>>On top of all that, the serious lack of backward compatibility
>>>in office 2003, especially after the most recent service pack.
>>>
sky465nm@ trl>>Now that would make it kind of less useful.
>The only reason to keep the junk around
>>is application compability and documents from ms-shops.
>>
Not even then. OOo is more M$-compatible than is M$O.
JosephKK wrote:
Looks like open office may become that standard bearer.
>
Yup. M$: foot, meet bullet.
What an embarrassment for M$.
>
Unless the techies start informing (or reminding) the unwashed masses about the compatibility issues of the M$ apps, they will continue to needlessly give $$ to the Borg.
Start the list with the M$O 2003 file-format-crippling nonsense. Remind them that new versions of M$O have always had problems reading documents created with previous versions of M$O and that the solution has been to open those with OOo.
Move on to the OOXML fiasco--meaning even less compatibility.
When relating the virtues of OOo, start with the word FREE.
*More M$-compatible than M$ Office* was already mentioned. . . The way WINE is more Windoze-compatible than is Vista has been mentioned here and in a parallel thread.
The orchestra in Redmond is tuning up for the dirge.