Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?

On 22/07/2011 02:06, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 09:43 AM, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> > On 21/07/2011 14:23, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
> > > I am of the opinion that good inter-operability with MSO products 
> > > makes it easier to attract new users and that poor inter-operability 
> > > with MSO products makes it more difficult.
> > I quite agree.  As (I would say) between 90 and 95% of the business 
> > world uses MSO, there's no incentive to change from MSO if the 
> > alternatives aren't 100% compatible in terms of formatting, other 
> > than cost of upgrading and the activities of the BSA and its' 
> > companions.
> > My wife sends me documents written in Office 2003 which sometimes are 
> > so badly mangled when I open them in OO or LO that I have to open 
> > them in MSO to see what they should look like. And these are in 
> > general not complicated documents....Having said that, then there 
> > have also been instances of formatting incompatibilities between 
> > different versions of MSO....
> Much depends on the formatting that is used. Simple documents usually 
> have no difficulties. Realize that in OOo I can represent things that 
> I cannot represent in MSO and the opposite holds as well. Images 
> anchored to paragraphs are particular troublesome.

What is far more disturbing, is that MS has replaced free OEM copies of 
Works with a free (albeit with advertising) version of Office 2010 that 
just contains limited functionality versions of Word and Excel - thus 
attempting to perpetuate the stranglehold of proprietary document formats.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted