yes, "to maintain sales" ... and that's the problem ;-)
rather than continuing forward, too many want to collect over &
over again for the same thing ;-(
and these make their product with built in obsolescence ;-(
Quality has declined ... yet prices have escalated ;-(
From: Jay Lozier <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: moving to new version of MS Office
To: [email protected]
On 11/29/2013 07:21 AM, anne-ology wrote:
But what I cannot understand is why the continual changing by any
> ...
> to improve - ok; but this continual changing makes it nearly
> impossible to stay up-to-date;
>
> forinstance, the typewriter basically stayed the same -
> yes, they electrified it, even adding memory ... yet the
> operation of it remained as it had been ;-)
>
> forinstance, the automobile basically stayed the same -
> yes, they switched the driver's seat, the ignition, horn, brake
> placements ... yet the operation of it remained as it had been -
> up until the electronics were added ;-)
>
> forinstance, the craftsman took pride in his workmanship -
> then came advertising & the 'throw-away' society ;-(
>
> Are we better off with these changes or merely more 'n more
> confused
> & frustrated ;-)
>
> From me - the goofy, horse 'n buggy era-er ;-)
>
+1
The problem is with many software packages the basic functionality has been
under development for 30+ years and for most packages the most
useful/needed features have been added many years ago. So companies like MS
are faced with how to convince/force users to stay on the upgrade treadmill
to maintain sales. Also, MS faces the problem that MSO is dominant that
they are likely to lose market share (and sales) in the future.
> Date: Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 6:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: moving to new version of MS Office
>
>
> Hi :)
>
> Thanks Pedro :) I am looking for criticism and for other points so
> that i can write a much shorter and less emotional list and maybe give
> a link to the "White Paper" that someone has been writing
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
>
> On 29 November 2013 00:06, Pedro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom
>>
>>
>> Tom wrote
>>
>>> 2. The format stays the same between different versions of the
>>> program. It is the same format used "natively" by many other programs
>>> such as IBM Lotus Symphony, Google-docs, K.Office, Calligra and
>>> others. Even MS Office 2013, and more recent, can open and use the
>>> format which is an ISO format.
>>>
>> Actually this is not true. The file extension is the same but the format
>>
> has
>
>> been changing (that is why you have options to save to ODF 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
>>
> and
>
>> 1.2 Extended)
>> If you try to open an ODF 1.2 Extended file more complex than simple text
>> with any other of those programs (even with some older versions of
>> LibreOffice) you will find some incompatibilities...
>>
>> So, I agree with most of your points but this argument is shooting
>>
> yourself
>
>> on the foot. ODF does share that problem with MS XML files: same
>>
> extension,
>
>> different file structure.
>>
>> The advantage is that you can always get the latest LibreOffice version
>>
> for
>
>> free (unlike MS Office...)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pedro
>>
>>
--
Jay Lozier
[email protected]
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected]
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
