On Monday 18 Oct 2010 23:42:28 Wm Stewart wrote: > On 10/17/2010 9:27 PM, Michael Adams wrote: > > They change every time a new version of Microsoft Office is released. > > This common perception is not true. The reality is that there have only > been four Word formats in the last 20 years: > > - Word 6 > - Word 95 > - Word 97/2000/XP > - Docx
You forgot 2003 XML > > As mentioned, user dissatisfaction with the last change will greatly impede > any further changes. OO has *almost* perfect compatibility with all of the > above now, evidence on the ground that compatibility can be achieved, > making all of the theoretical arguments that it cannot be done irrelevant. > If we go the last 2%, OO will be the standard very quickly, and the ODF > format will then follow since the path will be greatly eased. In fact the last 2% is not really the problem, the real problem is round- tripping and unfortunately we don't control that. I'm pretty sure that most realise that the 2% could be done, with sufficient developer time and at a cost that far outweighs the benefit, but it would still be stymied by the round tripping requirement. A solution to this would require a concerted effort in collaboration with the MSO folks, but that's not going to happen any time soon. The Novell guys who produce the go-oo.org version have a nice "Technology Sharing" deal with MS with a supposedly high focus on compatibility and even theirs doesn't round trip. > > >> Existing users could make more use of the software than many do now, and > > > > they could spread the good news widely and with confidence new users > > would have a good experience. > > > > True unvarnished evangelism. All hail the word processor ;) "The good > > news" is a version of the Bible isn't it? > > I've noticed a pattern in the responses of those that don't want OO to be > compatible with the de facto existing standard. Emotion. As a middle aged > developer that took some time to learn this lesson, I pass on to you some > invaluable advice - this kind of emotion is a distortion field that > prevents your rational mind from accepting new information. When having to > change your mind becomes an emotionally painful event, you will > increasingly become an ideologue - completely sure of your comfortable > position, and unable to grow. Fwiw. > I must admit to being in the "don't need it" camp.I have used OOo and it's SO predecessor from 5.0 since about 1998 IIRC in all my businesses and I've had no issues that couldn't be easily solved, although it's possible that all of my customers were just reasonable people when I asked them to slightly change the way they sent me documents. But then I wasn't trying to find problems with the software I was looking for solutions. I train people in corporates how to deal with the small niggles that these sorts of issues cause in a mixed platform environment. In that we do the same thing, find a solution. Often we find solutions that not only solve incompatibility problems with MSO -OOo, but also MSO to other programmes. Problems are always easy to cry about but solutions work better and are actually much more satisfying. Cheers GL -- Graham Lauder, OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant. INGOTs Assessor Trainer (International Grades in Open Technologies) www.theingots.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
