On Tuesday 30 July 2002 19:47, you wrote:
> 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.
Not true. In the second to the last sentence of you email addressing Roblimo
you state, "..the version of OO is at least 1 year old."
Upgrading SO should not exceed one half hour and $75 is cheap for an office
suite. Much cheaper than ms xp which you are using. (I presume you are not
using a "pirated" copy of a precious ms product. If so Frank, this would
condemn you to an eternity in hell cleaning satan's urinal.) I wonder if you
have some sort of double standard where you are willing to shell out
$300-$400 for ms office but next to zip for a linux product. I suggest you
take a look at that.
Smitty
>
> 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 - 14:57:18 EDT