Slashdot Mirror
Time to Kill Microsoft Word?
Allnighterking writes "Apparently the frustration with another Windows Product is starting to reach increasingly visible users. John Dvorak over at ABC News is starting to question if it's time to kill Word With Viable options like Open Office.org available for Windows as well as AbiWord and others. Since they are both using XML as a way to create the documents. Or perhaps dropping a separate application altogether and going with something like X Forms to create a browser based office suite."
Isn't there a kill utility for Windows that'll let you kill -9 Word. That certainly would be handy.
I imagine if there was a "reveal hidden codes" feature in Word, it might be a lot easier to use
If I stop repairing, I get another dialog that says, "The document contains macros. Macro language support for this application is disabled. Features requiring VBA are not available. Would you like to open this document read-only?" Whether I click Yes or Cancel makes absolutely no difference, as there is no document involved! I merely started the program. After bypassing these roadblocks, the program runs fine.
Isn't that the normal.dot file that's causing that? It's kinda funny that Word considers it's own default file as a potential problem.
To paraphrase Principal Skinner:
There's no justice like angry mob justice
Gather the geek masses and lets riot! Next stop. Redmond, WA.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
One thing that Microsoft Word continues to have are some features very useful for the average user.
For example, a Grammar checker. The Word grammar checker isn't perfect, and no professional should use it as a crutch, but it is a nice tool for most people to quickly check for mistakes.
There is continually talk that OO.org will eventually include a Grammar checker module... but I've never seen any evidence of that.
Until OO.org offers such features, I can't imagine them gaining dominance. Anyone migrating will ask "How do I check my grammar (or another basic function)?" And when they're told that they can't... they'll switch back to Word.
Don't get me wrong-- I'm an avid Debian user. But Word is still a better program for the average user.
This statement is solely an opinion. Kindly take it as such in all cases.
NO!
Are you crazy? That piece of software alone will keep me employed for years to come!
Seriously, you lost. YOu didn't get the first post AND you forgot to to post AC. You, my friend, are a 2 time loser.
Am I the only one who noticed the guy's last name, Dvorak, and thought it might be a pen name for a tech writer? If not, it seems that he was destined for his job.
Wow, that clown John Dvorak still around? It's good that he's thumping some Word alternatives but I never trusted that guy. There has been solutions out for a long time and now he's coming out to advocate them? A little too late if you ask me. I think he's just trying to drum up some writing business.
that Microsoft cannot win on file formats alone. In order to sell more office suites, they are going to have to provide better ways of making documents. Clippy and very annoying auto-formtating that never works when you need it to and always kicks in when you don't do not count.
Now what features should be added? Maybe voice recognition/OCR, or automatic translation tools, since we are in the "global economy". If there is anyone with the resources to pull some of this stuff out it's Microsoft, whether or not they have the management and the insight to do it is a whole other can of worms.
Monstar L
First of all, I'd like to say that from what I've read of this man's writing, it's just random words thrown together to almost form a story of some kind.
In PCMag, he has two pages. One where he spends about 3 lines talking about random shit that he doesn't know about. The other page is where he reports on the "new trend" in tech.. Or it would be new. If the article came out 4 months previously.
If I had mod points to use on him, I'd go right for the flamebait.
Now, to his article:
It sounds like he didn't know how to install Word properly.
He goes on to complain about the HTML creation. I don't know what his problem is. If you just "save as" HTML, and do your tagging correctly, there's no problems. But why use WORD to create HTML documents? That's what notepad is for.
His prediction of the death of Word is meaningless. It's carries about the same weight as the claims that BSD is dying (as comfirmed by Netcraft).
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
MS has declared that due to the poisonous, corrupting nature of the Clippit virus, all of MS Word must be wiped. Oh wait ... it's not a virus?
Bored? Visit my exciting counter page!
Any talk about the importance of a single office application really should revolve around the question: "Is there a viable alternative to office?"
The first question any manager will ask when given the OOo option as a replacement for word is if there is an alternative to Excel, Powerpoint, etc. Although OOo does have those options, some of the features, namely creating charts and graphs, do not port well. Just try making a chart in Excel, and open it in OOo. Usually quite an experience.
Although I believe OOo's got a great suite of products, MS does have the upper hand, and until a comparable spreadsheet product is available, I don't see OOo making headway. At least not the way Mozilla is on the IE market.
Fuck you! John C. Dvorak kicks ass! Word is a PIECE OF SHITT!
As nice and progressive as this sounds, the likelihood of a mass migration away from Word is highly unlikely. As an employee at a large tech company I see many daily reports in Powerpoint, Word and Excel. There are thousands upon thousands of these reports archived on network drives. How likely is it that a CEO/CFO/etc.. is going to mandate the transfer of all these documents to OpenOffice/Abiword/Etc.. ?
Where the Music Matters
I don't think I'm alone in saying that the constant battle between the outliner and the autoformatting engine just got to be way too problematic. OpenOffice seems to have been able to come up with a more elegant solution; I, for one, haven't had nearly the frustrating experiences with it as I have with Word.
But I think fundamentally this is another example of why MS is continuing to decline in some key areas: backwards compatibility and entrenched interests within Microsoft itself. The MS Office group is still powerful in Redmond, and the shareholders would also be resistant to such a move: Office has been a cash cow for so long that tinkering with it fundamentally like this would be scary insofar as future revenues are concerned.
So I don't think there is any possible way this will happen in the forseeable future, although for once I think Dvorak is right: it probably should. Word sucks.
(Offtopic: Tool's version of "No Quarter" is fairly nifty.)
Did I read the right article? Where does he advocate OO.o or ABIWord?
I put Lotus SmartSuite on my box in '93 and used 2 versions through '02. OO is now the only way to go.
I was worried about the old Macro virus problem and avoided it by never owning a copy of Word or Office. I have never regretted that decision.
In the last 2 years, getting a programming degree at the local CC, I have to use Word at school. At home, OO opens and edits those documents just fine. I have not been impressed with Word at all, too much fluff (cute by mostly useless 'features'). It seems like a large waste of resources.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Next question.
Hasn't the Emperor already said that the next/next-after-that version of Office will be web based, that is, not a product that you will take home and install on a standalone PC? If I recall, payment will be based on either subscription or actual use (minutes used? value of the document?). The main selling point, according to Mr. Bill, will be the greater ability to collaborate with your co-authors, not to mention eliminating all those nasty install CD's floating around...
My biggest annoyance with the current version is that it keeps reinstalling features, which requires me to reinsert the master disc over and over. I'm not sure if this is a trick to check with Microsoft's database to make sure I'm a registered user or if the program is just stupid.
The reason I switched to Open Office is that I don't like having to register the damn thing everytime I install. And I need to install fairly often, since I like a clean computer and that is the only way to really be sure the spyware, viruses and whatnot are all really gone.
