Linux is ok, since its free, but how about a OS that saves you money?

[Why Tea]

I am on a personal mission to get as many people as I can away from

illegal copies of MS Office and on legal copies of OO.o. MS has a grip

Good on you.

One of the reasons why MS Office is so prevalent is because they were
on the market much earlier than OO. By being there early, MS Office has
virtually created a "standard". Correct me if I'm wrong, there are
still many incompatibilites between MSO and OO. When many companies are
sending documents/specs in "word" (many used to use Adobe Framemaker),
no one is willing to take the risk of being unable to read a file in
OO.

 

[Why Tea]

The discussion is about Wndows vs. linux. People who use Windows all

the time, but prefer linux, are far from "single-OS users" - we use
BOTH of the OSs that the discussion is about.

The majority of Windows users, OTOH, haven't yet seen a clue about
linux.

Hmmm, these Windows users you mentioned, are they the same as single-OS
users?

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Hmmm, these Windows users you mentioned, are they the same as
single-OS users?

NT is not so single as you think. There are some interfaces to lower
and other OSés (other kernel). And NT4 can do even more.

I am too lazy to catch the 'inside NT' Book, by Mark Russinovich and
David Solomon, but I remember NT4 having some integrations. MS canceled
them with 2000. Also the support for MIPS and Alpha :-(, IMHO.

But as I mentioned many times, with DOS (WfW) and NT4,5,5.1 you can
have the whole sum of all software what is DOS8-16-32/win16/win32
compatible. Careful selection of the Hardware components
preconditioned! But so is PC, and DOS and Windows All a matter of
nerves and much patience.

Today I would prefer a game of Ultima One, more than a hyped modern
dazzletexture-game (I would rather make my shopping with the power
needed... 1000W=1.36HP .... would run 35MP/H ;-))




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

The above is a fine example of the failure of our educational
system. Never mind what he's trying to say, just look at the train
wreck style of writing. Sheesh.

Are you the same Bill Turner who praised the clarity of kenny's
writing?

 

[Mike Andrade]

Are you the same Bill Turner who praised the clarity of kenny's
writing?

Yes, an excellent example of the failure of our educational system.
Never mind critical thinking, just praise anyone who supports your
particular irrational bias regardless of the facts.

--
Mike

A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is
shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.
-- Mark Twain (1835-1910)

 

[GreyCloud]

Keep it that way. .Net makes other MS abortions look
well-thought-out.

Oh, you mean the M$ condom approach for apps due to the faulty design of
the o/s?

 

[Tim Smith]

One of the reasons why MS Office is so prevalent is because they were
on the market much earlier than OO. By being there early, MS Office has

Another minor factor is that Office is faster and generally more useful
than Open Office. Whether or not that is worth a few hundred bucks
depends on the user.

 

[Guest]

Another minor factor is that Office is faster

You mean, it *loads* faster?
How about 3 seconds for OO on my machine? Do you actually believe that extra
second to be of any importance?

and generally more useful

Oh, I am certain you have loads of examples for this being "generally more
useful"

than Open Office. Whether or not that is worth a few hundred bucks
depends on the user.

Wether you spout pure FUD or just simply bullshit depends not on any user.
That is you alone

 

[Gordon]

Another minor factor is that Office is faster and generally more
useful than Open Office.

Rubbish. MS Office may be slightly faster in the initial launch but other
than that, no speed difference is usually visible to users.
And what is "more useful"? Open Office 2 has almost identical functionality
to Office 2002, certainly for the "average" user (who doesn't use more than
25% of Office functionality anyway) and in fact has functions that even
Office 2003 DOESN'T have, such as the ability to natively export a document
to pdf.
Please explain how MS Office is "more useful" than Open office. I'd be very
interested.

 

[Rick]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Al Klein
<[email protected]>
wrote

So you can click on 1,000 files faster than someone could type "mv
/somewhere/*.jpg /somewhere-else"? Do you often melt your mouse?

A more likely scenario:

[1] Bring up exploration window.
[2] Click on "File type" header.
[3] Click on first file.
[4] Scroll down then *shift*-click on second file, selecting a range. [5]
Drag to destination.

(Assuming 1/4 second a click, clicking on 1,000 files would take more than
4 minutes.)

This is not to say that this works in every case;

mv /somewhere/*a*b*c.jpg /somewhere-else

would be hard to select in an Explorer, Konqueror, or Nautilus-style
window.

Konqueror:
Select your files, right click, move to, navigate to destination.

 

[Rick]

Another minor factor is that Office is faster and generally more useful
than Open Office. Whether or not that is worth a few hundred bucks
depends on the user.

How is MS Office 'generally more useful than Open Office'?

 

[Leythos]

How is MS Office 'generally more useful than Open Office'?

MS Office, at least in the USA, is used by more businesses and
government offices than any other packaged document program.

In case anyone missed it, you can run Office XP on Linux using a 3rd
party Linux tool, I do it all the time.

 

[Gordon]

MS Office, at least in the USA, is used by more businesses and
government offices than any other packaged document program.

Similar in the UK.
However "used more" is NOT the same as "more useful".

 

[Daniel Mandic]

You mean, it loads faster?
How about 3 seconds for OO on my machine? Do you actually believe
that extra second to be of any importance?

Hi Peter!


Hmmmm, what do you mean with 3 seconds?



My machine needs 1.x seconds for the first start of Word, and a
fraction of a second for the second time. maybe 0.3 or 0.4 seconds or
less. Less! Office XP 2002. Ver.10.

NT5.1 and Office XP is Lightning-Fast!!!! Caching strategies (if you
know how to setup in the registry - for full speed) of NT5.1 are
unbeatable. Linux (I think it was NetBSD on a 030/50MHz-AMIGA) reminds
me to DOS or Win3.1/95/9x/ME w/o efective caching-strategies, and that
CLI and swapping all the time.





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Mitch]

MS Office, at least in the USA, is used by more businesses and
government offices than any other packaged document program.

Sure, but that's confusing COMMON with NEEDED again.

The only reason 'what other people use' should ever affect your own
decisions is when there are proprietary file types involved. As long as
you can open MS Office files with other programs, what one person uses
means NOTHING AT ALL.

Look at it this way: if most people used Minolta cameras, and you
wanted to see their pictures, would you say you needed to buy a Minolta
camera to make your own pictures?

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Why are there so many bickerings and insults between Linux and Windows
users? Just ask yourselves this question: how much do you know about
_BOTH_ OS'es before you judge them? I guess it's often the case that
one knows one OS well, but little about the other (or the rest); and

In a world where every OEM will cram WinDOS down your throat,
about the only way to not know about "the other guy" is to be an
unemployed Mac user.

I have two copies of XP that I am no longer using.

thus harsh comments are made about the other OS out of ignorance.

/Why Tea

 

[Leythos]

Sure, but that's confusing COMMON with NEEDED again.

The only reason 'what other people use' should ever affect your own
decisions is when there are proprietary file types involved. As long as
you can open MS Office files with other programs, what one person uses
means NOTHING AT ALL.

When working with customers that have MS Office, Open Office doesn't
come close, in fact, none of the nix office apps have come close to
being able to fully import/convert MS Office documents. Sure, if all you
use is a couple fonts and no formatting, but most of our documents
require extensive rework when moving from OO to MS O or from MS O to OO.

Look at it this way: if most people used Minolta cameras, and you
wanted to see their pictures, would you say you needed to buy a Minolta
camera to make your own pictures?

Look at it this way, if a customer is using MS Office, makes use of more
than just TEXT in the document, then you're just about screwed trying to
get the same image in OO, yes, I know you can export to RTF and such,
but if you take a business document, with styles, etc... it just doesn't
import into OO properly most times.

The analogy you present is flawed - more like this: If I have a
multilayer image in Photoshop and make a JPG for you, then print it on a
color printer, you can scan them on your scanner and edit them, but you
don't have the source files, so you lose all the layer info, the masks,
etc...

The same is true in reverse, if you are a OO person and send to a MS
Office client, unless you create a known compatible format, well, you've
seen what happens (haven't you?).

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Another minor factor is that Office is faster and generally more useful
than Open Office. Whether or not that is worth a few hundred bucks
depends on the user.

Well, you know before Microsoft decided to shove it's
products down everyone's throats through the OEM channel there was
some diversity of product. Not everyone had or felt the need to use
pro grade apps like Lotus or Word Perfect. Those products that defined
those classes of applications were not considered critical to every
soccer mom that wanted to write a letter to someone.

THERE SIMPLY WASN'T THE PERCIEVE NEED TO WASTE THE MONEY on a
$400 word processor or corresponding application suite.

You could get a suitable application that had the appropriate
level of features for $50.

Spending a few hundred bucks simply wasn't (considered) necessary.

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
<[email protected]>
wrote

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Al Klein
<[email protected]>
wrote

Firstly, I do have Ubuntu. Secondly I was responding to someone who
praised the command line over the GUI for moving files.

So you can click on 1,000 files faster than someone could type "mv
/somewhere/*.jpg /somewhere-else"? Do you often melt your mouse?

A more likely scenario:

[1] Bring up exploration window.
[2] Click on "File type" header.
[3] Click on first file.
[4] Scroll down then *shift*-click on second file, selecting a range. [5]
Drag to destination.

(Assuming 1/4 second a click, clicking on 1,000 files would take more than
4 minutes.)

This is not to say that this works in every case;

mv /somewhere/*a*b*c.jpg /somewhere-else

would be hard to select in an Explorer, Konqueror, or Nautilus-style
window.

Konqueror:
Select your files, right click, move to, navigate to destination.

Most of the time will be spent selecting the files. Still, sounds
like Konqueror did some thinking.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]

When working with customers that have MS Office, Open Office doesn't
come close, in fact, none of the nix office apps have come close to
being able to fully import/convert MS Office documents. Sure, if all you
use is a couple fonts and no formatting, but most of our documents
require extensive rework when moving from OO to MS O or from MS O to OO.

How about between Word Perfect and MSWord?

This is an issue that probably has NOTHING to do with Unix.

[deletia]