M Henri Day wrote:
2007/10/12, Mike B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
At 10/11/2007 07:25 PM, you wrote:
From another thread I see someone has suggested that docx support will
be available in OOo v. 3 expected in 12 months. Frankly I think that is
way too long to wait to be able to mix it with the big boy- not that I
can offer any programming expertise to hurry it up!
This is going to be a problem that spreads like the plague over the
next 12 months as people get sucked into the "upgrade or perish" cycle
and start spreading these things around like a virus!
I think that MS has shot themselves in the foot trying to upset OOo
users. They may have switched to an incompatible format to convince
users that OOo is a bad idea, but since most MS Office users can't,
or won't, upgrade in the near future, there will be a lot of MS's own
customers who get frustrated and annoyed too. This may be the
software equivalent of the PS2...
For those who aren't old enough to understand that reference, I'll
explain. The rest, or those who don't care, can just hit delete now...
Back in the early days of the IBM PC, IBM wanted to get rid of
clone-makers...those making computers that were compatible with
IBM-PCs, but cost less and worse, didn't put money directly into the
pocket of IBM (they did put money there indirectly, by creating a
larger market for PCs and thus "floating all boats"). IBM tried to
stifle the PClones through the BIOS, but lost that battle in
court...which determined that reverse engineering was legal, if done
properly. So IBM invented the Microchannel Buss, which they patented
and used as the basis of their new PS2 computer. This was a new buss
design that was better than the ISA buss in many ways, and if you
wanted to make cards for it you had to buy a license from IBM. This
added to the cost, and there were rumors that IBM wouldn't sell
licenses to those making cards that competed with IBM's, but the
extra cost and physical incompatibilities with existing systems (both
IBM's and the PClones) was enough to put the general public off the
idea. The public stuck with the ISA and IBM was stuck with a lot of
PS2s that didn't have a very large selection of expansion cards. The
Microchannel buss died by being too proprietary. It's too bad that
IBM didn't manage to keep the IBM-PC proprietary too...so that a
*good* design could have had the market instead.
It may be that MS's new 2007 file formats are fighting too large an
established user base...both OOo and MS Office prior to 2007...and
don't offer enough good reason for anyone to go through the expense
of switching. Certainly not in the short term...like the next year
or two. If the vast majority of users can't read them, those who do
"upgrade" to MS Office 2007 will just have to get used to saving in
2003 or whatever format if they want to communicate with the vast
majority of users.
This would be a good opportunity to try to educate "Joe Sixpack"
about the wisdom of standards...especially for file formats...and
that use of proprietary formats should be avoided. Of course, given
the number of posts I see on this list from people who are paying for
OOo or who can't understand that OOo is NOT MS Office, it may be that
many of them *can't* be educated...
-- Mike B.
--
Slightly burned out, but still smokin'!
Mike, I don't think the problem is that people can't be educated, but rather
that there are so many «educators» around, who, for example, are «educating»
them to believe that they absolutely *must* have the latest Microsoft
«upgrade», for the sake of something called «productivity». The silver
lining is that when people have to pay for something themselves, they tend
to ask questions about whether what they get is worth the expenditure. Thus,
the reluctance of many, in particular businesses, to «upgrade» to Vista. To
my mind, the best thing we can do, is to support the initiative of the
Globalisation Institute in Brussels (*not*, by the way, by any means a
«socialist» organisation, but rather a strong advocate of «free markets»),
which has suggested to the European Commission that within the EU, all
computers must be sold without a bundled operating system, in order to
promote competition in this vital area. More on this matter can be found
here : *http://tinyurl.com/2oboej*....
Henri
As a part-time <educator> in the Real Estate field & past hardware &
software designer (burned out) I, for one, am promoting OO, Portable
Apps & other GNU packages to my students for the reasons of cost &
compatibility. Until the past few months a couple of major hardware
vendors here in California were also offering some Linux based boxes for
$300 and on sales as low as $150. Now I notice they have gone back to
M$ with Vhome on all their boxes which are now starting at $350. The
small drives on those boxes virtually guarantee that within a service
pack or two Vh will grow to, or beyond, the capacity of those drives and
the customers will be "encouraged" to upgrade to "real" computer. I
know a great many people in America & other areas of the world owe their
livelihoods to M$ but I just have never been able to deal with the
arrogance, high handed business tactics & consistent delivery of a
defective product by that company. If hardware had been as defective in
the 60's we never would have made it into space. For my part the GNU is
well worth all the support it can receive.
James in SoCal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
