Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months - Ubuntu ; >> regression testing out some products my company sells, and the test >> have always included ALL functions, no matter how small, or how old. >> If the features are there, they are tested. > > You seem to have ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 78

Thread: Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

  1. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    >> regression testing out some products my company sells, and the test
    >> have always included ALL functions, no matter how small, or how old.
    >> If the features are there, they are tested.

    >
    > You seem to have got mixed up or confused. We are not talking about
    > stuff your company sells. We are talking about a company with a legacy
    > infrastructure that might have developed haphazardly over many years
    > suddenly having Open Office foisted on them by a zealot who assumes it
    > will all just work. Big difference.


    Not confused or mixed up.

    The only difference is I'm working with physical products that utilize
    software, not just software by itself. Products that evolve over time, all
    needing to conform to long in-place systems interoperability.


  2. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    DanS writes:

    >>> regression testing out some products my company sells, and the test
    >>> have always included ALL functions, no matter how small, or how old.
    >>> If the features are there, they are tested.

    >>
    >> You seem to have got mixed up or confused. We are not talking about
    >> stuff your company sells. We are talking about a company with a legacy
    >> infrastructure that might have developed haphazardly over many years
    >> suddenly having Open Office foisted on them by a zealot who assumes it
    >> will all just work. Big difference.

    >
    > Not confused or mixed up.


    No. You are. You started talking about a totally different scenario. You
    were mixing up regression tests on released SW by the company who
    releases that SW with acceptance tests done by the target company to
    ensure their legacy procedures and processes and supporting SW
    infrastructure worked with or could be ported to Open Office.

    >
    > The only difference is I'm working with physical products that utilize
    > software, not just software by itself. Products that evolve over time, all
    > needing to conform to long in-place systems interoperability.
    >


    Err, sure.

    --
    I don't think 'It's better than hurling yourself into a meat grinder'
    is a good rationale for doing something.
    -- Andrew Suffield in
    <20030905221055.GA22354@doc.ic.ac.uk> on debian-devel

  3. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months



    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.co m...


    >> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

    >
    > Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.


    Why is it?
    What possible advantage does it have to anyone?
    Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?
    If they don't have a word processor then OO is fine, but I don't see the
    benefit of moving to OO from something you have and are using.


  4. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?

    >>
    >> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

    >
    > Why is it?
    > What possible advantage does it have to anyone?
    > Just exactly who gains from having people move to OO?
    > If they don't have a word processor then OO is fine, but I don't see the
    > benefit of moving to OO from something you have and are using.


    To ease their guilty conscience?

    To avoid dealing with product-activation?

    http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/mpa.aspx

    The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
    "casual copying" or "softlifting." Casual copying is a form of piracy
    characterized by the sharing of software between people in a way that
    infringes on the software's end user license agreement (EULA). For
    instance, Windows XP is primarily licensed for use on a single PC and
    without purchasing additional licenses cannot be installed on other
    machines. If someone were to obtain a copy of Windows XP and load it
    on his or her PC, then share it with a second person who loaded it on
    his or her PC, they would be guilty of casual copying.

    --
    Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.
    -- Bill Gates, Business @ The Speed of Thought (1999)

  5. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Hadron wrote:

    > Maybe you two know each other from some kind of "big shot" golf meet?


    Hadron, the guy was lord and master over 500,000 workstations. Why would he
    associate with a lowly peon who oversees only a few dozen?
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  6. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Tattoo Vampire writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe you two know each other from some kind of "big shot" golf meet?

    >
    > Hadron, the guy was lord and master over 500,000 workstations. Why would he
    > associate with a lowly peon who oversees only a few dozen?


    Good point. He probably fired the guy who hired the guy who once asked
    who you were.

    --
    "There is no such thing as Intellectual Property"
    Mark Kent
    Head of Technology Strategy, BT Global
    COLA Hypocrite

  7. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    chrisv writes:

    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

    >
    > That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors
    > and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature
    > technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for
    > light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of
    > users).


    Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?

    The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.

    --
    revision 1.17.2.7
    date: 2001/05/31 21:32:44; author: branden; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
    ARRRRGH!! GOT THE G** D*** SENSE OF A F******* TEST BACKWARDS!

  8. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Hadron wrote:
    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>> How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

    >> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors
    >> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature
    >> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for
    >> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of
    >> users).

    >
    > Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?
    >
    > The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.
    >

    That's a lie, and you know it.

    --
    Rick

  9. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Rick said:
    > I can't see why many home users need MS Office at all. Works does
    > more than enough for home users. That's an MS product. And, again,
    > OO.o is free, so why should most home users pay for MS Office?


