Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OpenOffice.org 3.0 available

J

JeffM

Jan 1, 1970
0
The official launch is Oct 13, but you can download it now.
http://distribution.openoffice.org/mirrors/#extmirrors

For those of you struggling with folks sending you crap
saved in M$'s new lock-in/lockout file formats, here's the good
-- New stuff --
Can open files from M$Office 2007, Office 2008 for OS X
(.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.)

1024 Columns Per Sheet (was 256)
-- Excel 2007 will do 16,384 ! (x 1,048,576 !)

Support for (ISO standard) OpenDocument Format 1.2 (ODF)

Runs under OS X without X11

....and OOo has had some VBA support for a while now.

More details:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.0/
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
JeffM said:
The official launch is Oct 13, but you can download it now.
http://distribution.openoffice.org/mirrors/#extmirrors

For those of you struggling with folks sending you crap
saved in M$'s new lock-in/lockout file formats, here's the good
-- New stuff --
Can open files from M$Office 2007, Office 2008 for OS X
(.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.)

1024 Columns Per Sheet (was 256)
-- Excel 2007 will do 16,384 ! (x 1,048,576 !)

Support for (ISO standard) OpenDocument Format 1.2 (ODF)

Runs under OS X without X11

...and OOo has had some VBA support for a while now.

More details:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.0/

Just downloaded it.
I cannot understand why anyone would buy MS products when this is free.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
Just downloaded it.
I cannot understand why anyone would buy MS products when this is free.

Because, unless you are doing trivial work, it isn't compatible with
the other 99.9% who would rather pay for software.
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, a number of governments think different.
^ly

So? The *fact* is that OO is not compatible past the rudiments,
with M$. It matters not, why or who is (in)compatible with whom.
And the way I heard it, it is MS who has been forced into compatibility
with ODF

Nonsense. M$ doesn't care about compatibility with M$.
 
D

David Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
We've been using a mix of OOo (mostly the <http://go-oo.org/> version at
the moment) and MS Office at my company since OOo was still Star Office.
There are still a few machines that have MS Office, which is useful
for the odd difficult document (sometimes there are layout issues when
importing MS documents with complex tables or numbering, and word
documents with embedded excel spreadsheets don't work). But it's been a
good while since we bought any new MS Office licenses. We choose OOo
for a number of reasons:

It's a standard, and it uses standard document formats.

It's better than newer MS Office for working with older MS Office documents.

It works on any machine, any OS, any Windows version, any service pack.

We can upgrade when as and when *we* want, not when some other company
dictates. And the upgrade is independent of everything else on the system.

We don't have to install "security updates", or worry about macro
viruses (the only viruses we've had at our company were macro viruses).

We don't have to suffer a f***ed up software update system that can lock
up a PC for hours during automatic MS Office updates even though updates
were explicitly turned off.

We can work together with our customers and partners that use OOo as
well as those that use MS Office.

We can freely mix and match languages for the interface and for
dictionaries.

We can export to pdf directly from OOo, giving much better pdf's than
you can get from MS Office + Acrobat Distiller, much faster.

Employees can install OOo freely, legally, safely, and easily on their
home machines.

Oh, and it's free.

Even if OOo and MS Office were the same price, I'd still prefer OOo. I
have a number of licenses for MS Office (or at least MS Word) that came
"free" with PCs over the years - I've never bothered installing them.

^ly

So? The *fact* is that OO is not compatible past the rudiments,
with M$. It matters not, why or who is (in)compatible with whom.


Nonsense. M$ doesn't care about compatibility with M$.

You might have a typo there, but it's true that MS Office has poor
compatibility with older MS Office versions!

MS certainly don't *care* about compatibility with anything non-MS. But
they *do* care about large markets. ODF is an ISO standard, and is the
mandated standard for steadily more governments and official bodies
around the world. OOXML is a flop - MS are aware of how badly they
messed it up, and what a PR failure it was. The continuing process of
ISO ratification serves only to destroy ISO's reputation - it will not
make OOXML a real standard. Added to this, the OOXML quasi-standard at
ISO is not the same as the OOXML used by the latest MS Office versions.
In fact, MS sees it as easier to implement ODF support than to support
ISO-OOXML (perhaps because the former is a proper specified and
documented format). MS has made a tactical withdrawal on formats, and
wants people to standardise on ODF using MS Office (once they've got the
next version out, of course).
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
We've been using a mix of OOo (mostly the <http://go-oo.org/> version at
the moment) and MS Office at my company since OOo was still Star Office.
There are still a few machines that have MS Office, which is useful
for the odd difficult document (sometimes there are layout issues when
importing MS documents with complex tables or numbering, and word
documents with embedded excel spreadsheets don't work).