Installing Open Office is way easier, just click an link and it goes. No questions or annoyances. And I dont have to bother actually finding where eactly the CD went to.
And really, as far as features go, I only 10% of them anyway, so if there is a difference between them, I don't notice.
Extraplolating, I can easily see Windows itself being replaced by a future knoptix-like system, just as soon as it runs the latest games.
....when he/she does any of the following:
1. Types in numbers and spaces to make numbered lists instead of using the bullet/number function.
2. Uses spaces and tabs instead of margins, alignment, justification, etc. to format text layout.
3. Uses 57 different font or section styles.
4. Writes a web page, especially ones that use a complicated, eyeball-scarring background image for the body.
5. USES MULTIPLE FONT STYLES AND CAP. LETTERS FOR SECTION HEADERS
Now that's a word processor I'd like to see.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Remember, this is the same John that predicted Apple would switch to the Itanium.
...for me to poop on! I run a small publish business that publishes specialized educational materials for high school students. We put out three large publications, plus two series of publications every school year. We are constantly complaining about Word and how difficult (and silly) the feature sets are to use. NOT to mention automatic formatting which never turns on when I need it but always messes up whatever I am typing. We are running a trial of OpenOffice this year. Our initial reaction is that we love it.
Word will continue to dominate whilst third parties only create plugins for Word.
One of the first questions many people will ask upon seeing OpenOffice is "Okay, now how do I use my plugin X that I paid $200 for? What's that, I can't? I'm going back to Word."
EndNote is just one such example.
Fortunately, many plugins are compensated for (Acrobat writer vs OO.o PDF writer) or just plain obsolete (MathType vs the much superior OO.o Formula editor).
And don't get me started on label printing...
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
His prediction of the death of Word is meaningless. It's carries about the same weight as the claims that BSD is dying (as comfirmed by Netcraft).
Yes, why exactly are we posting this story? Oooooh, someone at ABC News says it's time to kill Word. Done. Also while we're at it, let's stop capitalizing "Internet" since Wired said so. Done. This is so easy! In case you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic.
Well, duh.
Most email has spell-check, html format ability, cut-and-paste almost anything like pictures, etc. Printer-friendly options as well... plus it's faster when I am lazy and don't want to open a new ap-- email account is always open, usually.
I suggest you read Slashdot
The fact is (and this is the only MS product I can say this about) that Word is the best product in its class. All the alternatives blow to a greater or lesser extent.
Although I use LaTeX for the creation of serious documents, and I hate Word in principle, I still find myself firing it up whenever I have to create a document with some low-level formatting. It's simply the easiest and best choice. Surely that's the mark of a useful product -- when you hate it, and yet you still use it.
What I seriously object too, however, are those evil .doc files. While I generally use AntiWord to view Word attachments, and it does a very good job, it is only a matter of time before the format is changed again. It is just criminal that the de facto standard for document propagation is proprietary and closed. I recently got into a fight with a non-techy friend about this. She just couldn't understand why I got all worked up about it.
Firefox should be the "first" browser to full support this.. ..
They are going nuts on it
see the Technology Preview
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.
:)
Wonderfully appropriate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Word has plenty of problems, especially in the realm of lists and numbering (I can never seem to get my lists to number correctly, or consistently, or indent properly, if I'm working on a sufficiently large file). However, the complaint that makes up nearly half of Dvorak's article is his own damned fault. Why? He obviously doesn't understand the Office installer. When you install, you're given several choices for how to install the feature:
It's pretty obvious that Dvorak chose #3 for one or more features that he uses frequently. He can remedy this by re-running the Office setup and choosing to actually install the feature (notice he never says what feature it actually is
His other points are trivial, or have already been addressed.
If Dvorak wants to be taken seriously, he should pick on some of the real problems instead.
If you are using Microsoft Word 97, write:
"I'd like to see Bill Gates dead".
Make sure language is set to English (United States), then check the entire phrase in the Thesaurus to see what comes up.
The reply in the thesaurus is: "I'll drink to that".
As well, there is another one...if you type:
"unable to follow direction"
the Thesaurus shoots back:
"unable to get an erection".
Obviously Microsoft programmers need to have a little fun while working with Bill.
...because I always found it to be painfully frustrating to do anything more complex than what you can do with Wordpad. Plus everything I've heard from publishing experts says Word is more trouble than it's worth. It's not even 100% compatible with itself.
.NET? Will Outlook 2007 take two minutes to start up on a 10GHz machine with 6GB of RAM and crap out with 100MB of message store? I wouldn't be surprised.
I did spend a couple of months with Outlook 2003. Here's what I found.
1. I attempted to import all my e-mail archives. It turns out O2003 loses data once the PST gets past about a gigabyte or a gig and a half. I was told this by two people who have much more experience with MS than I, plus that's exactly what happened to me. This is absurd. How could a product ship like this?! What if I hadn't noticed some missing data or hadn't been told this. MS doesn't seem to care, as long as those tick mark lists on the marketing materials are long.
2. I reimported my data into multiple databases, you know, the kind of stupid thing I thought we were a decade past having to do. Anyhow, O2003 was at least an order of magnitude slower than OE when opening big folders. How could MS's top-of-the-line program be worse than the "lite" version which has been around, essentially unchanged, for 5 years or more. Except for the spam feature, OE was better in almost every way.
Yes, the UI was really nice, and yes, the spam filter worked great without having to train it for 2 months like Thunderbird (which I use now, and I love it!), but on a day-to-day basis it was killing me with 30-second or more waits just to use than damn thing. I'm convinced that MS can't write good apps any more (if they ever could) and Office reached it's peak of usefulness around 7 years ago, with each successive version just adding more bloat, garbage and chrome. They seem to spend more time trying to send business towards Intel (in the form of faster processors) or the memory manufacturers than actually giving us something useful to do work with. For years, MS functionality has been increasing in a linear fashion (with 90% of the features being useful to maybe 5% of users) while system requirements have increased geometrically.
Is this the wonderful future we have thanks to big bloated monstrosities like OLE (whatever they call it now) and
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
How long before this turns into an emacs vs vi debate?
Originally from alt.rants about five years ago..
For reasons which are completely beyond my control, I've spent half a week writing a document in Word 98.
I have never in my life seen, heard of, or even imagined a more malodorous piece of steaming shit than this little slice of Microsoft. Words fail me, and all that follows is the faintest Platonist shadow-on- a-wall of what is, in my heart, the Ideal Peeve, perfect in its sincerity, bottomless in its depth, and unassailable in its accuracy.
This bloated, pestilent gigabyte-swamping piece of ordure takes up enough computational resources to accurately model the world's weather for the next billion years, and what do you get for it? Something that will format and display text? Don't make me fucking laugh. What you do get is a profusion of bells and whistles thrown in a careless heap, each bauble lovingly designed to make the straight path crooked, the intuitive arcane, the simple impossible.
