MS Office 2010 Starter vs OpenOffice

[Buffalo]

"Buffalo" wrote in message
I have Home Premium 64bit and I am using my PC for just home use, not
business. Does the MS Office 2010 Starter offer any advantage over the free
OpenOffice ?
Thanks,
Buffalo

Thanks for the many well thought out and informative replies.
Buffalo

 

[Buffalo]

"John Williamson" wrote in message

I have Home Premium 64bit and I am using my PC for just home use, not
business. Does the MS Office 2010 Starter offer any advantage over the
free OpenOffice ?

No. OO is better. Libre Office is better still, as all the most
productive code writers moved from OO to LO last year after some
internal problems with the OO project. LO can even open MS Works files.

MS Office starter has, as has been said by others, extremely annoying
ads, which take up large amounts of the screen.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Thanks to all who added their info to this thread. I uninstalled Microsoft
Office 2110 Starter and also OO.
I then installed Libre Office (after doing some rebooting, registry stuff,
etc and all is well).
Thanks again to all.
Buffalo

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Hi, Gene.


A little quicker and easier: Just click Reply to Group. The OP's message
will appear, ready for editing. Fix the broken link, then Copy'n'Paste it
into the browser. Then "X" the Reply window.

Dunno about Dialog or other clients. But that trick works here in the
oft-maligned WLM. ;<) In fact, it often isn't necessary because WLM
usually handles long URLs without any tricks.

I tried it; it works fine in Dialog. Thanks.

 

[Paul]

Stefan Patric wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:17:45 -0700, Buffalo wrote:

I have Home Premium 64bit and I am using my PC for just home use, not
business. Does the MS Office 2010 Starter offer any advantage over
the free OpenOffice ?
No.

You might also take a look at LibreOffice, a independent branch based
off OpenOffice code, that is more actively developed than OO.

If all you need is a word processor without all the other "business"
apps look at Abiword. For letter writing and such, it works just
fine. It's free like OO and LO.
Agreed on all counts -- although as with anything else, there are many
*many*
alternatives.

So who really needs Micro$oft's stuff?

]>

Business users I would think. Personally I think MS Works would suffice
for most home users. I use that and Libre Office for when people send me
Word Docs etc. and other stuff. Libre Office seem to recognize almost
anything out there. I wish they had included a publisher equivalent.

The gotcha has always been, can you open absolutely anything
created by Microsoft Office, with tools other than Office.

That's what keeps Office entrenched.

While things like OpenOffice or LibreOffice are valiant attempts,
there are always going to be those documents created by
Microsoft Office, that won't open properly. (That's the
nature of this game. With no specs to work to, and so
many different file versions to deal with, it's
pretty hard for a competitor to ever "catch up"
and translate everything. I've seen enough translators
screw up with my own eyes, to know it can never
be bug free.)

Paul

 

[Auric__]

The gotcha has always been, can you open absolutely anything
created by Microsoft Office, with tools other than Office.

That's what keeps Office entrenched.

While things like OpenOffice or LibreOffice are valiant attempts,
there are always going to be those documents created by
Microsoft Office, that won't open properly. (That's the
nature of this game. With no specs to work to, and so
many different file versions to deal with, it's
pretty hard for a competitor to ever "catch up"
and translate everything. I've seen enough translators
screw up with my own eyes, to know it can never
be bug free.)

Actually, as I've mentioned, the one thing that keeps me in Office is the
VBA. If I were to move to a different office suite (or individual apps) I'd
have to rewrite all the "stuff" I've got in VBA. (Lack of VBA isn't
necessarily a deal breaker for me, but when I already have, and am used to,
MS Office, what do I stand to gain by switching?)

 

[Stefan Patric]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:21:38 +0000, Iceman wrote:
[SNIP]

So who really needs Micro$oft's stuff?

]>

Business users I would think. Personally I think MS Works would suffice
for most home users. I use that and Libre Office for when people send
me Word Docs etc. and other stuff. Libre Office seem to recognize
almost anything out there. I wish they had included a publisher
equivalent.

The gotcha has always been, can you open absolutely anything created by
Microsoft Office, with tools other than Office.

Not always true. Older versions won't always open files created by newer
versions, but newer versions will open older version's files just won't
save them in the older file format. (MS has been doing this for twenty+
years to force people to upgrade to generate more income.) As an
example, I have a client who has an _old_ version of Word, 2000 I think.
It is more than suitable for his business needs; however, when he gets
a .docx file from someone, W2000 won't load it. What does he do? He e-
mails the file to me, I load it into the Linux version of OpenOffice, and
save it as a .doc file, then e-mail it back and W2000 loads it just fine
with rarely any formatting errors.