So you admit that OOo is incompatible with complicated M$O
applications, particularly Excel spreadsheets.
But it's been a
good while since we bought any new MS Office licenses. We choose OOo
for a number of reasons:
Irrelevant.

It's a standard, and it uses standard document formats.

It may use "standard" formats, but it is most certainly *not* a
standard. In particular Calc is really messed up.
It's better than newer MS Office for working with older MS Office documents.

Only if you have no clue what you're doing with M$O. OOo has horrid
spreadsheet compatibility (the main reason I cannot use it).
It works on any machine, any OS, any Windows version, any service pack.

Equally badly.
We can upgrade when as and when *we* want, not when some other company
dictates. And the upgrade is independent of everything else on the system.

I'm still using Office '97 (and OOo) at home and '03 at work. No
one is forcing me to "upgrade".
We don't have to install "security updates", or worry about macro
viruses (the only viruses we've had at our company were macro viruses).

You're lucky. Of course macros are a pretty important feature for
anyone using Excel for more than lists.
We don't have to suffer a f***ed up software update system that can lock
up a PC for hours during automatic MS Office updates even though updates
were explicitly turned off.

Office doesn't force updates on me. Windows does (and that can be
turned off), but no office updates. At work, updates (to Windows)
are done at night. The automatic reboot pisses me off, but...
We can work together with our customers and partners that use OOo as
well as those that use MS Office.

Only if your customers are simpletons.
We can freely mix and match languages for the interface and for
dictionaries.

We can export to pdf directly from OOo, giving much better pdf's than
you can get from MS Office + Acrobat Distiller, much faster.

There are many PDF printers available, beer-free.
Employees can install OOo freely, legally, safely, and easily on their
home machines.

Oh, and it's free.

Free isn't a very useful feature if it doesn't work. OOo Calc is
brain-dead.
Even if OOo and MS Office were the same price, I'd still prefer OOo. I
have a number of licenses for MS Office (or at least MS Word) that came
"free" with PCs over the years - I've never bothered installing them.



You might have a typo there, but it's true that MS Office has poor
compatibility with older MS Office versions!

No, I don't have a typo there. I have *no* love for M$. In this
case, there is no good alternative (to Excel).
MS certainly don't *care* about compatibility with anything non-MS. But
they *do* care about large markets. ODF is an ISO standard, and is the
mandated standard for steadily more governments and official bodies
around the world. OOXML is a flop - MS are aware of how badly they
messed it up, and what a PR failure it was. The continuing process of
ISO ratification serves only to destroy ISO's reputation - it will not
make OOXML a real standard. Added to this, the OOXML quasi-standard at
ISO is not the same as the OOXML used by the latest MS Office versions.
In fact, MS sees it as easier to implement ODF support than to support
ISO-OOXML (perhaps because the former is a proper specified and
documented format). MS has made a tactical withdrawal on formats, and
wants people to standardise on ODF using MS Office (once they've got the
next version out, of course).

<sheesh>
 
D

David Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
krw said:
So you admit that OOo is incompatible with complicated M$O
applications, particularly Excel spreadsheets.

It is certainly incompatible with Word documents with embedded Excel
documents. But then, so is MS Word if you don't have the whole Office
pack, and so are different versions of MS Office. Perhaps this will
change as MS is forced to provide more documentation on their formats.
But either way, it makes no practical difference to me - I've rarely had
to look at such documents, and in most cases it was just someone being a
smartass.

Of course, different people use programs in different ways - if you make
a lot of use of advanced features such as macros and integration between
programs, then you'll have a lot more trouble converting to a different
program suite (and that includes converting *to* MS Office, as well as
converting away from it). Pick the best tool for the job - OOo is the
best office pack for my office, but that doesn't mean it's the best for
everyone.
Irrelevant.