Take the ``Help'' for example. It's not just help, it's a new friend!
I don't want a new friend, you shit-slurping choad-munching bunch of retards; I've all too many as it is. What I want is something simple where I can find a technical detail with a minimum of fuss and interruption. I don't want animation. I don't want natural-language interpretation. I don't want to be led by the fucking nose. Give me a fucking index and get the hell out of my damn face. If I dismiss a window, I want it gone. I don't want it to wave goodbye, or hesitate, or sneeze. I want it gone.
The document I was working on was very simple. No images, no tables, no nothing. One font, one style, that's it. It would be perfectly simple in other system, even earlier versions of Word, but, oh no, not in this latest magnum opus of the word processing world.
This helpless, hapless, hopeless, buggy piece of offal insisted on changing my fonts every couple of minutes for no reason. Random chunks of text, at random times. And bullet points, don't talk to me about fucking bullet points. It's a little known fact that in the bullet-point mode of Word 98 every single button on every single toolbar is the ``Fuck Me Over Now'' button. I've got bullet points going left, I've got 'em going right, and down and up, I've got 'em changing indentation, and style, you name it.
You'd think in 20 or so megabytes of RAM there'd be room for one scenario in which it doesn't actively do anything wrong, but for that you'll have to wait for Word 2023, which will have a user interface like a retarded version of ``I have no mouth, and I must scream.''
And don't try telling me that one need only configure the options to avoid these problems; I'm not a fucking moron. I quickly configured the preferences so as to minimize all this bullshit, at which point Word promptly changed them back. Lather, rinse, repeat. If you don't want fast saves, then fuck off, you're gunna have 'em. Don't want your grammar constantly corrected by some shitty little subprogram that doesn't know the first goddamn thing about grammar? Tough shit. Empty your wallet and move off to the side.
How did this come about? It can't be incompetence, at least not the usual mundane sort one is constantly immersed in simply by having to share a planet with a bunch of fucking primates. This is either some transcendent type of incompetence, or active malevolence.
My money's on malevolence. This software was obviously created by a company who's motto is ``We're Microsoft, and you, the customer, aren't worth fuck to us.'' It matters not one iota what their official motto is, watch the hands, not the mouth. Well, Microsoft, your time will come. It may not be Linux that does you in, it may not be the DoJ, it may not be this decade, but you're going to go the way of the dodo, and I for one will cavort naked on your grave, pissing effusively on your memory, and screaming, ``Animate this, you bastards!'' to the sky.
But in the here-and-now, I shall finish this document with the quiet dignity with which I have always comported myself, and then I shall un-install Word, and swear a terrible oath that I would rather daub dung on paper with a stick than write a document using a Microsoft product.
http://www.weird.com/~woods/ms-word.sucks.html
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
I have, as user German MS Word problems haved. The problems of lack of support sent me off away the Word because not supported and inferior. In fact, troubles gave me by the Word were so great that I switched to Open Office as soon as heard about. I have been used by it since day 1.
Read journal when you are not understand
My computer came with a 60 day version of woffice installed. I dont use it I actually deleted the shortcuts out of my menu. But whenever I sync Docs to go on my palm evry document it syncs makes it trigger asking to provide the activation code.
Why cant office be nice and go away.
Reguarding MS Word itself... I've worked with word for about 10 years now. In the time I've recieved 2 documents that *required* anything better than a text editor to get their point across.
.doc file.
They were both bitmap files embeded in a word
I also recieve the bulk of these files as attachments to e-mail. (cut to exploding head)
This program will eventually lose marketshare, and this has happened before. Remember WordPerfect? And the biggest flaw with Microsoft Office series of applications is that they are buggy and bloated. They also increase vulnerability to virus infections.
The biggest and best reason that Microsoft Office is doomed is of course the price. Office XP Professional, purchased new, costs $579. StarOffice 6 is $75.95. Prices are in US dollars. I am most definately not seeing $500 worth of greater functionality from MS Office over StarOffice.
I'm all for seeing Word die a horrible, painful death, but let look at the source for this article. John Dvorak made a living for a good portion of the late eighties and nineties predicting the demise of Apple. I'm not sure his prediction that Word is on its way out means a thing.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
I just want to crank out a quick letter or memo. I doubt I'm far removed from the typical word user who could give a rats about XML.
Umm... as far as I've seen Gnumeric is the best spreadsheet program out there and about 2 or 3 generations ahead of Excel.
Which reminds me, ever tried to open a Gnumeric spreadsheet in Excel or an OOo document in Word? As you said, quite an experience...
All's true that is mistrusted
OO has done a dandy job opening most of my MS Word and Excel documents. I think I've had one Word document where a single tab was off. Of course I don't do anything too fancy in Excel, so there's a good chance that might not be as compatible as I think.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
I'm all for getting apps into web browsers. System administration is a breeze. It turns any computer into a thin client. And if the apps are written with good standards then the users can use whatever hardware / OS they're most comfortable with.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
StarOffice is downloadable for free (not evaluation) to those affiliated with educational institutions. It takes a bit of navigation around the sun site but for students like myself it isnt a bad deal.
Average crack user, maybe.
Did you read Dvorak's article? He had a laundry list of stupid features and plaid bugs that made the program difficult to use. From the usual format insanity and inability to do so much as ASCI, to new, confounding bugs and dialog boxes no user should suffer through. His biggest complaint was from malfunctioning VBA, which was proably a virus or worm (also something that's been around Work for ever). The "average" user should never be pestered by scripting. The average person's editor should have a few common options that just work.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"browser based office suite"
Why does everyone want to push more and more into the browser. Granted xforms is better than what we currently have, but when did we decide to forgo desktop apps?
<half joking>Are programmers so lazy now that they are only willing/able to write webapps?</half joking>
I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The web is good at a lot of things. Some things, like word processors, (IMHO) it is not suited for. Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Well...DUH. ASCII isn't an obfuscated file format. Where would be the leverage in letting people easily create plain text files? You've got to erect barriers-to-exit, genius.
You'd think that Dvorak wouldn't be naive after so many years an an "industry pundit".
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I think the problem might be that he wants to use Word for just about everything. Half the time, Notepad is the answer.
waht am i to do wihtuot teh speling nd grammer chekc?
John Dvorak over at ABC News is starting to question if it's time to kill Word With Viable options like Open Office.org available for Windows as well as AbiWord and others. Since they are both using XML as a way to create the documents. Or perhaps dropping a separate application altogether and going with something like X Forms to create a browser based office suite.
I'm really confused. Is this summary in English?
First of all, the article doesn't actually mention openoffice.org or AbiWord at all.
However, I can't figure out if the person writing the summary was trying to say that or not, because the word "With" is capitalized, but there's no period after "...kill Word[.]"
The rest of the summary doesn't contain a single valid sentence.
I'm not trying to nitpick about grammar here -- I'd honestly like to know what the person writing the summary was trying to say, because it really has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.
I mean, really. How can you kill software?
Maybe: killall microsoft-word -KILL
Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way (OOOHHHhhh how I wish it did though :)
I also used a great word processor called 'Q&A Write for Windows 2.0' for a number of years which (IMHO) was much better than the early versions of Word for Windows. Anyone else remember these or other popular alternatives to Word?
Something is wrong with Word, as currently installed on Dvorak's computer. He would rather describe the symptoms in detail than fix it by, say, reinstalling Word. Direct quote: "I suppose I should reinstall Word, but other people have told me they have the same problems. So why bother?" Is Word really any worse than any other Microsoft applications under Windows? Don't they all suffer from Registry rot?
Various versions of Word aren't 100% compatible. Dvorak and some editors tried to use the change-tracking markup, and "we had a huge mess." What was this mess? He didn't specify.
He doesn't like the warning when you save to an older .DOC file format.
HTML files created by Word are full of useless junk. (Absolutely true, of course.) He says something hand-waving-ish about if the HTML is bad, the XML is probably bad, so he's never tried the XML. (If I write about how I've never tried something, can I be a famous pundit too?)
When you save a plain text file, there are too many options in the dialog box.
Based on his conclusions, Dvorak (who is not a software developer himself) has figured out that the Word code base (which he has never seen) should be scrapped. Quote: "There are many more issues than these. It's clear the program is in decline, with too many patches and teams of coders passing in the night. It's about time that it's junked and we get something new. This code can no longer be fixed." How the heck is he qualified to judge whether the code can any longer be fixed?
As it happens, I agree that Word ought to get a major overhaul. Instead of pasting more layers of features onto Word, Microsoft ought to spend a bunch of man-years cleaning it up and making it faster. They won't, because that is not considered a profitable approach. (They actually tried something like this once. Eventually, they terminated that project, and just made the Windows code base the baseline for all future versions of Word. I didn't work on that project, but I heard that it was just taking too long and costing too much to clean it up, and people were worried about how long it might take to debug the final result.)
If Dvorak had wanted to do some actual research, and write an essay that would actually be of some value, he could have installed OpenOffice and tested its compatibility with his documents, and then written about that. This essay is awfully light on facts; I think he must have about 20 columns to write every month, and he just needed to bang something out to meet a deadline. (Note that I have no proof and did no research before making that statement. Just like Dvorak! But no one is paying me anything to write this, so I don't feel too bad.)
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I wish you work for me and write my program documentations ....
- People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...
But why use WORD to create HTML documents? That's what notepad is for.
Notepad has a serious size limit. It's ok for a couple pages, but falls flat when doing a full document. There is just too much stuff that notepad can't open because it's too large. I quickly move on to other text based editors.
The truth shall set you free!
Yeah, it's a buzzword. Get over it. There is a theory that while people use only 10% of the features of applications such as Word, they each use a different 10%. This seems to be true because there aren't really a lot of examples of applications that lose features because they aren't used.
So in order to reach everybody - to give everybody what they want, you've got to have a very feature-rich application. When you don't have that what you'll get is people who are willing to make the switch because the missing features are either peripheral for them (I think I used the grammer checker twice - I'm much better at checking my own grammar than Word is), or that they never use (I never use the VBScript in Word, for instance), or they're willing to give it up because they're both honest and unwilling to pay $500 for a text editor.
A good compromise, I think, is to do those features that are easy to program after you build an initial editor - things like word counts, reading level checks (there are canned algorithms for this), spell checking, output writers, etc.
I would not include a syntax checker on this list. That means classifying every word in our language based upon part of speech and doing some context-based searches to figure out ambiguous words.
If you actually stick with basic functions (meaning functions that are less than 500 lines of code long), I think you'll be quite happy with OO.org. I am.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
If only it were that easy. But, it's not. For whatever reason, every version of Office since 2000 (and I've installed these more times than I care to count) requires access to the installation medium the first time each separate application is run and the first time certain features are used, even if you tell the installer to install everything onto hard disk.
If you know a way to make this problem stop, please do tell me (but don't just say "well you must not have told the installer to install onto the disk", because I did).
All's true that is mistrusted
If you can come down to my office and teach half a dozen secretarys how to use ANYTHING else I'll be more than happy to jump onboard the "get rid of Word" bandwagon.
Fact is, that's not going to happen.
So, what you're faced with is trying to make the "it will save us money" argument. However, the people who save the money traditionally aren't the ones who have to pay the price. (in this case learning new software).
Sorry, but the save money argument holds no water unless the folks who are going to benefit from said savings are also the same people who have to pay the price of learning how to use new software. Until then, Word works just like it has for years, and papers get written.
No one is as much of a pain in the ass as a user who is forced to use software they don't want to use. Forcing users onto systems they hate isn't a good way to convince people to switch.
Most companies are already archiving those as Portable Document Format (pdf) files. This preserves print format much better than Word ever did. IBM would be happy to show you how and yes, you can search the text.
If your company was dumb enough to archive things in Word format and is not looking for reliable methods to get the information out, you might as well throw the things away. New Word itself has a hard time opening older Word documents, especially "complicated" ones with OLE from visio and other programs that your company might not have anymore.
Hopefully, people will learn and use reasonable text editors and type setters for future work.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I've suffered more frustration at the hands of Microsoft Office than I care to remember, but I'm still not seeing OO.o as a viable alternative--mainly because it's soooo frigging sloooooow. I have Win2k installed under VMware for the sole purpose of running Excel 95: it takes OO.o about 8x as long to load my ~4MB finance spreadsheet as Excel, and every time I try to make a change in OO.o the thing locks up for about 20 seconds(!).
I'm very much in favor of open source beating MSOffice, but it looks to me like the developers still need to do something about that "we write what we want, not what you want" mentality.
I have a client who has been having intermittent problems with Word2002, namely "abnormal termination" errors. Crash, boom, bang.
/a" -- a word processor with a "safe mode"?), installed the support and troubleshooting document templates, turned off NAV Office virus checking (as per the MS KB article 320475).
.DOC files. I would switch these users to something better, if only there was a clearly superior product on the market. As much as Word sucks, it's become a de facto standard. There's no competition anymore, and I wonder if this situation means that there's no incentive to make this a stable product. I wonder who is in charge of product development in Redmond: engineers or marketdroids? Do I really need the ability to make Word my default HTML editor? Do I really need to know my Fleisch score? Clippy? Hello? Is anyone home?