I've tried to get him to install OO on his machine and do it himself, or
find some small converter program, but he's not all that savvy with
computers, and doesn't want to waste his time learning something new when
he has a business to run. Plus, he'll never upgrade to a newer version
of Word. So, don't even bother suggesting it. ;-)

That's what keeps Office entrenched.
Agreed

While things like OpenOffice or LibreOffice are valiant attempts, there
are always going to be those documents created by Microsoft Office, that
won't open properly. (That's the nature of this game. With no specs to
work to, and so many different file versions to deal with, it's pretty
hard for a competitor to ever "catch up" and translate everything. I've
seen enough translators screw up with my own eyes, to know it can never
be bug free.)

All part of Microsoft's plan to rule the world. ;-)

Stef

 

[Nil]

Not always true. Older versions won't always open files created
by newer versions, but newer versions will open older version's
files just won't save them in the older file format. (MS has been
doing this for twenty+ years to force people to upgrade to
generate more income.) As an example, I have a client who has an
_old_ version of Word, 2000 I think. It is more than suitable for
his business needs; however, when he gets a .docx file from
someone, W2000 won't load it. What does he do? He e- mails the
file to me, I load it into the Linux version of OpenOffice, and
save it as a .doc file, then e-mail it back and W2000 loads it
just fine with rarely any formatting errors.

All that is an unnecessary waste of both your times. Microsoft offers a
Compatibility Pack that will let Office 2000 and later to deal with
recent Office formats.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3

 

[Paul]

All that is an unnecessary waste of both your times. Microsoft offers a
Compatibility Pack that will let Office 2000 and later to deal with
recent Office formats.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3

unnecessary waste of both your times:

I guess what I didn't make clear, is a difference
in expectations.

If a person using Office has a problem opening some
older Office file and it doesn't work, they just
shrug and move on.

If a person is given a copy of Libreoffice by the IT
department, and it gives the least bit of trouble,
then there'll be phone calls, complaints, "why don't
you give me a copy of the real Office" etc.

That's what keeps Office entrenched in business.

There are a few people, who need all the whizzy features
that come with certain part of Office. I had a senior
manager, who could program just about any kind of
technical problem, into Excel. That's the person,
you don't screw with his tool choice. Because,
he really gets value out of it. For a lot of
other people, their Office license is largely a
waste. And some of them, are deserving of a
copy of Notepad, and no more

Paul

 

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:21:38 +0000, Iceman wrote:
[SNIP]
So who really needs Micro$oft's stuff?

]>

Business users I would think. Personally I think MS Works would suffice
for most home users. I use that and Libre Office for when people send
me Word Docs etc. and other stuff. Libre Office seem to recognize
almost anything out there. I wish they had included a publisher
equivalent.

The gotcha has always been, can you open absolutely anything created by
Microsoft Office, with tools other than Office.

Not always true. Older versions won't always open files created by newer
versions, but newer versions will open older version's files just won't
save them in the older file format.

I can't think of any examples of that right now, but it's late here.
Everything that I can think of can be opened and saved just fine with the
older program versions.

(MS has been doing this for twenty+
years to force people to upgrade to generate more income.)

Not quite. If they had any real interest in forcing anything, they probably
wouldn't provide a free utility that makes upgrading mostly a moot point.

As an
example, I have a client who has an _old_ version of Word, 2000 I think.
It is more than suitable for his business needs; however, when he gets
a .docx file from someone, W2000 won't load it. What does he do? He e-
mails the file to me, I load it into the Linux version of OpenOffice, and
save it as a .doc file, then e-mail it back and W2000 loads it just fine
with rarely any formatting errors.

I'm surprised that he hasn't installed the free Compatibility Pack, which
would allow him to open the newer docx files with Word 2000.

<http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3>

Agreed

All part of Microsoft's plan to rule the world. ;-)

I love a good conspiracy theory, but this one has no legs.

 

[John Williamson]

The gotcha has always been, can you open absolutely anything
created by Microsoft Office, with tools other than Office.

That's what keeps Office entrenched.

While things like OpenOffice or LibreOffice are valiant attempts,
there are always going to be those documents created by
Microsoft Office, that won't open properly. (That's the
nature of this game. With no specs to work to, and so
many different file versions to deal with, it's
pretty hard for a competitor to ever "catch up"
and translate everything. I've seen enough translators
screw up with my own eyes, to know it can never
be bug free.)

The other MS Office gotcha is that files made by this year's version may
not be compatible with last year's version, so everyone needs to update
every year just in case. Even the compatibility packs issued by MS are
only good for viewing, and can't always let editing documents be seamless.

