Windows 7 and Office Suite Software

[Roy Smith]

One time I wrote about a bad experience with a specific product - I gave
the name - that not only screwed up some of my files but which would not
even let me uninstall it. Well, I was contacted and warned not to
publish any more stuff along the same lines. The shillings were not as
plentiful as would be desired at the time so my wife and I decided it
was easier to just shut up. I have been rather careful since then; I'm
an old geezer and I don't particularly need problems.

If a software publisher has good customer support, then they shouldn't
have to resort to "blackmail" to keep their customers quiet. Because
after all a company without customers won't last very long...

 

[tb]

The sentiment about the usefulness notwithstanding, mechanic is
spot-on about interoperability with MS Office. OO just isn't good
enough at either reading or writing MS Office files reliably (and by
reliably, I mean in such a way that it looks and works the same as in
MS Office. Each and every time, no matter what formatting is used,
etc.)

+1

 

[ray]

Only Communists and anarchists use open source software.

It's Un-American!

A_C

It's also un-american to be out of debt. I plead guilty to both charges.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Exactly - it's always better to use an open format rather than a
proprietary one. PDF's for viewing and rtf for 90% of the rest.

I don't think you understood my post. In case you missed it, I was
disagreeing with you. Sending an Open Office file (AKA ODF, .ODT,
..ODS, .ODP, etc.) is an exercise in frustration unless you know the
recipient has OO. Send an MS Office file instead, or if no editing is
required, PDF.

 

[Gordon]

I don't think you understood my post. In case you missed it, I was
disagreeing with you. Sending an Open Office file (AKA ODF, .ODT,
.ODS, .ODP, etc.) is an exercise in frustration unless you know the
recipient has OO.

Not at all. MS Office 2010 will open odt documents natively.
MS Office 2010 also supports ods files - although MS deliberately broke the
implementaion (running scared possibly?) as when you open an ods file in MS
Office ALL the formulae are stripped out and replaced with the last
value...
In anycase, in OO/LO you can choose Email As and send as a .doc or .xls or
..ppt without having to save a duplicate on your machine, which is a darn
sight more than MS Office can do. If you use 2010 and don't know whether a
2003-using recipient has the compatibility pack then you have to Save As to
the old format first before you can send, thus rapidly racking up the
duplicate files...

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Not at all. MS Office 2010 will open odt documents natively.

I wasn't aware of that (though I shouldn't be surprised, ODT is an open
format after all), but that doesn't really change the issue much - now,
you have to know they have either OO or MSO 2010. DOC and/or PDF (or
as suggested elsewhere, RTF) will "just work" far more often.

MS Office 2010 also supports ods files - although MS deliberately broke the
implementaion (running scared possibly?) as when you open an ods file in MS
Office ALL the formulae are stripped out and replaced with the last
value...
In anycase, in OO/LO you can choose Email As and send as a .doc or .xls or
.ppt without having to save a duplicate on your machine, which is a darn
sight more than MS Office can do.

Of course, if it is already a DOC / XLS / PPT then there is no need for
this feature, is there?

If you use 2010 and don't know whether a
2003-using recipient has the compatibility pack then you have to Save As to
the old format first before you can send, thus rapidly racking up the
duplicate files...

I'd hardly call the occasional file that can be cleaned up easily
"rapidly racking up the duplicate files". If you are exchanging that
many files, I'd be inclined to be sure I knew the file format the
recipient(s) need and use that format (in the above example, but
setting MSO to use the 2003 compatible formats by default). seems a
better approach than relying on a feature that allows converting on the
fly - especially since those conversions are often going to break
formatting or other functionality.

 

[Char Jackson]

Not at all. MS Office 2010 will open odt documents natively.
MS Office 2010 also supports ods files - although MS deliberately broke the
implementaion (running scared possibly?) as when you open an ods file in MS
Office ALL the formulae are stripped out and replaced with the last
value...

When OO fails to open doc files without mangling them, do we also call
that 'running scared'? I prefer to simply think of it as less than
100% compatibility.

In anycase, in OO/LO you can choose Email As and send as a .doc or .xls or
.ppt without having to save a duplicate on your machine, which is a darn
sight more than MS Office can do. If you use 2010 and don't know whether a
2003-using recipient has the compatibility pack then you have to Save As to
the old format first before you can send, thus rapidly racking up the
duplicate files...

Take a look at the File menu, specifically the Send To command, with
its various subcommands such as Email Recipient, etc. This feature is
present in MS Office 2003. I haven't checked if they dropped it or
moved it elsewhere in later Office (Word) versions, but it's probably
still around.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

When OO fails to open doc files without mangling them, do we also call
that 'running scared'? I prefer to simply think of it as less than
100% compatibility.