I've done everything: deleted "NORMAL.DOT" (which had bloated to 710KB), scanned for macro viruses, did a repair install, did an uninstall and a clean re-install, applied all three service packs (service packs for a word processor?), started it up in safe mode ("winword.exe
And still it mocks me.
I'm starting to look at the OS and the network at this point, but none of the other applications have crashed, and both the computers and network are new (under a year old, mostly Dells running XP Pro). The users don't do anything fancy with Word, no pictures, no embedded objects, just plain vanilla legal documents (it's a law office, so I'm thinking that maybe there's a karma thing happening).
I've met every challenge that administration has thrown at me, but the solution for this one has eluded me for a month now. The users are getting impatient and they aren't taking "Well, it is a Microsoft product" for an excuse. Nor do I for that matter. I can't blame Redmond, even though their products are starting to remind me of the US automotive industry back in the 1970s: big, inefficient, prone to crashing, waiting for a nimble competitor (Japan) to eat their lunch.
The automobile:software analogy breaks down, of course. When you bought a Toyota to replace your Ford you didn't have to migrate anything but the contents of your glove compartment and your trunk, not a year's worth of
Just give me a goddamned word processor that doesn't throw a runtime error and my users and I will be happy. Or I swear to God I'll kill this puppy.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Seriously, all the managers sit around making PP presentations and they have Clippy to help them get it done. They have all the spiffy canned art to make it look slick. They even can make it talk with Agent characters so the bored victims will have something to laugh at.
/dev/null if it reaches me!
Where is creativity in word processing? Certainly not in m$word because it is still a pile and has always been inferior to WordPerfect. But these days most communication is done via e-mail.
That means that talented communicators will express themselves with only text. Un-talented people will resort to HTML or RTF to try to get their point across. Comes across usually to
If you want to know how badly bloated Word is, check out this unbelievable screen shot.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
And don't forget Notepad!
A couple years back, a professor of mine gave a talk entitled 'Is Microsoft Word Inherently Evil?' in which he outlined why the assumption of peoples' use of MS Word creates problems and what we can do about it. It's probably nothing that most /.'ers don't already know, but he presented this at an instructional technology fair for faculty and staff, so he's helping to make the issues known outside the Computer Science populace.
I think we are all ready to move to OO.org, however, they really need to improve their embedded help, making it a little easier to find things.
Also, OO.org, and probably star office needs to allow the settings for new pages to stay the same. I:m tired of adjusting my margins for every page I create.
...::----::...
I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
... but the main reason I use Word over OO is startup speed - when I click on the Word icon, it's up and running in less than a second. OO takes what, four or five seconds? Ridiculous, I know, but that's pretty much the only reason I stick to Word. I like the integration with the rest of the office suite, sure, but I'm also familiar with Office, having used it for the past ten years or so, and would much rather stick to something I know rather than spend the time and effort to switch to something that might not be around in a year. Microsoft products might be expensive, but the company's not going anywhere.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Bullshit. Stop using Win9x. Notepad on NT has always been able to handle large files. Notepad on win3.x had something like a 64K limit. Win95's notepad had the same problem, and so I would assume win98 and winme did as well (don't have any of those hanging around to check, though I wouldn't be surprised if that was changed in later versions of win9x). It's never had that limitation on an NT-based OS.
Notepad does suffer for lack of features, but it does what it's supposed to do -- it's a simple, lightweight text editor. If you need more power in your text editing, install Vim, emacs, EditPad, TextPad, or one of the many other more fully-featured free and not-so-free text editors available for the win32 platform.
surviving in a word world:
When installing word or any office program ALWAYS run a "custom" installation and get to the screen with all the grey boxes that turn white when selected for installation. Select the top-most box and click "run from installed location". All the lower boxes should turn white - that means they will all be installed on the HD.
After the installation is complete, the installer will ask if you want to delete the installation files or leave them on the hard disk. LEAVE THE FILES ON THE DISK. While this only applies to Office 2003, it does make patching or servicing the installation later a breeze.
-ted
And very very true
Look, I love competition as much as the next guy, but there is currently nothing out there (that I've seen at least) that comes close to what MS Office can offer. I really didn't want to shell out the cash for Office last year, so I tried to use OO.o, and after all the headaches of trying to make every Impress presentation work, trying to get text to format correctly in Writer, or trying to make a semi-decent chart in Calc, I just called it quits and bought MS Office. It just works for me, even better when I turn auto-formatting off.
I'm not doubting that some people use MS Office because they're mindless sheep, but we have to admit that a lot of people use Office because it is truly a superior product. Windows may not be, but Office sure as hell is.
I've seen all of the browser-based office suite talk lately, and can't help wondering where everything is to be saved. Save it on a centralized group of servers? What keeps me from grabbing every bit of pr0n that I want and sticking it in a document file? I guess you could limit file size, but when my friend loses her ten year long journal because it's more than ten megs, she'll be pissed. Yeah, everyone could save their documents and stuff on their own computer, but when they go to Cousin Bob's house for the summer, they'll have to leave their computer on, (because we all know nobody leaves their computer on all of the time). Yeah, stick it on a thumbdrive/cd/flippy, but in that case you had just as well take your copy of OO.o right along it's side! Online apps seem like a great idea in the sense of multiple computers, but getting the _output_ from one place to another is an issue too.
Is this the same John Dvorak that used to (still does?) work for PC Magazine, circa 1996 or so? I recall the PC Magazine Dvorak has gotten quite a few people to write him off as a complete idiot, both here on slashdot, as well as within the Windows world.
:)
If he's not working for PC Magazine anymore, and is indeed this ABC News guy, it's possible that PC Magazine thought so as well.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
A friend of mine with an LCD screen had trouble with the fonts and although his desktop was nicely anti-aliased Open Office stubborny refused to show anti-aliased fonts.
Searching OpenOffice.org revealed this:
The issue has been classified as "an enhancement", has 3 votes and thus won't be fixed anytime soon!
I suppose everyone running OO on Linux (except for those three persons) is using a traditional monitor and couldn't care less about sub-pixel hinting.
The owls are not what they seem
Not until there's clippy for Open Office. How else would I know when I'm writing a letter?
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Word's on-the-fly "auto-formatter" will detect when the user does your 1. and 2., and will convert the text into appropriate formatting.
3. through 5. would require that they replace "Clippy" with "Cujo" or perhaps "Ted" (as in "Bundy").
Actually, bad jokes aside, a really styles-driven word processor would force people to make decent-looking documents, if they would actually use such a word processor. Take a look at Yeah Write.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
He appears to think that Word boots up. Wrong, it executes. He has a buggy installation of Word that he'd rather write about than fix.
Yeah, he's gonna make a terrific tech writer.
How about a development platform that smacks a word processor designer in the head when they design features that do things without being asked (such as automatically making lists when none are wanted, auto-indenting, etc.)? I'd pay for that.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
yes.
