Well that depends. If you have all the money in the world and / or all the
time then you can keep current in all things and you can compare current
releases. I on the other hand am only comparing what I have with what I have.
If my results are out of sink with what others on the list are experencing
then maybe I should upgrade but if my experience is representative of the
group in general then there is no reason to.
Also, I did not realize that my copies of OO and SO were that old.
Thanks
Frank
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 19:26, Smitty wrote:
> Frank,
> StarOffice 5.2, not 5.1 as you used, came out in June of 2000.I believe 5.1
> came out in 1998. So the SO version you are using is four years old. If
> you are using a version of Open Office that is a year old, it was a sub 1.0
> developmental release and not intended for actual use. 1.0 OO was not
> released until May of 2002. You are comparing a current ms application
> with a developmental release and a four year old product. A non-sensical
> thing to do, don't you think?
> Smitty
>
> On Tuesday 30 July 2002 16:29, you wrote:
> > Hi Robin
> >
> > I am glad you are having such good luck with OO.
> >
> > A couple of days ago I installed SO 5.1 on 2 of my computers - my new
> > notebook and my RH 7.3 box. Now I admit I am no wiz at typing at 5 to 8
> > wpm and that I screw a lot of things up as I do them but it took me over
> > an hour to convert a html file generated on the Linux box by copying and
> > pasting a web site to a MS file. My reason for doing this were 1) to find
> > out how difficult this file would be to convert and 2) to see if there
> > was any difference in the problems associated with this file and similar
> > files I had worked with in OO.
> >
> > The good news is it did convert - well sort of - and the bad news is it
> > is too much of a pain to do regularly. Also you may want to consider that
> > it was much easer to edit tables in MS Office XP than in SO 5.1
> >
> > Please note that the version of SO 5.1 I am running is 2 years old and
> > the version of OO is at least 1 year old. So that leads to the question
> > are you using later versions?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Frank
> >
> > On Friday 26 July 2002 17:26, robin wrote:
> > > I'm looking at galley proofs of a book I wrote mostly in OO (the rest
> > > in SO 6.0) that was edited by people using recent versions of MS Office
> > > (both Windows and Mac) without any problems. Some of the chapters went
> > > through three or four rounds of back-and-forth editing, and one had 12
> > > illustrations in it. Chapter lengths varied between 20 and 70 pages.
> > >
> > > We had no problems whatsoever.
> > >
> > > - Robin
> > >
> > > > My humble experience is that if you save a OO file with more than one
> > > > page at a level above MS 95 then MS Office will not read it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Frank
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 14:56:19 EDT