Jonathan, I totally agree with you, just keep in mind that OOo is new and MS office has been here for the past 8-10 years, so it is important that we (the new guys) will adjust to the more veteran guys, we need to offer a good\better offer than MS Office with a low cost in order for people to use OOo. (which is what we are trying to do) Oren.
On ×', 2003-12-02 at 16:03, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote: > Hi Tzafrir, > Isn't it odd that MS Office is "OK" even though it does not import > Star Office/OpenOffice documents at all, but StarOffice/OpenOffice is "far > from being perfect" because it does not import MS Office documents > perfectly? There is a lack of symmetry here, no? > > The real issue is whether or not OpenOffice is a good office productivity > tool by itself. > > Regards, > > - yba > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:26:42AM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:20:54AM +0200, Shoshannah Forbes wrote: > > > > This time in Maariv: > > > > http://images.maariv.co.il/channels/13/ART/597/151.html > > > > One other point: This review and other reviews claim that OOo is far > > from being perfect because of bad support at importing MS-Office > > documents. > > > > Having OOo compete with MS-Office 2003 on MS-Office 2003 documents is > > hopeless, of course. But how do the two compare with documents created > > by older versions of MS-Office? > > > > And what about older versions of MS-Office reading documents created by > > OOo vs MS-Office 2003? > > > >