FP? You mean Failed Profoundly?
;)
Dude, I've seen so many massive screwups today - some dweebus knocked his lunch tray and coke into his lap with his elbow...some hotshot struttin around like a tough guy tripped on uneven sidewalk and fell on his face...this is icing on the cake!
Ok, we need a cherry......got it!...... the GNAA weenie gets signed up for hourly pornvertisments, g'day
The real path to male liberation
After: You're fucking wonderfully.
skribe
Blog
Notice how "Time to kill Microsoft Word" and "Time to kill a Mocking Bird" sound somewhat alike.
Because notepad is too hard for Mr. Dvor-crack. I've been reading his articles from time to time for over 5 years, the guy should have been out of a job awhile ago
Am I the only one trying to figure out how you would implement a word processor using X Forms? Would it be like "ed" but where you submit each line to a cgi script?
DCMonkey
Notepad has a serious size limit.
In Win98, not Win2000.
I have to wonder about all of those features in word processors. When I'm writing (books, articles, whatever) I tend to write in plain text (kedit, gedit, kwrite) and only bother with 'professional' formating when the text is completed. At that point I usually drop it into AbiWord or OpenOffice and do whatever I need to do with it - which usually isn't very much, just double-spacing, page numbering, the addition of name/article tag at the top, etc. I certainly don't need, nor can see a use for, 95% of the so-called features of most word processors.
Unless you're using them to distract the reader from the fact that you can't actually write. Then it all begins to make sense....
But really: you can write an entire book, complete with footnotes, endnotes, appendices, glossaries, whatever with just about any word processor out there, and make it all print nice and pretty if that's what you need. Most of the features seem to be fluff or ways to divert the boss's attention from the fact that you flunked high school English.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
That would be Notepad on Win95/98. Notepad on Win2K/XP does not have that 32K-character limit.
But, really, Notepad just sucks. Other text editors, including UltraEdit and TextPad, just rock.
Maybe Slashdot could include this feature for people who don't use the OL tag to make ordered lists. ;-)
irb(main):001:0>
In India M$ is hiring software engineers like mad. they are working on the office suite in local languages and for the pocket pc. open source guys will sure take time to catch up!
Smashing title! Yes, it's time to kill Microsoft. Word.
Oh, wait..
Kill Microsoft Word
.doc file as an e-mail attachment. I click on it and Word boots. Then I'm told I need to add a feature to read the file. It's always the same feature, apparently. I say Yes to adding the feature. It installs it, then loads the file from the e-mail. The next time I click on the e-mail, the same thing happens, and so on. Obviously the feature is never actually added.
.doc format. .doc formats or .rtf seldom gets perfect results. I'm always amused by the warning that things will change if I save in some format or other, yet after the save absolutely nothing has changed.
Why the Popular Word Processing Program Should Be Scrapped
Commentary
By John C. Dvorak
PC Magazine
Aug. 24, 2004
-- When is the last time anyone talked about Microsoft Word? Here's a program on its last legs that should probably be discarded and rethought completely. It has become a kludge. This is apparent with the latest version in Office 2003.
Let me start out with a couple of my current complaints. My biggest annoyance with the current version is that it keeps reinstalling features, which requires me to reinsert the master disc over and over. I'm not sure if this is a trick to check with Microsoft's database to make sure I'm a registered user or if the program is just stupid.
Here's the scenario. I get a
While that was an eye-roller, within six months a more ominous error cropped up. Now when I start Word I get a message saying, "An error occurred and this feature is no longer functioning properly. Would you like to repair this feature now?" It never says what feature it wants to repair. I click Yes and it asks for the disc, and then it repairs the feature -- at least until the next time I start Word, when I get the same message.
If I stop repairing, I get another dialog that says, "The document contains macros. Macro language support for this application is disabled. Features requiring VBA are not available. Would you like to open this document read-only?" Whether I click Yes or Cancel makes absolutely no difference, as there is no document involved! I merely started the program. After bypassing these roadblocks, the program runs fine.
I suppose I should reinstall Word, but other people have told me they have the same problems. So why bother?
Messy Markups
My irritation with Word began last year when we were finishing Online! The Book for Prentice-Hall. The editing required a lot of markups using Word, since the publisher seemed enamored with Word's markup capability, whereby you can track changes. This was great, except that between the various versions of Windows (Word 97, Word 2000, Word XP, Word 2003, and a couple of Mac versions) used by the authors and editors, we had a huge mess.
This was laughable -- actually, a nightmare. I concluded that the program is out of control and needs to be scrapped. Users should all be given some new program for an upgrade charge of $10 -- just to get everyone on the same page.
Meanwhile, let's not forget the historical issues with Word. Let's list a few.
Previous Problems
The ever-changing
Even saving to older
Dubious HTML creation.
How hard is it for Word to create a simple brain-dead HTML file without embedding a ton of junk? It can't seem to handle any moderate formatting either. The newest version can create some sort of XML file too, but for what purpose I have no idea. Because its HTML creation is so poor, though, why would I trust it to do anything fancier?
Plain-text conundrum.
Users of plain-text editors know that Microsoft has never been able to get Word to generate a simple ASCII file without issues. First, there is no option to create a plain ASCII file. Instead, we can create a variety of so-called "plain text" files, none of which seem to be plain text.
End of the Line?
With the newest version of Word, when you want to save plain text you get a d
Nah, the user should have half a brain and at least scan over the manual so they learn how easy it is to turn the feature off in the first place....bunch of whining babies....I don't know how to do something...it must be SOMEONE ELSES fault!!
I use VBA to automatically create very complex reports. Perhaps this is not the best way since it tends to be slow but I have so much control over the placement of constructs especially tables, text, pictures, page breaks, etc.
... I've never really heard of anyone pushing Word that hard. It certainly doesn't seem to be designed for this kind of work. The programming is awkward. It may be possible to encode my documents in HTML/XML and then send them to Word - very definitive regarding data organization - but how do I specify page breaks? With Word I can query for the results of automatic formatting and in a "second pass" give extra instructions to perfect the formatting - not exactly available with HTML as it would have to be perfect at first specification.
...). I don't like being tied to a technology that can change at the whims of Redmond, but the power! The power!
Does anyone else achieve a like objective but not using Word? What I see is what I print - that is definitely a feature I utilize to the fullest advantage. I've always wondered about the possibilities of Crystal Reports, but never had any way of trying the software. I'm going back to look for an evaluation version, but I fear two things:
(a) inhibited features in an evaluation version
(b) Word offers me all the power I need in terms of programmabile control but will Crystal Reports give me that much control. I'd hate to make a major effort only to come up against a major weakness that requires major hacking or re-planning.
One day I may end up using TeX or LaTeX. I used to write TeX and LaTeX by hand, but how can anyone turn away from the allure of Word's ability to let me compose pages without code?
