free microsoft office

tehone

glowgirl wrote: »

I work all day every day on Open Office and have never had a problem with any of its facilities or compatability, people answer other peoples questions based mainly on their own experiences as is the whole point of a forum, I suggest you check your users guide if you are having compatability problems.

1) I'm not saying anything about OO's features
2) I am only commenting on the completeness of the compatibilty when OO claims to be saving/converting into a MS format.

I would hazard a guess that you're somebody who doesn't really use OO a lot [feature-wise] and then has to also use any of the MS suite - its fine if you only use basic features, but not if you do - Impress/PowerPoint is a great example of this.

Even OO themselves state this "In general, Microsoft Office file formats can be read and saved by OOo. OpenOffice.org 3 can open the new OOXML formats by Microsoft, but will not save to that formats. Nevertheless, the compatibility is not total. There are Microsoft Office features, such as the old equation fields (not to be confused with the equation objects), which are not read at all by OpenOffice.org."

spiro

esuhl wrote: »

Just to pick one example off Wikipedia:

"Note that some office applications built with Microsoft components may be unable to import OpenOffice data. The Sage Group's Simply Accounting, for example, can import Excel's .xls files, but not OpenOffice.org-generated .xls files, displaying a message saying that the OOo .xls files are not "genuine Microsoft" .xls files."

I would have said this is not an OpenOffice issue but that Sage are doing checks over and above is it in .xls format. I have just opened an Excel file with a Hex editor and it includes the words 'Microsoft Excel' so I suspect Sage is looking for this.

asininity

tehone wrote: »

I think that OO not being compatible [in its save as MS format mode] is hardly done to MS - its down to the OO developers.

ODT is not miles better than DOC/DOCX/OOXML - they are have their little foibles - OO implementation isn't standard across their various versions (neither is MS, etc).

Really?? I dont see M$ trying to help with this, do you see M$ developers helping out?... No. If they were the compatibility would be spot on, as it is the OO developers are reverse engineering it, because M$ is proprietary they've closed down there code and they dont have access to the complete .doc specification.

Have you even read any of the contraversy surrounding M$s new document format, forcing it through making a joke of the ISO, ODT was ratified the proper way. Google it, also google the efficiency of the ODT format over DOC and DOCX/OOXML.

The compatibility issues are down to M$, at least OO developers are trying, M$ can't be bothered as usual.

[Deleted User]

asininity wrote: »

Really?? I dont see M$ trying to help with this, do you see M$ developers helping out?... No. If they were the compatibility would be spot on, as it is the OO developers are reverse engineering it, because M$ is proprietary they've closed down there code and they dont have access to the complete .doc specification.

Have you even read any of the contraversy surrounding M$s new document format, forcing it through making a joke of the ISO, ODT was ratified the proper way. Google it, also google the efficiency of the ODT format over DOC and DOCX/OOXML.

The compatibility issues are down to M$, at least OO developers are trying, M$ can't be bothered as usual.

Go look, Microsoft have made available the specifications for common file formats, including .doc, .xls and .ppt available for years under various schemes and now they are provided for free to anyone who wishes to use them. Infact, two minutes on Google and you can have the specification for all three downloaded in pdf format to your desktop.

Your criticism of Microsoft is based on incorrect facts..

asininity

No what they provide is not the full thing, otherwise they'd be out of business. Only M$ have access to the full specification.

Either way there is no need to criticise a free product because of M$ short comings, it free arguably better and provides compatibility. If you dont like the FREE program pay M$ the 100s you'd need to to get their office.

[Deleted User]

asininity wrote: »

No what they provide is not the full thing, otherwise they'd be out of business. Only M$ have access to the full specification.

A specification is a specification . Microsoft themselves even provide support on using their formats

Why would they be out of business for providing information about a document format? It's just simply the ways to read/write, and Open Office has been around for years and hasn't made any significant impact into the market share of Office.

Lets go bad mouth the big bully though ey

asininity

anewhope wrote: »

A specification is a specification . Microsoft themselves even provide support on using their formats

Why would they be out of business for providing information about a document format? It's just simply the ways to read/write, and Open Office has been around for years and hasn't made any significant impact into the market share of Office.

Lets go bad mouth the big bully though ey

Yes but they dont provide the full spec do they. OO is free and doesn't make much money they've not made a massive impact because they don't have the money, M$ office to most is the ONLY office. M$ are worried about free software because it generally does a better job then theirs and they can't buy it out or destroy it.

No people seem to be bad mouthing something thats free for M$'s business model. Why don't they provide compatibility??? No one seems bothered about that.

I'll say again if OO isn't good enough for you pay M$'s the 100s you need to. Why is it people want to criticise free software for things they'd just accept in paid for software, baffles the mind.

[Deleted User]

asininity wrote: »

Yes but they dont provide the full spec do they.

Yes! The specification is the full format for handling the files! That's why it's called "MICROSOFT OFFICE WORD 97-2007 BINARY FILE FORMAT SPECIFICATION".

OO is free and doesn't make much money they've not made a massive impact because they don't have the money, M$ office to most is the ONLY office. M$ are worried about free software because it generally does a better job then theirs and they can't buy it out or destroy it.

OO is free and doesn't make an impact because it's still not anywhere near ready for enterprise deployment to replace Microsoft Office. Sucks for them, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

No people seem to be bad mouthing something thats free for M$'s business model. Why don't they provide compatibility??? No one seems bothered about that.

They give the information for anyone to use their document formats free from any worries of litigation. Whether those working on OO are technically adept enough to be able to provide full functionality is another question. Microsoft have no obligation to do things for them, considering what support is offered is already substantial.

I'll say again if OO isn't good enough for you pay M$'s the 100s you need to. Why is it people want to criticise free software for things they'd just accept in paid for software, baffles the mind.

I'm not criticising Open Office, I consider it a great package for certain demographics.

asininity

anewhope wrote: »

Yes! The specification is the full format for handling the files! That's why it's called "MICROSOFT OFFICE WORD 97-2007 BINARY FILE FORMAT SPECIFICATION".

The source code for the whole of openoffice is avaliable free, M$ don't seem to bothered about compatibility, I'll say again at least OO devs are trying. ODF is getting bigger thats worrying MS and thats why they had to force through their new format and why they're now getting investigated.

Can M$ office read ODF natively??

anewhope wrote: »

OO is free and doesn't make an impact because it's still not anywhere near ready for enterprise deployment to replace Microsoft Office. Sucks for them, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

They give the information for anyone to use their document formats free from any worries of litigation. Whether those working on OO are technically adept enough to be able to provide full functionality is another question. Microsoft have no obligation to do things for them, considering what support is offered is already substantial.

Debatable, and no it doesn't suck for them its F R E E it costs them nothing if people dont use it they started it for fun. And obviously these people dont think so:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments

anewhope wrote: »

I'm not criticising Open Office, I consider it a great package for certain demographics.

Obviously governments and businesses are in those demographics, I bet they consider it a great package too, oh and not costing millions in licences to M$.

[Deleted User]

asininity wrote: »

The source code for the whole of openoffice is avaliable free, M$ don't seem to bothered about compatibility, I'll say again at least OO devs are trying. ODF is getting bigger thats worrying MS and thats why they had to force through their new format and why they're now getting investigated.

What difference does it make if OO chose to distribute the source to their program and Microsoft don't? Microsoft are compatible with over 90% of the Office market share

Can M$ office read ODF natively??

It's being rolled out in SP2 which is coming in the next few months.

Debatable, and no it doesn't suck for them its F R E E it costs them nothing if people dont use it they started it for fun. And obviously these people dont think so:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments

Software doesn't get developed for free. Sun want businesses to use it so they can lock them into support agreements which offset the development costs. It's a commercial venture now, the same as Linux.

Obviously governments and businesses are in those demographics, I bet they consider it a great package too, oh and not costing millions in licences to M$.

Just because the software is provided for free, doesn't mean the support is the same. Licensing with MS is a very complicated matter, often large corporations and public bodies end up paying not a lot at all for Microsoft software.