Hi :)
Yes. With regards to paragraph 1 with the amendment that i think you mean MSO
2010 rather than the non-existent MSO 2012. There is a version for Mac called
2011 but that is really just 2010 redone for Mac and it takes them about a year
to do that. MSO just doesn't develop that fast. It's typically 3 or 4 years
between releases which is one reason they have such problems with security and
need such frequent patches.
For the 2nd paragraph neither option is optimal. It's why almost all of us on
almost all lists recommend keeping an original in ODF but use "Save as" to to
the older MS formats when sharing with other people.
When people start using LibreOffice there is no need for them to ever buy a new
version of MS Office. They can keep using their ageing one if they feel the
need but will probably find they 'need' it less and less as they get used to
doing everything with LibreOffice and other OpenSource tools.
It is generally considered extremely foolish to get rid of the old suite at
least until after "the end" of the migration process. It's what MS recommends.
For their own products they mitigate against the problems by offering training
and encouraging people to become "Microsoft Certified" in the new version. It
costs quite lot. The training, books, certificates are all published by MS and
each is quite expensive. It builds-up the "blame the user" culture of the MS
world.
During a migration even quite hefty bumps in the road are easy to work-around
by using the older tool that you are familiar with. That gives the user plenty
of time to work out how to deal with the bump in LO. It might be something
simple that most people don't use, such as not knowing where "undo" is in the
menu ("Ctrl z" or "right-click and undo" are usually faster than moving the
mouse up to the top of the screen).
If the user had followed the idiotic "Microsoft-world advice" of getting rid of
the old then not knowing how to "undo" could then de-rail the move away from MS
products and with an added push of stupid advice form the MS world could rack
up extra costs of re-purchasing old versions of MS Office again.
So, the usual advice within the OpenSource world and given to newcomers is to
keep the old version near at hand while trying out the new version. For
OpenSource products it's not an issue because all the various options are cheap
and easy so you can uninstall, reinstall, test-drive, virtualise, parallel
install (alongside), LiveCd it and back again without having to repurchase or
re-license anything. For MS products it means not uninstalling in the first
place.
Just in case anyone thinks my example of the "undo" was too idiotic and foolish
i have to say i agree completely. Every time it happens i just shudder or
laugh. The last example was a German (?) city that then went and reported to
the press blaming LO but in the course of the article it became obvious that
the city had been extremely foolish (and that it wasn't even LO that they had
been upgrading too).
So, no don't buy new versions of MSO but also don't entirely switch to always
using ODF. At least, not yet. Be sensible. If your organisation has
LibreOffice installed for everyone then you can stick to using ODF internally
but when sending documents to people outside of your organisation you will have
to use an MS format. The new ones are rubbish (ime) so stick with the older MS
formats (for MS Office Xp, 2000, 2003, 98 etc) because everyone can read them.
ODF usage is spreading and becoming more common-place but many people still
stick with the whimsical nature of the MS formats that change unpredictably and
never quite work the same way on any 2 machines due to random changes of a
single company.
The "therefore" in e-letters post is patently absurd. Again. Instead try
c) Give people a link so they can download LibreOffice, perhaps the portable
version
d) Use ODF for yourself, for your own use, for your main copy of the file and
then share by first taking a snapshot of your file in MS format = "Save as MS
Xp format"
Regards from
Tom :)
>________________________________
> From: e-letter <inp...@gmail.com>
>To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org
>Cc: James Knott <james.kn...@rogers.com>; LibreOffice
><users@global.libreoffice.org>
>Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013, 9:02
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] how to tell m$ about ods formula behaviour
>failure
>
>On 23/01/2013, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
>> ODF 1.0/1.1 did not specify a standard for spreadsheet formulas. Formulas
>> were left implementation-specific. Microsoft did not support the
>> OpenOffice.org-specific formulas. Instead, they used Excel-specific
>> formulas in ODF 1.1. On input of a not-supported formula expression, Excel
>> in Office 2007 and 2010 drops the formula and preserves the last-calculated
>> value. Whether a wise choice or not, that is what's done.
>>
>> As Regina says, Office 2013 supports ODF 1.2, including its OpenFormula
>> specification. OpenFormula is also used by current implementations of
>> LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice when their documents are saved as ODF 1.2,
>> so there is interoperability of formulas shared between ODF 1.2 implementing
>> software.
>>
>
>To clarify (without m$ 2013 to view), when a spreadsheet in LO is
>created in the (default) version 12, a user with m$2013 will be able
>to see formulae, whereas earlier versions e.g. m$2012 will shown only
>the results of the formulae calculations.
>
>Therefore, users should be encouraged to create new spreadsheets in
>the native LO odf and encourage recipients to either: (a) use LO or
>buy m$2013 in order to view openformula formulae or (b) view formulae
>results _only_ in earlier legacy m$ software.
>
>
--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