Take a look at the File menu, specifically the Send To command, with
its various subcommands such as Email Recipient, etc. This feature is
present in MS Office 2003. I haven't checked if they dropped it or
moved it elsewhere in later Office (Word) versions, but it's probably
still around.

I think he was impressed with the ability to Email As a different
format than the native file format rather than the basic ability to
send to email recipients.

 

[H-Man]

When OO fails to open doc files without mangling them, do we also call
that 'running scared'? I prefer to simply think of it as less than
100% compatibility.


Take a look at the File menu, specifically the Send To command, with
its various subcommands such as Email Recipient, etc. This feature is
present in MS Office 2003. I haven't checked if they dropped it or
moved it elsewhere in later Office (Word) versions, but it's probably
still around.

This was in Office 2000 as well.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Jeff Layman

Because I can't stand the Ribbon interface, I have been a bit stuck
until recently, when I downloaded KingSoft Office Suite 2012 (free
suite available here:
http://www.kingsoftstore.com/kingsoft-office-freeware.html). The
Writer opens docx without problem, and you can choose the old style
menu or (ugh) a Ribbon style. It's missing things like VBA support,
unfortunately, so no macros, but other than that it's not bad.

[]
If you don't like the ribbon, there are utilities that'll give you the
old menu back: one is at
http://cultavix.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/make-office-2010-look-like-office-2003-menu-style/
, though I can't at the moment find the one I installed (it's a name
with a U in it, which I can't remember as I keep thinking of ubuntu -
it's not very different from that). The one I installed gives you yet
another tab on the ribbon called Menu, which has the old menus under it;
the intro page tells you how to turn off all the other tabs if you wish.
(The old menu is not as deep as the ribbon.) It's for Word, Excel, and
possibly PowerPoint - sadly not Outlook.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson

I glossed over it because Windows Update automatically offered the
compatibility packs, which were then downloaded and installed along
with other updates. I expect that would be the case for the vast
majority since I think there's only a few fringe cases where people
don't use WU.

At any rate, you're right, there is a step there, automatic and
painless as it may be.

I think you'll find it's a lot more than "a few fringe cases" -
especially with XP, not so sure about 7.

 

[Gordon]

In message <[email protected]>, Jeff Layman

Because I can't stand the Ribbon interface, I have been a bit stuck
until recently, when I downloaded KingSoft Office Suite 2012 (free
suite available here:
http://www.kingsoftstore.com/kingsoft-office-freeware.html). The
Writer opens docx without problem, and you can choose the old style
menu or (ugh) a Ribbon style. It's missing things like VBA support,
unfortunately, so no macros, but other than that it's not bad.

[]
If you don't like the ribbon, there are utilities that'll give you the
old menu back: one is at
http://cultavix.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/make-office-2010-look-like-office-2003-menu-style/
, though I can't at the moment find the one I installed (it's a name
with a U in it, which I can't remember as I keep thinking of ubuntu -
it's not very different from that). The one I installed gives you yet
another tab on the ribbon called Menu, which has the old menus under it;
the intro page tells you how to turn off all the other tabs if you wish.
(The old menu is not as deep as the ribbon.) It's for Word, Excel, and
possibly PowerPoint - sadly not Outlook.

When you buy new car that has a different dashboard layout to your old
one, do you buy an overlay that gives you the old look back? No of course
you don't. So why do it with Office? Why not just LEARN the ribbon?
IMHO it takes you less than half an hour to scan the functions in each tab
and so get a rough idea what's in each.
And don't forget you can add all your frequently-used commands to the QAT
as well, making them far easier to access than under the old menu within
menu within menu system..

 

[Ken Blake]

When you buy new car that has a different dashboard layout to your old
one, do you buy an overlay that gives you the old look back? No of course
you don't. So why do it with Office? Why not just LEARN the ribbon?
IMHO it takes you less than half an hour to scan the functions in each tab
and so get a rough idea what's in each.
And don't forget you can add all your frequently-used commands to the QAT
as well, making them far easier to access than under the old menu within
menu within menu system..

I'm with you almost entirely on this. I'm not crazy about the ribbon
interface either, but it didn't take me very long to get accustomed to
it and live with it. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't worth taking
the trouble (and risk) to run a utility to get the old interface back.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

If I was looking at a new car and many of the controls were in a
different place, especially if they were in a strip obscuring a large
part of my screen, I might think hard about looking at a different
make/model ...

However, you'll note (though you didn't) that I said _if_ you don't like
the ribbon.

As for half an hour - well, I've got just three things which took me
maybe five minutes each to find: how to turn off show changes, how to do
double strikethrough, and how to do solid blue (as opposed to blue with
an artistic touch of grey) text. (In fact I gave up and created the blue
myself.) If just these three took their five minutes each, other things
would come to a lot more than the half hour ...

I'm with you almost entirely on this. I'm not crazy about the ribbon
interface either, but it didn't take me very long to get accustomed to
it and live with it. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't worth taking
the trouble (and risk) to run a utility to get the old interface back.

I didn't think they posed much risk, but I concede YMMV. I'm learning to
use the ribbon anyway; I think what most people object to is not the
ribbon itself, but its imposition.

(Plus the fact that it can't be docked at the sides; since, for no good
reason that I can see, most laptops/netbooks/monitors are widescreen -
i. e. shortscreen - these days, something that chops that much off the
top isn't _necessarily_ welcome.)

 

[Ken Blake]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Blake


I didn't think they posed much risk, but I concede YMMV.

*Much* risk? No, probably not much risk. But almost any time you use
software that modifies something in another piece of software, there
is *some* risk. Again, my point of view is that although I don't
particularly like the ribbon, it doesn't bother me that much that I
feel the need to take any risk at all to get rid of it.

I'm learning to
use the ribbon anyway; I think what most people object to is not the
ribbon itself, but its imposition.

Alas, that's Microsoft's way in general. They seldom give you a
choice, but impose their point of view on their users. As a single
example of what I mean, note that all of their e-mail software
positions the cursor at the top of the screen when replying. In my
view, although many people like to top post, a lot of others prefer to
bottom post, so it would have been appropriate to provide a choice of
where to position the cursor. Although personally I usually neither
top post nor bottom post, but intersperse my replies, so I don't care
where the cursor is positioned; I'll probably need to move it anyway.

(Plus the fact that it can't be docked at the sides;

Yes, an excellent point. Note that WordPerfect *does* give you that
choice for its toolbars.

since, for no good
reason that I can see, most laptops/netbooks/monitors are widescreen -
i. e. shortscreen - these days, something that chops that much off the
top isn't _necessarily_ welcome.)

Yes, my personal preference is to position the Windows task bar at the
left side of the screen, precisely because I think it makes better use
of screen real estate with today's widescreen monitors.

But note that with the task bar, Microsoft *did* give us the choice.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Blake

*Much* risk? No, probably not much risk. But almost any time you use
software that modifies something in another piece of software, there
is *some* risk. Again, my point of view is that although I don't
particularly like the ribbon, it doesn't bother me that much that I
feel the need to take any risk at all to get rid of it.

No disagreement that there is some. The bolt-on I found just, in fact,
added an extra tab to the ribbon, so I think it's fairly safe.

Alas, that's Microsoft's way in general. They seldom give you a
choice, but impose their point of view on their users. As a single
example of what I mean, note that all of their e-mail software
positions the cursor at the top of the screen when replying. In my
view, although many people like to top post, a lot of others prefer to
bottom post, so it would have been appropriate to provide a choice of
where to position the cursor. Although personally I usually neither
top post nor bottom post, but intersperse my replies, so I don't care
where the cursor is positioned; I'll probably need to move it anyway.

To be fair, I think the placement of the cursor at the top was to
encourage interposting - i. e. what you and I do, put our bits adjacent
to (I prefer below) the bits we're responding to. (And, also, snipping
out the bits we _aren't_ responding to - another disappearing art.) But
few people were ever _shown_ that, so they just typed their bit where
the cursor is. (Either that, or they're just lazy.)

(Plus the fact that it can't be docked at the sides;

Yes, an excellent point. Note that WordPerfect *does* give you that
choice for its toolbars. []
Yes, my personal preference is to position the Windows task bar at the
left side of the screen, precisely because I think it makes better use
of screen real estate with today's widescreen monitors.

But note that with the task bar, Microsoft *did* give us the choice.

Yes - I think from Windows 9x. It was from the taskbar that I got the
word "docked" (or rather that use of it). Sad that they didn't think to
do it with the ribbon!