 

[John Williamson]

Stefan Patric wrote:

I've tried to get him to install OO on his machine and do it himself, or
find some small converter program, but he's not all that savvy with
computers, and doesn't want to waste his time learning something new when
he has a business to run. Plus, he'll never upgrade to a newer version
of Word. So, don't even bother suggesting it. ;-)

He can download a compatibility pack from Microsoft that will let him
open the file in Windows 2000 once it's installed, but without some of
the bits that are exclusive to the later versions. He will then (only)
be able to save it in Windows 2000 format, which any later version will
read.

 

[Nil]

He can download a compatibility pack from Microsoft that will let
him open the file in Windows 2000 once it's installed, but without
some of the bits that are exclusive to the later versions. He will
then (only) be able to save it in Windows 2000 format, which any
later version will read.

That's not true, at least of Word 2003. It can read and save to DOCX
format.

 

[Gordonbp]

That's not true, at least of Word 2003. It can read and save to DOCX
format.

Nope you are incorrect. Word 2003 will ONLY read docx if the
compatibility pack has been installed.

 

[Nil]

Nope you are incorrect. Word 2003 will ONLY read docx if the
compatibility pack has been installed.

That's what I meant. The previous poster claims that even with the
compatibility pack installed, Word 2003 will not save to DOCX format.
Not true - it will.

 

[BillW50]

That's what I meant. The previous poster claims that even with the
compatibility pack installed, Word 2003 will not save to DOCX format.
Not true - it will.

True for Office 2000 too. I don't know about Office 97. It has been so
long since I used that one.

 

[Char Jackson]

Stefan Patric wrote:

He can download a compatibility pack from Microsoft that will let him
open the file in Windows 2000 once it's installed, but without some of
the bits that are exclusive to the later versions. He will then (only)
be able to save it in Windows 2000 format, which any later version will
read.

No, he'd be able to save it in any supported format, including formats such
as docx that are natively supported in later Office versions.

 

[Char Jackson]

The other MS Office gotcha is that files made by this year's version may
not be compatible with last year's version, so everyone needs to update
every year just in case.

It's a lot easier and less expensive to just install the free compatibility
pack.

Even the compatibility packs issued by MS are
only good for viewing, and can't always let editing documents be seamless.

Fortunately, that's not true. The compatibility pack lets you read and write
the newer formats with the older application versions.

 

[Ken Springer]

Stefan Patric wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:17:45 -0700, Buffalo wrote:

I have Home Premium 64bit and I am using my PC for just home use, not
business. Does the MS Office 2010 Starter offer any advantage over
the free OpenOffice ?

No.

You might also take a look at LibreOffice, a independent branch based
off OpenOffice code, that is more actively developed than OO.

If all you need is a word processor without all the other "business"
apps look at Abiword. For letter writing and such, it works just
fine. It's free like OO and LO.

Agreed on all counts -- although as with anything else, there are many
*many*
alternatives.

So who really needs Micro$oft's stuff?

]>

Business users I would think. Personally I think MS Works would suffice
for most home users. I use that and Libre Office for when people send me
Word Docs etc. and other stuff. Libre Office seem to recognize almost
anything out there. I wish they had included a publisher equivalent.

I'm a little late to this discussion, sorry for that. But...

There's an open source DTP program called Scribus. I keep telling
myself I'm going to try it, but never seem to get there. :-(


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.2
Firefox 18.0.1
Thunderbird 17.0.2
LibreOffice 3.6.3.2

 

[Ken Springer]

"Buffalo" wrote in message
I have Home Premium 64bit and I am using my PC for just home use, not
business. Does the MS Office 2010 Starter offer any advantage over the free
OpenOffice ?
Thanks,
Buffalo

Thanks for the many well thought out and informative replies.
Buffalo

If you haven't already made a decision, I'd recommend you search for
office suites. There's a multitude of them out there. Currently, when
a basic suite is needed, I install Kingsoft Office Free. Looks and
feels like Office 2003 to me.

Others that I know of are:
Lotus Symphony
Ashampoo
Crystal Office
Oxygen Office
SS Office
Softmaker Office

Some of the above are free, some are commercial. And I'm sure there are
others.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.2
Firefox 18.0.1
Thunderbird 17.0.2
LibreOffice 3.6.3.2

 

[charlie]

If you haven't already made a decision, I'd recommend you search for
office suites. There's a multitude of them out there. Currently, when
a basic suite is needed, I install Kingsoft Office Free. Looks and
feels like Office 2003 to me.

Others that I know of are:
Lotus Symphony
Ashampoo
Crystal Office
Oxygen Office
SS Office
Softmaker Office

Some of the above are free, some are commercial. And I'm sure there are
others.

Quit that! You're not helping my MS Stock at all!