Programming VBA to control Word is a far cry from TeX code. TeX code is far more definitive. Word code can sometimes be tricky - there are times when I had to really wonder why Word just wouldn't display the page the way I specified in the program. There seeemed to be an incompatibility with certain video card drivers - a problem that fortunately had a programmatic solution. However, TeX to DVI was never 100% guaranteed either, and when I tried DVI generation in Linux I found some strangenesses.
I wonder if my usage of Word is all that reasonable in the eyes of other users
Thus, I say Word is really a powerful tool but so deeply proprietary to Microsoft! Are there open source tools that give the same power? Most people use Word to write documents manually. I generate documents automatically but use poor man's formatting by controlling Word. I can, with a lot of code, produce pages with proper formatting (perhaps Perl
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Unless you want an HTML document that looks EXACTLY like your Word document. Fonts. Spacing. Whitespace. The whole nine yards.
:|
Word98 for the Mac wrote out font tags and break tags and paragraph tags and stuff- you could clean it up and make it useable for CSS or some such in short order.
The current Word html converter writes out the fucking style-sheet inline... making for a nasty, hugely bloated and nigh-unuseable MESS. Easier to just cut and paste into a CMS and go through and manually add your italics and bold and what have you.
Don't shoot in all directions at the same time. We have not finished with Internet Explorer. IE is only (painfully) dying, but not dead. Once the IE threat will have disapeared, it will be time to choose the next target: Word or Windows. And against Word, OO has still not enough firepower.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Burn!
> Time to Kill Microsoft Word?
No, it's time to kill Microsoft. Really... the MS Corp. sucks out loud and they need to be done away with.
. . . overworked.
As another helpdesk slave, I must say that we can stand to lose MS Offie. Windows XP and IE are all the job security we need.
Bullshit. Stop using Win9x. Notepad on NT has always been able to handle large files.
Ya got me. I stopped the upgrade treadmill at WIN98SE then moved to Linux. I wasn't going to spend more $$$ on MS and I'm not going to pirate it. I didn't know notepad was fixed in newer versions. I haven't tried it. It's not a good reason to spend a couple hundred dollars on an OS upgrade when a 3rd party text editor works fine.
My old laptop uses EDO memory and has a 72 MEG limit. There is no reason install a larger OS to provide less memory for applications. It's primarly used for GPS map applications and MIDI. It has the MPU-401 port that many new machines omit. It has real RS232 and Centronics ports to interface with my favorite projects. The only things it lacks are a USB port and room for more memory.
Maybe it's time to buy a newer laptop. When I do, it probably won't have MS software, so I'll still keep the old machine with it's obsolete OS for the GPS and MIDI.
The truth shall set you free!
Not to be picky or anything.
FWIW, XForms is more aiming at the level of capturing the intent of a data collection form, not writing full-blown office suites.
Follow the link for an interactive in-browser tutorial, and judge for yourself. -m
--- Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
Only when they allow CSS to make them look nice...;^)
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
you don't use spreadsheets for safety related calculations.
Now, admittedly there is a reasonable argument that says you shouldn't use spreadsheets for calculations that mey have legal repercussions, but that is a separate issue.
Typically to get a working spreadsheet built and validated would take the thick end of two weeks, say 60 hours.
Now, at a charge out rate of $150 ph, that means it represents $9000 of time. If we import the same thing into OO and have to check it out and rebuild the broken bits, that's probably $2000 of lost time.
Plus, we don't know how to write macros in OO. So many of our spreadsheets wouldn't run.
And I somehow doubt that the company I work for pays $579 for Office.
A nice idea, if you want to smack roughly an 80% of the student population to death.
The web is good at a lot of things. Some things, like word processors, (IMHO) it is not suited for.
But the web is great for collecting all sorts of data from all sorts of places. If you want to collect data on what people are writing, then what better way than to put the word processor on a server?
Read, L
Now I can't trust you anymore.
There is a misconception about Word's Save as HTML function. It isn't there to generate (clean) HTML.
It is there to save your document in a format that can (somewhat) be read by a browser, but more importantly, that can be read by Word. I found this out when I managed to corner a MicroSerf "evangelist" (or whatever the fark they call their sales/tech dweebs) and ask him what the #$@ SA-HTML was supposed to do.
He told me the extra garbage they embed in the file is for Word's benefit, so it can recreate the document in all its bloated glory if you load the HTML file back into Word.
Let's take a look at a "Hello World" doc, shall we? (spaces added to deal with crak-smoking---sorry---'leet filter/editor)
Note that only a tiny bit of the document is concerned with rendering "Hello world." The rest deals with preserving document styles and properties--stuff you'd find under the "File, Properties" dialog.
Yeah, right.
Oh come on guys! You still listen to this bozo?
Almost every scenario he's painted sounds like a bad script for new star trek episodes. An improvement perhaps?
But seriously, MS's apps folks seem quaintly unaware of anything smacking of 20th century engineering, and
I'm pretty certain that is the butt of many a joke amidst the systems/OS community in their cult...
Wait a minute, I made an out by one joke there somewhere...
Why not just kill micro$oft instead ?
Did anybody else read the headline for this story and see visions of Gregory Peck starring in "To Kill a MicroWord"? ...
Just me, huh.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
My main hope right now is that all the office suites other than MS Office will standardize to the OOo XML format. That means OOo, KOffice, AbiWord, SoftMaker and WordPerfect should all adopt OOo XML as their default save format. Then we would have real choice and no format lock-in.
Not only am I glad to see a luminary finally give MS the trashing it has long deserved, but the problems he mentions have been in the product for at least 3 years.
Now, if we can just get the Feds to stop using it, or at least stop requiring vendors to use it Word will die a nice quick (relatively) death.
Notepad is essentially a menu and window frame around a basic Windows multiline Edit Control.
In the DOS based Windows (95, 98, and Me), the maximum text that can be entered in such a control is 32K (signed 16 bit int).
In the NT based Windows, the edit control can handle 2GB of text (signed 32 bit int).
So NT/2K/XP Notepad actually does have a limit, but the odds are against you hitting it.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Can Mozilla and OOo be integrated? Then you'd have a pretty cohesive office suite with email and browsing included.
Seriously, this guy is not doing any good for himself (as a self-proclaimed "expert") by disclosing that he's been struggling for half a year with the problem that could have been solved by a 15 minute call to MS Support.
I at least hope it has a kill -9 me
Clippy: It looks to me like you're trying to write a list...
...no other program so far (and yes, I mean OpenOffice.org, too) does not even come close in speed and usability to Microsoft Word. I am sorry to admit that, and I try to avoid using Microsoft stuff as much as possible, but so far I can't imagine my life without Word.
I am a scientist, not a professional hacker, and mainly use Word for writing (chemical) papers.