(The only point I can see to widescreen monitors is for watching movies.
For which, if I want to do it, I'll buy a DVD player, TV, or similar.
Even for people who use two windows alongside each other, shortscreen
monitors are too wide, or at least too short. You actually get _less_
screen area for a given diagonal. [I remember when widescreen TVs first
started to appear - still in the CRT era - being amused that you could
pay more for a TV of the same width but less height; I'd buy the 4:3
one, and have the ability to see non-widescreen material on a bigger
screen, while still being able to see widescreen at that width.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

But, really, if you extrapolate all this, within my lifetime men will only be
required to keep sperm at operating temperature and they will have no other
functions, which will make life dull for both sexes. - James May in RT, 6-12
November 2010

 

[Jeff Layman]

In message<[email protected]>, Jeff Layman

Because I can't stand the Ribbon interface, I have been a bit stuck
until recently, when I downloaded KingSoft Office Suite 2012 (free
suite available here:
http://www.kingsoftstore.com/kingsoft-office-freeware.html). The
Writer opens docx without problem, and you can choose the old style
menu or (ugh) a Ribbon style. It's missing things like VBA support,
unfortunately, so no macros, but other than that it's not bad.

[]
If you don't like the ribbon, there are utilities that'll give you the
old menu back: one is at
http://cultavix.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/make-office-2010-look-like-office-2003-menu-style/
, though I can't at the moment find the one I installed (it's a name
with a U in it, which I can't remember as I keep thinking of ubuntu -
it's not very different from that). The one I installed gives you yet
another tab on the ribbon called Menu, which has the old menus under it;
the intro page tells you how to turn off all the other tabs if you wish.
(The old menu is not as deep as the ribbon.) It's for Word, Excel, and
possibly PowerPoint - sadly not Outlook.

When you buy new car that has a different dashboard layout to your old
one, do you buy an overlay that gives you the old look back? No of course
you don't. So why do it with Office? Why not just LEARN the ribbon?
IMHO it takes you less than half an hour to scan the functions in each tab
and so get a rough idea what's in each.
And don't forget you can add all your frequently-used commands to the QAT
as well, making them far easier to access than under the old menu within
menu within menu system..

As much as anything else, manufacturers change things for the sake of
change. Why buy anything new if it looks and behaves exactly as what you
already have? I am not talking about new functions, but anything you
already have. "We're adding x, y, and z, so let's redesign a, b, and c
at the same time. Those will look new as well."

Many years ago, I bought a new car which had the indicator and
windscreen wiper control sticks on exactly the opposite sides to my
previous car. It drove me mad for months. I continually turned on the
wipers when I wanted to indicate, and vice-versa. I could see
absolutely no reason why manufacturers couldn't agree on a standard
layout. But at least this was between different makes of car; if it had
been the same make I would have cursed the manufacturer for a completely
unnecessary change.

Now I can understand why it wouldn't be possible for me to exchange the
indicator and wiper control sticks positions to where they used to be.
But the same argument just does not apply to software. If a third-party
can spend time and money (and evidently make money) developing a
Ribbon-to-old-style-menu interface, and Kingsoft can offer the option in
their version of Word/Writer, why couldn't MS make it optional? The
only explanation which makes sense is that having spent a fortune on
developing it, and realising they had made a big mistake, they were
stuck with it and made it non-optional to justify the development cost.

If you multiply your half-hour to learn the basics of the Ribbon (and,
sorry, I think that is a very optimistic estimate) by the half-billion
plus users worldwide, that makes an awful lot of wasted time.

It would be interesting to ask KIngsoft if they know how many of their
Suite users have the Ribbon interface, and how many the old-style menu.
And maybe ask the MS-Office old-style menu utility developers how many
downloads they have had.

 

[Bob I]

at the same time. Those will look new as well."

Many years ago, I bought a new car which had the indicator and
windscreen wiper control sticks on exactly the opposite sides to my
previous car. It drove me mad for months. I continually turned on the
wipers when I wanted to indicate, and vice-versa. I could see absolutely
no reason why manufacturers couldn't agree on a standard layout. But at
least this was between different makes of car; if it had been the same
make I would have cursed the manufacturer for a completely unnecessary
change.

I'm extremely curious as to what automobile manufacturer put the turn
indicator on the right-hand stick.

 

[Jeff Layman]

I'm extremely curious as to what automobile manufacturer put the turn
indicator on the right-hand stick.

IIRC it was a 1985 Opel Corsa (General Motors).

 

[Philip Herlihy]

I'm extremely curious as to what automobile manufacturer put the turn
indicator on the right-hand stick.

My late mother-in-law turned up for her driving test and found the
driving school instructor apologising profusely for the non-availability
of the car she'd learned on, and explaining that she'd have to remember
the indicator was now on the other side of the steering wheel.

She failed the test and gave up learning.