| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 56413 | 2005-04-04 05:53:00 | OpenOffice v Works Suite | weemaxcat (5900) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 341371 | 2005-04-04 05:53:00 | I have been having trouble with Works Calendar(using Works 7), and rather than persist in trying to get it working with all the uninstalling/reinstalling and general playing around, I have been told OpenOffice would be a good alternative. Can I use it instead of Works suite (i.e. just leave Works7 uninstalled) Does OO do all that Works does? Any thoughts would be appreciated | weemaxcat (5900) | ||
| 341372 | 2005-04-04 06:02:00 | It won't cost you anything to try it. :D It will certainly do most of what Works will do ... perhaps without some of the more esoteric options. How many esoteric options do you use?:) | Graham L (2) | ||
| 341373 | 2005-04-04 06:51:00 | Hi Weem*. I had trouble with an early version of OO when creating Word type documents containing graphics/pictures. Similarly, I had problems opening such documents in OO when they had been created in Word. A while ago now as I gave up and lapsed back in to MS Office Pro Edition. Might be better now and, as Graham suggests, cost you nothing to try. :cool: | Scouse (83) | ||
| 341374 | 2005-04-04 07:56:00 | I'm using OO instead or Office 97 pro. While that version of office is the latest or greatest OO matches or surpasses office in most respects. The one thing I would say it is not as good at is its dictionary and thesaurus. It seems a bit clunky and missing quite a few meanings, synonyms, etc, of words plus a few other glitches like not suggesting words I have added to the dictionary. Could be I haven't configured it right as I haven't been using it full time for long. Scouse, I think they must have the images issue sorted. OO Writer behaves much better than Word 97 in that respect. I have a 9.7MB 43 page document with images a millimetre from the sides and a a few from top to bottom. Not even a flicker of disquiet from Writer, Word would have spat the dummy by now, even if it had let me got so close to the borders without trying to format it for me. The bonus is being able to export (converting) the file to PDF without having to resort to another app to do the job. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 341375 | 2005-04-04 08:57:00 | Hi Weem* and Murray. Not wanting to hijack your post here Weem* - Murray, not wanting to start World War 111, etc., but recent versions of Office have come a long way. Have a look here (www.sal.neoburn.net) for example of how Word will accept graphic at page edge. My old Epson loses about two mm of this on all sides, but Word is quite happy with it. I agree with the need for MS to pick up and offer a good PDF as part of its package. I still run the old Adobe Acrobat 5 which I originally had difficulty running on Word 2003, but while recently installing and playing around with the free PDFPrimo I also sorted Acrobat 5. Every one to their own tastes and comforts. :cool: | Scouse (83) | ||
| 341376 | 2005-04-04 09:02:00 | Word would have spat the dummy by now But would OO's Writer happily manage a 38 meg 790 page document, like my Office 2003 does? |
Greg (193) | ||
| 341377 | 2005-04-04 09:49:00 | But would OO's Writer happily manage a 38 meg 790 page document, like my Office 2003 does? Dunno Greg . All I can say, and I qualified my previous remarks with the point that my alternative is Office 97, is I have tried OO and found it superior in many respects but, especially with image and large doc stability, without having to outlay a cent for the programmes (while cost is not my primary concern, I do believe that the cost of MS Office is way over the top) . The largest docs I have attempted to create in Word were well in excess of 20-30MB range and there was hell to pay (mixed text and images) . The only way for me to achieve the desired results was to split projects into multiple documents . Basically anything that size, should be done on a publishing programme anyway . But I'll let you know shortly because 20-25+MB appendices aren't unusual for me, it'll be nice if I can achieve that in one file . I think you'll also find that my 9 . 7MM OO doc would probably end out being about 12-15MB in Word . BTW, I hope you have more copies of that file in a more stable format like PDF . Any word processor doc/sxw with complex formatting can go phuzzt at a moments notice ;) Did you put that together yourself? Thats a awful lot of document, even if does have a few images . Nice to see Word plays nicer with images Scouse, how many can you cram into a doc before it goes belly up? Haven't tested OO to it's limits yet, I'll do so with a bunch of images I've already printed and archived . |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 341378 | 2005-04-04 12:33:00 | BTW, I hope you have more copies of that file in a more stable format like PDF. Any word processor doc/sxw with complex formatting can go phuzzt at a moments notice ;) Did you put that together yourself? Thats a awful lot of document, even if does have a few images. No images - all text. It's was actually a MySql database backup that I wanted to extract some data from. |
Greg (193) | ||
| 341379 | 2005-04-05 02:07:00 | But Greg, just like the esoteric options I mentioned, how many people have 38 MB 790 page documents? Stop skiting. :D I don't think I would give ability to handle files that large any weight in deciding on a word processor. I would use a database to extract data from a database file.;) Any word processors which will handle databases is likely to be a worse word processor for it. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 341380 | 2005-04-05 02:35:00 | But would OO's Writer happily manage a 38 meg 790 page document, like my Office 2003 does? OOo is free... why not try it. It SHOULD work :blush: |
dolby digital (5073) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||