    Works cost my wife several thousand dollars. She based her business,
    against my differing advice, on Works documents, spreadsheets and
    databases. When she finally saw the light and began using OOo she found
    that, although some MS Office file extension types were open-able with
    OOo, none of Works' were. She ended up paying for an office girl to
    manually copy/paste all her many years' worth of customer data into
    OOo.
    Avoid Works if at all possible. It looks cheaply functional but will
    cost you in the long run.
    Avoid MS office as it also ties you into proprietary formats.

    Cybe R. Wizard
    --
    Nice computers don't go down.
    Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
    "The Barsoom Project"

  10. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Hadron wrote:

    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

    >>
    >> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors
    >> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature
    >> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for
    >> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of
    >> users).

    >
    > Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?
    >
    > The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.
    >

    Oh, so it has nothing to do with being licensed under the GPL, Mr. non-COLA
    Linux Advocate? You are one sick puppy.

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    alt.os.linux.ubuntu - where the lunatic Hadron is a "Linux advocate"

    Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
    Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6



  11. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    "Rick" stated in post
    pfOdnUY1yIcL_G7anZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 4/2/08 3:36 AM:

    > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" wrote in message
    >> news:eKednfwLpeNVW2_anZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >>
    >>
    >>>> How many are planning to move to Open Office?
    >>>
    >>> Who knows? Any positive number is a good number.

    >>
    >> Why is it?

    >
    > Almost anything that lessens business for Microsoft is a good thing.
    > Yeah, that's the anti-MS bias in me.


    At least you admit you are biased. That is a step in the right direction.


    --
    When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
    When God changes your mind, that's faith.
    When facts change your mind, that's science.


  12. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    NoStop writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> chrisv writes:
    >>
    >>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?
    >>>
    >>> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors
    >>> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature
    >>> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for
    >>> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of
    >>> users).

    >>
    >> Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?
    >>
    >> The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.
    >>

    > Oh, so it has nothing to do with being licensed under the GPL, Mr. non-COLA
    > Linux Advocate? You are one sick puppy.
    >
    > Cheers.


    What part of my post confuses you? The fact is that hardly anyone wants
    it. Almost no one (% wise) uses it. This is a fact.

    --
    Being overloaded is the sign of a true Debian maintainer.
    -- JHM on #Debian

  13. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Hadron wrote:

    > NoStop writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> chrisv writes:
    >>>
    >>>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?
    >>>>
    >>>> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors
    >>>> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature
    >>>> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for
    >>>> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of
    >>>> users).
    >>>
    >>> Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck up?
    >>>
    >>> The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.
    >>>

    >> Oh, so it has nothing to do with being licensed under the GPL, Mr.
    >> non-COLA Linux Advocate? You are one sick puppy.
    >>
    >> Cheers.

    >
    > What part of my post confuses you? The fact is that hardly anyone wants
    > it. Almost no one (% wise) uses it. This is a fact.
    >

    No, that you're suggesting it is "free" because no one wants it. It's "free"
    because it's licensed under the GPL. Don't get it?

    Cheers.

    --
    The world can't afford the rich.

    alt.os.linux.ubuntu - where the lunatic Hadron is a "Linux advocate"

    Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
    Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6



  14. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Hadron wrote in
    news:fsuvjo$3tp$1@registered.motzarella.org:

    >>>> regression testing out some products my company sells, and the test
    >>>> have always included ALL functions, no matter how small, or how
    >>>> old. If the features are there, they are tested.
    >>>
    >>> You seem to have got mixed up or confused. We are not talking about
    >>> stuff your company sells. We are talking about a company with a
    >>> legacy infrastructure that might have developed haphazardly over
    >>> many years suddenly having Open Office foisted on them by a zealot
    >>> who assumes it will all just work. Big difference.

    >>
    >> Not confused or mixed up.

    >
    > No. You are. You started talking about a totally different scenario.
    > You were mixing up regression tests on released SW by the company who
    > releases that SW with acceptance tests done by the target company to
    > ensure their legacy procedures and processes and supporting SW
    > infrastructure worked with or could be ported to Open Office.


    Maybe a different scenario, but the same theories apply. If my regression
    testing shows complete compatibility with options and performance of the
    previous design, existing users should be able to incorporate the new
    design into their existing systems with little, if any at all, effort.

    We're also talking complete new designs here that replace 15 year old
    equipment. A complete new hardware/software platform to do a specific
    job.

    We can agree to disagree.







  15. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:47f38974$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...


