computing needs.
Note I do not use any MSO/MSOX formats for document creation or editing,
I always use ODF formats and do a final Save As to convert the format.
A side note many Windows users are surprised when I tell them I can not
use IE on Linux, they assume everyone can use IE. Needless to say, these
users are probably completely unaware there are other office suites
available (FOSS or commercial).
I am curious: what happens if one just changes the file extension from .doc to .docx?
F.
Felmon Davis wrote:
I am curious: what happens if one just changes the file extension from .doc to .docx?
You divide by zero and a black hole appears. 
Roughly the same as if you call your cat Rover.
Brian Barker
sorry I cut the thread but the OP was concerned about the 'politics' of submitting '.doc' files to people obsessed with '.docx' files so why not just change the extension and meet the 'political' issue but avoid getting one's hands dirty with '.docx' formatting? that was the point of the question. would Word get confused by the extension change?
F.
No so, Jay.
I'm no longer a Windows or MSO user, although I have them except for Office 2010. But I found these on the web:
To hide the ribbon in 2007 and 2010: http://techie-buzz.com/how-to/minimize-hide-ribbons-in-office-2010-office-2007.html
You might also find this useful, putting Office 2003 menus back into 2010: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/19323/bring-office-2003-menus-back-to-2010-with-ubitmenu/ I don't know if it would work with 2007.
I've not tried either solution.
Am 03.06.2012 20:14, Felmon Davis wrote:
I am curious: what happens if one just changes the file extension from
.doc to .docx?F.
Brilliant idea! This way you get much better results while the WinWord user will not notice any difference at all.
My idea is to show that whatever MS does with file formats that you are
not required to use MSO at all. I deal with many users whose technical
literacy is nil and think that to open or generate a MSOX format file
you must have MSO 2007/2010. It is guerrilla marketing because
eventually it comes out that I am not using MSO at all but can handle
their file formats without difficulty. One of my goals is to say to
someone I know it can be done because I do it regularly when I recommend
LO to someone and it is not some marketing claim that needs to be verified.
Am 03.06.2012 22:18, Jay Lozier wrote:
My idea is to show that whatever MS does with file formats that you are
not required to use MSO at all.
And this is falsified each and every day as you can read on this list, in the press, anywhere on the internet.
Interesting, I think many would like it to be a relatively easy switch
to do and it is easily available in MSO 2007/2010. Both links indicate
that one must install ubitmenu to do this, it is not something that is
provided by MS.
As the original OP, and did not talk about the .doc/.docx problem, I never gave a concern about this topic.
I do not look to see who started this talk as part of my thread on whether 3.5.4 was ready for business users, or was their too many issues/bugs/etc. still that would be a problem for the business users.
I created the thread on "Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:46:38 -0400" according to my Sent folder.
SO please do not tell people that the OP is concerned about something when he has not stated it ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Do not put words into my mouth that someone could make trouble here for me! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
sorry ! ! ! ! ! !
f.
Jude DaShiell wrote
No. Not ready for Government academic or business users. What's worse,
the accessibility problems "inferior jre" with windows registry patch
merged didn't start in libreoffice at all. Those same problems exist in
openoffice 3.45 which I think is its current version. Something or
somethings were broken before the import or copy over of code from
openoffice to libreoffice. The accessibility problems put libreoffice
in a Section 508 violation situation.
Jude,
Please review request for feedback on your Windows Java Access Bridge 2.0.2
installation from your original thread titled "inferior jre error message".
We've closed the 46114 Bug as "NotABug"--but if you really are still having
issues this needs attention and we need your assistance in testing
Accessibility support.
Regards,
Stuart
V Stuart Foote wrote
I just blew off, so I am sorry myself.
I know someone broke the thread up into to discussions with the same subject line. That happens, but if you claim someone is concerned with something, you should make sure you make sure that is the person who said it. As the OP, and not the person to started to discuss .doc/docx, I could not be claimed to have said something about that discussion. I have made an effort to stay out of that discussion in the thread I created.
I think the .doc/.docx needs to be done thoroughly in a different thread. That is a big issue with me and I would love to discuss it outside this thread name.
When will I ever learn! LOL Should have started with MS's Knowledge Base.
When I first saw 2007, I thought the ribbon idea sucked. And back then, I found out how to get rid of it, but didn't remember how.
All of these links have information on ways to deal with the ribbon, and appear to work in both 2007 and 2010.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/use-the-ribbon-instead-of-toolbars-and-menus-HA010089895.aspx#BM3
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/word-2010-tips-and-tricks-RZ102673170.aspx?section=11
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/tip-11-use-the-quick-access-toolbar-0-47-RZ102673170.aspx?section=12
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/customize-the-quick-access-toolbar-HA001234105.aspx
I don't think you could make it any easier than customizing the Quick Access Toolbar with a button toggles the Ribbon on or off.
I would have to say...... absolutely not. 
The easiest way to answer your basic question, IMO, is to ask yourself... "Can I make a profit selling this product?" If the answer is "No", you're not ready.
To do that, you need to be able to beat MS at it's own game.
You not only have to be able to meet the competition, but exceed the competition. IMO, too many basics don't do this.
LO has to work and be satisfactory to *every* potential business and government user. I don't think any business or government agency is going to test the software for a week, and conclude all is well. They may not be happy later when something they expected to work doesn't work, yet MSO or another product had no issues with it.
I'm willing to bet, that within every government all features of MSO will be used. Only some features will be used by any individual or division, but every MSO feature will be used by somebody somewhere.
On March 5, 2010, I filed this bug on 3.5.0: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46986 One poster has reported it as being reproducible.
Yet it is still unconfirmed, and not fixed in 3.5.4.2. It may not be important to the devs of LO, but it's sure important to me. And if this doesn't work for me, why would I recommend LO to someone?
I had three or four other issues with 3.5.0, but if no one even bothers to confirm this issue, why should I bother reporting any other?
Occasionally, I will rehab/save/refurbish, whatever word you prefer, an older computer system to be given away, and I used to install LO. I no longer do that, because of the issues I've found. I've started to include a less powerful free office product, Kingsoft Office. They do not offer a Mac version, so I've not been able to test it for even the issues I've found in LO.