Not really. OOo is an active choice for us, not just a "free" option.
It may use "standard" formats, but it is most certainly *not* a
standard. In particular Calc is really messed up.

It works fine as far as I've seen. I've had to help other users here
with occasional problems with Excel that were non-issues with Calc. But
if you don't like Calc, there are other programs that work with the
standard ODF formats (like KOffice - coming soon to Windows if you don't
like *nix).

I'm not suggesting everyone should switch to OOo - I am merely
explaining why it is the right choice for us, and could be the right
choice for others. I think the freedom of choice is important - that's
why it is a good thing that MS will support ODF (as long as they don't
try "embrace, extend, extinguish"), as it gives users more choice of how
to access their data.
Only if you have no clue what you're doing with M$O. OOo has horrid
spreadsheet compatibility (the main reason I cannot use it).

I've helped out customers who had old Excel 95 files that they could not
open in newer versions of Excel - I used OOo to open said files, and
re-save them in a newer Excel format. That's my personal experience -
obviously that's going to different from yours.
Equally badly.


I'm still using Office '97 (and OOo) at home and '03 at work. No
one is forcing me to "upgrade".


You're lucky. Of course macros are a pretty important feature for
anyone using Excel for more than lists.

We're not lucky - we are careful and sensible. But we made the mistake
of trusting data files sent from an American partner company which
turned out to be infected.

Spreadsheets can do an enormous amount without bothering with macros -
the huge majority of users (of Excel, Calc, or any other part of either
office suite) have no concept of what macros are or how to use them.
Yet they make good use of the tools. If you find you need macros all
the time, then either you work regularly with much more advanced
spreadsheets than most users, or you haven't noticed the little
"function wizard" button.
Office doesn't force updates on me. Windows does (and that can be
turned off), but no office updates. At work, updates (to Windows)
are done at night. The automatic reboot pisses me off, but...

I've seen it happen (you can do some web searching if you want - it was
about a year ago, IIRC) - PC's with particular versions of Office got
stuck as a result of an update (despite automatic updates on Office
being turned off) which caused them to spend many hours at 100% cpu time
on the update process.
Only if your customers are simpletons.

Yes, I'm sure you've found the reason why some people choose OOo.
There are many PDF printers available, beer-free.

There are also speech-free PDF printers
(<http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/> being the one we use).
But just like Distiller, they work as printers. You lose information
such as links, clickable table of context, references, and indexes.
Distiller can get you some of that information, but it takes work. With
OOo, all you need to do is make proper use of paragraph styles (which
you should do anyway), and you get a fully structured pdf in a fraction
of the time.
Free isn't a very useful feature if it doesn't work. OOo Calc is
brain-dead.

I agree that the cost-price is a minor issue at this price level
(figuring out what licenses you need, and what licenses you have, can
cost more in time than the software cost itself). That's why I gave it
as the last reason.

If Calc doesn't work for you, pick something else. It works fine for
me, and others at my company, and millions of others around the world.
I'm sure it has its limits, and I'm sure there are features in Excel
that Calc doesn't have, and that a certain proportion of users want
those features - that certainly applies to the pdf generation feature of
Calc that does not exist in Excel.

I'm curious - what is it that Excel can do that Calc cannot? Is it just
the import/export of complex Excel documents with macros, or are there
things that you simply cannot do correctly with Calc? As I said, I have
had no problems - but I don't use it very much. Other people here have
no problem using Calc for budgets, analysis, planning, charting, and all
sorts of other uses (no macros that I know of, however).
No, I don't have a typo there. I have *no* love for M$. In this
case, there is no good alternative (to Excel).


<sheesh>

MS are rapidly losing their lock-in with office file formats - ODF is
increasingly popular, and OOo does everything the majority of office
suite users need. Strong support for ODF is the only way they have a
chance to regain those lost users.
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
                                               ^ly

So?  The *fact* is that OO is not compatible past the rudiments,
with M$.  It matters not, why or who is (in)compatible with whom.


Nonsense.  M$ doesn't care about compatibility with M$.

I maintain that they do care. They try to make it so that the new
version can open the files of the old version but the old version
messes up on the files from the new version. This way when one copy
of the new version is brought on site, nearly every copy needs to be
XXgraded to the new version.

At this point I have written a fair amount of code in the OO basic. I
really hope they never decide to change it massively.
 