    > No its not me being stupid. If 2007 wasn't about MS's bottom line then why
    > make it not compatible with their previous versions? Because then
    > eventually most all businesses would upgrade to be compatible with every
    > one else instead of by choice or need.
    > OO is no threat to MS so 2007 is costly.


    It is compatible.
    If you think it isn't then I suggest you try it before you pass judgment.


  16. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months



    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:RMmdnXi_XcpDDG7anZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@supernews.co m...


    > I can't see why many home users need MS Office at all. Works does more
    > than enough for home users. That's an MS product. And, again, OO.o is
    > free, so why should most home users pay for MS Office?


    I can't see why you need a WP at all, what's wrong with vi, nroff, etc.
    That should be good enough for you to write a few letters to mum.

    >
    >> They may want to upgrade, that is their choice.
    >> At a corporate level the decision should be based on need and cost and
    >> has nothing to do with the rants here.

    >
    > Cost: $$ for MS Offie. 0$ for Open Office.


    Time vs. cash interesting choice, not yours or mine to make.

    >
    >>
    >>> OO is about choice 2007 is about MS bottom line.

    >>
    >> Its another choice, I know you would rather it wasn't there but that's
    >> you being stupid.
    >> How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

    >
    > $0. There was a lot of $0 software floating around at the beginnings of
    > PCs, you know.


    There was a lot of paid for stuff like uniplex too.
    You probably don't remember the days when there were real computers.


  17. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:47f38974$0$1096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >
    >
    >> No its not me being stupid. If 2007 wasn't about MS's bottom line then
    >> why make it not compatible with their previous versions? Because then
    >> eventually most all businesses would upgrade to be compatible with
    >> every one else instead of by choice or need.
    >> OO is no threat to MS so 2007 is costly.

    >
    > It is compatible.
    > If you think it isn't then I suggest you try it before you pass judgment.




    Obviously you don't know because it ain't. There are the same problems
    between 2007 and 2003 as there is between 2007 and OO, in a business
    environment. This I know as a fact and first hand.
    caver1
    caver1

  18. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    Hadron wrote:

    > Good point. He probably fired the guy who hired the guy who once asked
    > who you were.


    Find the funny part.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Zen Master at Wendy's: "Make me one with everything."

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  19. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:55:41 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > NoStop writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> chrisv writes:
    >>>
    >>>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?
    >>>>
    >>>> That's a non-sequitur. There's always "a choice" of word processors
    >>>> and such. Word processors and spreadsheets are a very mature
    >>>> technology, and should be very inexpensive if not free (at least for
    >>>> light- or medium-duty products sufficient for the vast majority of
    >>>> users).
    >>>
    >>> Should standard cars and bicycles be free too you tight fisted f@ck
    >>> up?
    >>>
    >>> The reason OO is "free" is because hardly any one wants it.
    >>>

    >> Oh, so it has nothing to do with being licensed under the GPL, Mr.
    >> non-COLA Linux Advocate? You are one sick puppy.
    >>
    >> Cheers.

    >
    > What part of my post confuses you? The fact is that hardly anyone wants
    > it.


    The fact is, very few people know about it.

    > Almost no one (% wise) uses it. This is a fact.


    Quite true, However, if vendors could be convinced to start bundling it,
    the % would increase.





    --
    Rick

  20. Re: 72% of companies to upgrade to MS-Office 2007 within 12 months

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:48:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:RMmdnXi_XcpDDG7anZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >
    >
    >> I can't see why many home users need MS Office at all. Works does more
    >> than enough for home users. That's an MS product. And, again, OO.o is
    >> free, so why should most home users pay for MS Office?

    >
    > I can't see why you need a WP at all, what's wrong with vi, nroff, etc.
    > That should be good enough for you to write a few letters to mum.


    I can see you're clueless.

    >
    >
    >>> They may want to upgrade, that is their choice. At a corporate level
    >>> the decision should be based on need and cost and has nothing to do
    >>> with the rants here.

    >>
    >> Cost: $$ for MS Offiec. 0$ for Open Office.

    >
    > Time vs. cash interesting choice, not yours or mine to make.


    What time is that? At a corporate level, maybe not mine to make, true.

    >>
    >>>> OO is about choice 2007 is about MS bottom line.
    >>>
    >>> Its another choice, I know you would rather it wasn't there but that's
    >>> you being stupid.
    >>> How much would OO cost if there wasn't a choice?

    >>
    >> $0. There was a lot of $0 software floating around at the beginnings of
    >> PCs, you know.

    >
    > There was a lot of paid for stuff like uniplex too. You probably don't
    > remember the days when there were real computers.


    You're probably wrong.

    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast