> Douglas St.Clair wrote: >> >> On Nov 7, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Twayne wrote: >> >>> Wow, I know a lot of companies, big and small, who are going to be >>> mighty disappointed when they read that<g>! That can't really be >>> what you meant to say is it? >> >> Twayne, >> >> Perhaps I should have been more clear. A team product IMHO would be >> constructed more like development software. That has a repository to >> store common components, that manages changes, locks changes, >> maintains and logs revisions, etc. CSV was added to development >> software to make all that happen. If I were king I would integrate >> those mechanisms into OOo rather than make them an add on as CSV did >> to create a team product. Now having said all that does that mean >> teams can't and don't use OOo? Certainly not. But the fact they make >> do with what is offered doesn't make OOo a true team product. > I can vouch for the fact that MS Word is not suitable for writing a > longish book like the average novel. I started using it to write a > short textbook on computers, and it was just plain unstable! I > switched to OOo Writer and had much better results.
I suspect you may be looking at it from a view point that is slightly askew, IMO, from the intent of OO.o. Either are fully collaborative and useful, but the target isn't for development types, I'm sure. I have found Word/Outlook to be useful in a development environ, but not where you get into the nitpicking necessities of that kind of control. You're looking at it from an entirely different perspective IMO. Your comment is interesting too because it doesn't match my own experience. It may have to do with content I suppose. Either seems quite competent with a strictly or almost all text document, I agree with that. A few hundred pages of text works quite well for the most part. But when I used OO.o for some technical documents, it toppled under the weight of the several tables and images. Part of my problem at first was learning how to properly anchor the images and another minor point or two, but OO.o just wasn't able to handle book-length documents with a mix of text, images and images in tables. Fortunately when I looked into OO.o' s Master Document mode, it was different from MSO's, so that problem was eventually overcome too by using it and breaking "chapters" into smaller chunks; it just took a little empirical work to figure out WHEN the problems would start to occur, and stay within those limits. Ymmv I'm sure, but it's still the same today in version 3. And of course, don't even think about using Word's Master Document mode unless you know exactly how to avoid its problems or are very, very fanatical about backing up<g>. Version 3 is definitley a winner but in my case I can't quite roundfile the Office Suite yet, which is my real target. It's far enough now I'll finally make a decent combination to them because now it's value is a lot more than just the new PC user; it's also for the pros in quite a few areas now and support is better. Regards, Twayne --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