J

JeffM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel said:
[. . .]
3) Cost of change. For individual use, OO can make a very strong [case].
Amen. With the economy imploding,
corps also will be watching every penny.
For commercial usage, you're looking at
spending (potentially a lot of) time re-training and changing over.
This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface
which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".
The question becomes: If someone has to learn a new interface anyway,
why would he PAY for the imposition?
 
J

JeffM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel said:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,
As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.
although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.
Yup. You have underscored the point I tried to make.
[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).

Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.

It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself). 8-(
 
J

john jardine

Jan 1, 1970
0
JeffM said:
Joel said:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,
As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.
although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.
Yup. You have underscored the point I tried to make.
[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).

Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.

It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself). 8-(

Yes. M$ shot themselves in the foot with their compatibility problem. Last
week the accountant for a company of 40 people was weeping blood about the
potential update costs to (yet again) keep the company computers in peace
and harmony. Friday (with great trepidation!), he moved to OO.
Customers can be abused only to a point and it looks like M$ overweened
itself.
Last known use of Word may well be to write their own epitaph.
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
john said:
JeffM said:
JeffM wrote:
This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface
which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".
Joel said:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,
As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.
although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.
Yup. You have underscored the point I tried to make.
[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).
Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.

It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself). 8-(

Yes. M$ shot themselves in the foot with their compatibility problem. Last
week the accountant for a company of 40 people was weeping blood about the
potential update costs to (yet again) keep the company computers in peace
and harmony. Friday (with great trepidation!), he moved to OO.
Customers can be abused only to a point and it looks like M$ overweened
itself.
Last known use of Word may well be to write their own epitaph.

99% of my use of OOo is word processing.
As far as I can tell, it does everything MS does.
Or at least, I have not found anything I cannot do that I want to do
(except import PDFs).

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
J

Joop

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:32:08 +0200, David Brown
I'm curious - what is it that Excel can do that Calc cannot?

I use OO at home but it is kinda old (1.1.4)
Does Calc nowadays support engineering format for numbers? So xxxE-6,
yyE-9 etc instead of x.xxE-4, y.yE-8?
That is something I missed from Excel.

Cheers,
Joop
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
john said:
JeffM said:
JeffM wrote:
This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface
which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".
Joel Koltner wrote:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,
As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.
although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.
Yup.  You have underscored the point I tried to make.
[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).
Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.
It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself).  8-(
Yes. M$ shot themselves in the foot with their compatibility problem. Last
week the accountant for a company of 40 people was weeping blood about the
potential update  costs to (yet again) keep the company computers in peace
and harmony. Friday (with great trepidation!), he moved to OO.
Customers can be abused only to a point and it looks like M$ overweened
itself.
Last known use of Word may well be  to write their own epitaph.

99% of my use of OOo is word processing.
As far as I can tell, it does everything MS does.
Or at least, I have not found anything I cannot do that I want to do
(except import PDFs).


My copy exports PDFs. 2.4.0.14 is the version on it.

 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
MooseFET said:
john said:
JeffM wrote:
This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface
which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".
Joel Koltner wrote:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,
As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.
although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.
Yup. You have underscored the point I tried to make.
[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).
Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.
It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself). 8-(
Yes. M$ shot themselves in the foot with their compatibility problem. Last
week the accountant for a company of 40 people was weeping blood about the
potential update costs to (yet again) keep the company computers in peace
and harmony. Friday (with great trepidation!), he moved to OO.
Customers can be abused only to a point and it looks like M$ overweened
itself.
Last known use of Word may well be to write their own epitaph.
99% of my use of OOo is word processing.
As far as I can tell, it does everything MS does.
Or at least, I have not found anything I cannot do that I want to do
(except import PDFs).


My copy exports PDFs. 2.4.0.14 is the version on it.

Mine too, but I would like to be able to import them, edit and re-export.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
M

MooseFET

Jan 1, 1970
0
MooseFET said:
john jardine wrote:
JeffM wrote:
This ignores M$'s new "Ribbon" default interface
which will have to be adapted to by old users "upgrading".
Joel Koltner wrote:
The ribbon isn't difficult to use -- and long term may even be a win --,
As I have no intent to ever again contribute to the M$ coffers,
I'll have to take your word for it.
although it certainly causes some amount of lost time initially
as each user ploddingly figures out where their feature menu items
have been moved to.
Yup.  You have underscored the point I tried to make.
[...]I was surprised that even in the tiny land of southern Oregon
here, the community college has already switched over to MSO 2007
(and Vista too).
Many (smart, IMO) companies have decided to avoid both.
The new Apple ads (Don't use the "V" word) made me laugh.
It was recently noted here that journals are rejecting
items submitted with M$O2007 formatting (not just the file format
--more significantly, the way it does *text* formatting--
again, M$ not even compatible with itself).  8-(
Yes. M$ shot themselves in the foot with their compatibility problem.Last
week the accountant for a company of 40 people was weeping blood about the
potential update  costs to (yet again) keep the company computers in peace
and harmony. Friday (with great trepidation!), he moved to OO.
Customers can be abused only to a point and it looks like M$ overweened
itself.
Last known use of Word may well be  to write their own epitaph.
99% of my use of OOo is word processing.
As far as I can tell, it does everything MS does.
Or at least, I have not found anything I cannot do that I want to do
(except import PDFs).
My copy exports PDFs.  2.4.0.14 is the version on it.

Mine too, but I would like to be able to import them, edit and re-export.

I use "ps2edit" to convert PDFs. It trashes a lot of the formatting
but at least you get the text.
 
D

David Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel said:
1) Familiarity. If you have 10 friends and only 1 use OO and the other 9 use
MSO, if you're not a particularly "software adventurous" type yourself, you'll
figure that -- regardless of how good OO is -- certainly MSO must be pretty
decent, so why not go with the "tried and true" that's far more
well-known/easier to find support for/etc.?

OOo looks more familiar to most MS Office users than the latest MS
Office versions. But I agree, people buy/use MS Office because it is
what they know about and see on other machines.
2) Outlook and Access. OO doesn't really compete in these areas yet. (There
is no bundled e-mail client, and which OO Base is a perfectly good database,
it has nowhere near the app design tools that Access does... although over
time I expect it'll become a more and more viable alternative.)

I've never understood the idea of mixing email and office programs -
they are very much independent concepts. OOo is missing an email
program like your car is missing a kitchen sink.

Access is a different matter. OOo Base is better at some things
(working with a real database server), while Access is better at others
(designing simple forms, for example). As you say, this might change.

Also of interest is KOffice, which also speaks ODF. Obviously it's
already standard on many Linux systems, but KDE and KOffice are in alpha
testing on windows. Kexi is an Access-like application in KOffice. It
will take more time for KOffice to become common on windows (if it ever
does), but it will certainly be a useful alternative for some users, and
will keep the OOo developers busy with competition.
3) Cost of change. For individual use, OO can make a very strong vase. For
commercial usage, you're looking at spending (potentially a lot of) time
re-training and changing over. When you're paying people for their time,
these costs can easily exceed the cost of annual maintenance on MSO.
(Long-term, OO would be cheaper, but few businesses these days look more than
a year or two into the future!) Perhaps ironically, the more sophisticated
the business, the more expensive it can be to change: Companies that use the
most sophisticated features of MSO (tightly integrated databases, lot of
Visual BASIC code behind the scenes, SharePoint integration, etc.) will
require the most effort to switch. Of course, this particular issue isn't
specific to OO vs. MSO -- it's the same reason a lot of companies still use
kitsch like ORCAD Capture when there are far better, cheaper alternatives
available.

For the great majority of users, switching from MS Office to OOo will
not involve retraining - they will hardly notice the difference. There
will be some minor confusion as the menus are not exactly the same, but
that's all. As you say, it is harder for "power users" - but they are
often faster at learning.

If your company is heavily dependent on integration between MS Office
and servers or other apps, you are obviously stuck.
4) Preference. OO is certainly a good package, but so is MSO -- some people
will just prefer MSO's interface (especially in MSO 2007, where the "ribbon"
toolbar idea has really caught on -- I fully expect that OO will copy this in
another version or two!). MSO in the "student" version is something like
$120, and Office Professional with the educational discount is $199. For many
people, that's not a huge amount of money to exercise your personal
preference.

Choice is good - as long as you are free to make the choice based on
sensible reasons (including personal preference).
 
Top