Thread: Advice: living without Microsoft...

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^ MS office is familiar and a great program, I agree. But, Libra Office has done me well so far; quick and easy to learn, the files I created in it worked on the Microsoft XP/vista7 systems I've used it on (I export them as .pdf which is probably a more stable option); no complaints from me yet.

More importantly, it's free.

Ignore Butters, he uses so few features, WordPerfect would probably do him.

I prefer Wordpad, much better

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I prefer Wordpad, much better

Probably the most sensible thing I've seen you post.

It does the job for most people.

OpenOffice is full of bugs and quite dysfunctional

ok for simple tasks, but doing a professional document with 200 pages including graphics and complex formatting will have strange results in OpenOffice

you can't beat MS Office, and that the sad truth. They poured billions in that office suite for no other reasons,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

OpenOffice is full of bugs and quite dysfunctional

ok for simple tasks, but doing a professional document with 200 pages including graphics and complex formatting will have strange results in OpenOffice

you can't beat MS Office, and that the sad truth. They poured billions in that office suite for no other reasons,

99+% of users do not do 200 page documents including graphics and complex formatting.

The ones that do probably use a Publishing package (Microsoft's version of which is a steaming pile of poo).

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The ones that do probably use a Publishing package (Microsoft's version of which is a steaming pile of poo).

you would be surprised how many people are actually doing 200 pages documents

students doing a paper,

lawyers,

secretary working on a complex business agreement etc... etc...

you don't need a Publishing package for that

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The ones that do probably use a Publishing package (Microsoft's version of which is a steaming pile of poo).

you would be surprised how many people are actually doing 200 pages documents

students doing a paper,

lawyers,

secretary working on a complex business agreement etc... etc...

you don't need a Publishing package for that

Stop changing the goalposts. You said

a professional document with 200 pages including graphics and complex formatting

A 200 page document you can do in Wordpad.

What you describe is best done in a publishing package. And Microsoft's is wank.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A 200 page document you can do in Wordpad.

What you describe is best done in a publishing package. And Microsoft's is wank.

Not the stuff we do.

I have to agree with Butters (sadly), that Office 2007 is head and shoulders above any of its clones. It's a shame Office 2010 is so bug ridden that it's unusable.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A 200 page document you can do in Wordpad.

What you describe is best done in a publishing package. And Microsoft's is wank.

Not the stuff we do.

I have to agree with Butters (sadly), that Office 2007 is head and shoulders above any of its clones. It's a shame Office 2010 is so bug ridden that it's unusable.

Again Marmite, what are you doing that you can't do in Libreoffice or Scribus?

Embedding Excel data and graphs?

Puts you in the 1% I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Again Marmite, what are you doing that you can't do in Libreoffice or Scribus?

maybe if you had done such documents yourself, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions

never had a problem with xp/vista/win7
but i use good antivirus. webroot. no virus for 7 years
also use advanced system care 4 from
Advanced SystemCare Free - Reviews and free Advanced SystemCare Free downloads at CNET Download.com
has a disc check and repairs all window files. and 9000 websites to stay away from great progamme
which also incorperate the new malware bytes under the 10bit malware fighter wich is inside it
worth the vist never had any dramas with windows since i have been using it an amazing progamme

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Again Marmite, what are you doing that you can't do in Libreoffice or Scribus?

maybe if you had done such documents yourself, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions

Perhaps if you read/quoted my whole post, you might not make comments that make you look such a dumb fuck.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A 200 page document you can do in Wordpad.

What you describe is best done in a publishing package. And Microsoft's is wank.

Not the stuff we do.

I have to agree with Butters (sadly), that Office 2007 is head and shoulders above any of its clones. It's a shame Office 2010 is so bug ridden that it's unusable.

Again Marmite, what are you doing that you can't do in Libreoffice or Scribus?

Embedding Excel data and graphs?

Puts you in the 1% I mentioned above.

We do often have embedded data, but the main thing is the the file is 100% compatible with whoever is going to use it, and that means MS Office 2007 (occasionally you still get some dick in a surprisingly major company insisting on 2003).

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A 200 page document you can do in Wordpad.

What you describe is best done in a publishing package. And Microsoft's is wank.

Not the stuff we do.

I have to agree with Butters (sadly), that Office 2007 is head and shoulders above any of its clones. It's a shame Office 2010 is so bug ridden that it's unusable.

Again Marmite, what are you doing that you can't do in Libreoffice or Scribus?

Embedding Excel data and graphs?

Puts you in the 1% I mentioned above.

We do often have embedded data, but the main thing is the the file is 100% compatible with whoever is going to use it, and that means MS Office 2007 (occasionally you still get some dick in a surprisingly major company insisting on 2003).

If they aren't using the features, why upgrade?

And we get a surprisingly large amount of .docx and .xlsx attachments these days - some companies just upgrade for the sake of it, there's nothing special about them.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And we get a surprisingly large amount of .docx and .xlsx attachments these days - some companies just upgrade for the sake of it, there's nothing special about them.

Are you saying that there's nothing better about 2007 compared with 2003?

Office (esp Powerpoint) is hugely improved over the old XP/2003 version. It is miles better visually, has loads more features and the file sizes are significantly smaller, which is a time-saver when you're email files all over the place.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And we get a surprisingly large amount of .docx and .xlsx attachments these days - some companies just upgrade for the sake of it, there's nothing special about them.

Are you saying that there's nothing better about 2007 compared with 2003?

Office (esp Powerpoint) is hugely improved over the old XP/2003 version. It is miles better visually, has loads more features and the file sizes are significantly smaller, which is a time-saver when you're email files all over the place.

No, I'm saying that since the majority of users type one or two page letters or memos, it's pointless wasting money training people up on a new version when they aren't really going to get any tangible benefit.

That's why they're supporting it up to 2014. Upgrading Microsoft Office "because everyone else has" is a pretty dumb reason to do it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

No, I'm saying that since the majority of users type one or two page letters or memos, it's pointless wasting money training people up on a new version when they aren't really going to get any tangible benefit.

While I agree with you for 'the majority', the people we deal with should be shot for even thinking about using 2003.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

No, I'm saying that since the majority of users type one or two page letters or memos, it's pointless wasting money training people up on a new version when they aren't really going to get any tangible benefit.

While I agree with you for 'the majority', the people we deal with should be shot for even thinking about using 2003.

Ah fuck that, some of the people I deal with should just be shot.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Are you saying that there's nothing better about 2007 compared with 2003?

he has no clue, probably never used it himself

2003 is not even "compatible" with 2007, which means files have to be reworked. It's much worse under LibreOffice or OpenOffice of course.

2007 improvement in terms of interface and usability makes the comparison between the 2 versions useless,

I like Office 2000 myself

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I like Office 2000 myself

I thought you'd still be on Office 1.5

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I like Office 2000 myself

I thought you'd still be on Office 1.5

Does that run on a Mac?

^ Glad it's working out.

I tried to install various versions of Linux on this old laptop and none worked.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

^ Glad it's working out.

I tried to install various versions of Linux on this old laptop and none worked.

If it's an old one, try Puppy or DSL.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

so I saved them as .pdf files instead (which is a better option anyway) and they worked perfectly too (so far on several different computers running various versions of windows).

duh !!! pdf is compatible no matter what, it's a render file, not a native document source file