While Word indeed has some annoying features (Office Assistant and "personalized menus" in the Windows version, Autocorrect in both windows and Mac versions, "antipiracy" checking on Mac), they can easily be killed. Properly configured Word is reasonably fast (on both Mac and Windows), annoyance-free, and has all the features I want.
For example, install ChemDraw (a de-facto standard chemical graphics package), draw a structure, and paste it in OpenOffice and in Word. Then double click it. Word preserves the structure intact, and it can be post-edited in ChemDraw. Not so in OpenOffice! It converts the .cdx object to a useless picture, which makes me store and track more files!
In addition, such features as tables, multi-column text, and foot/end notes are implemented almost flawlessly in Word. Not so in OpenOffice. Just try to grab a .pdf of any paper from, say, pubs.acs.org , and try to duplicate the formatting in OpenOffice.org. Good luck! Trust me, I have tried it - and got terrible results. The only two programs that succeed for me are Word (in its various incarnations from 2000/Windows to 2004/Mac), and LyX.
My affair with OpenOffice.org has started and ended tragically twice, and I am not entering that boat again. The first time I tried installing it (under Red Hat 8) was around the times of version 1.02, if I am not mistaken. What was immediately evident to me is that the program was sluggish (on a P4 mobile 2.4GHz laptop with 512M RAM). The disaster stroke me on the third day of using it. That day I have been working on a long document and saved it in the native OpenOffice format before going home. And when I tried to open it later that night, it won't open! OpenOffice corrupted the document while saving it, and nothing could be done to restore the whole day of work (and the document was due next day!). What added insult to injury was that no error message has been displayed when saving the document. The program did not crash. It just killed my document.
The second time I have tried installing OpenOffice was on my girlfriend's Fedora Core 2 laptop about a month ago. This time, the gremlins stole the ability of OpenOffice to write good .pdf files. The .pdf save feature worked the first 3 times. After that, the .pdfs were still being produced, but they were containing only gibberish. I was amazed - mainly by the fact that this impressive feat of self-destructive programming has been achieved on registry-less Linux. Bravo!
Needless to say, since then I have bought Crossover from Codeweavers and have been using my trusty Office 2000 on all my Linux machines.
As for other alternatives, don't even get me started. I still remember with horror the first time I tried to compile Abiword (I think, 0.96 at the time). That was on my SGI Octane with Irix 6.5. Abiword would not compile with SGI's native cc - there was just too much gcc specific... "features" in the code, and SGI's compiler was correctly treating all this "exxtreme programming" crap as bugs (no, I am not making this up). So gave up and compiled it with gcc. The resulting executable was showing the splash screen and immediately dumping core. I have investigated this behavior (took about half an hour with Google) and found out that is a known problem. Finally I got it to run from shell with a command line option to turn off splash. Great. I was happy. Until the moment I tried to actually edit text. Typing was fine, but Abiword dumped core as soon as I tried to switch font. Well, at this point I gave up, and I don't think I am to blame here. A week ago I've be
The best article I have read that summarizes what word got wrong is http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html.
The gyst is that Word, and all word-processors, confuse the distinct tasks of preparing your text logically, and laying it out. This leads to the standard situation that frustrates me when I have to use Word: I am entering text, when I see that it won't fit on a page, so I stop thinking about my text to change paragraph formatting and then, oh, where was I? Later I'll change the text, and probably want to change the paragraph formatting back, but won't be able to remember what it was before. Now my document is inconsistently laid out.
Implementations may vary. Word is often slated as being particularly obnoxious, changing formatting of its own volition. However, the conflation of distinct tasks is a conceptual error of all word-processors.
The alternative suggested by the article, LaTeX, is undoubtedly not to everyone's taste either, but at least if you read the article, you will understand the deeper reason Word is frustrating.
not_cub
q='echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"';s=\';b=\\;echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"
And, let's face it, OpenOffice's version of Clippy really sucks.
It's come so far. Remember the original StarOffice "desktop"? With some serious usability improvements, OpenOffice really could displace Word.
...isnt there a grammar checking module available already? in OOo 1.1.2 (or even earlier) you can download it within the program. OOoDict...that is the keyword, isnt it? AFAIK I am not only using a grammar checker, also thesaurus. granted, it may not that easy to install as it is in MS Word...because you have to download it first and configure a bit...
Once upon a time, I was a young(er) programmer who saw the creations coming out of Wirth's group at ETH.
/bold /unbold /deeplymeaningfulbutconfusing something .. in the text...
My friend and colleague (Mr. P.C) (yes really, but I won't name him) ported their Modula-2 compiler and a strange entity called "Andra" which was a document processor to that wondrous new home computer beast the Atari-ST. Nobody at the UK
company (who older folks may recognize) understood
Andra. I sure didn't.
Sigh. I didn't understand what it was then. Words were things that you processed with meaningful commands like
no WYSIWYG. What you saw was what you deserved.
(There is a good reason why Don Knuth is a hero
amongst most of us. Playing with fonts and stuff
appeals to our taste for the bizarre...)
Now, Andra was really a distant ancestor of AmiPro (remember that?) and Wurd. But, all these years later I want to know precisely what is so difficult about making something with at least few
enough bugs that the bug log doesn't implode and create a local black hole...
I'd like a black hole. It would be useful. I'd really like a "word processor". Until we actually
get one I'll stick with VI (Elvis or VIM) for programs and Emacs for pure text.
Boo. My own primitive attempts at writing shrink wrap apps blow away the crud coming out of the N.W
U.S. (or else someone explain why one man's feeble
attempt at a windoze app scores 100% in terms of
a language he doesn't understand too well despite
living in said country almost 20 years...)
Keen eyed watchers know which country I'm in...
John Dvorak made a living for a good portion of the late eighties and nineties predicting the demise of Apple.
And? They weren't selling units, they were losing the education and graphics market, clones ate their business.
Apple were fucked unless there was a major turnaround. It was quite reasonable to predict that they'd die.
I doubt few people would have predicted Steve Jobs returning to the helm, killing the clones, creating fashionable computers, a new OS that looked like nothing before it, and Apple entering the music biz.
eI shouldn't have to turn it off. Features should be off by default so that casual word processor users can get work done. If you want a feature, you can then turn it on.
This applies to both OOo and MSO, as far as I'm concerned.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The XForms announcement is really cool -- now I'll be able to use XDIF to do my combination ham log!
Yes, Word is a pile. I hate it. It can be sorta tamed if you play with the settings to turn most things off. (Really on Windows I use it as a glorified text editor to add spelling and grammar checking that's it. Of course, these days I use KWord for the same thing.) Everyone I support (ie, family) hates it even more than I do.
But the solution is NOT to build everything into the web browser! Please, people, get over it. A web browser is for displaying WEB PAGES. My letter to my senator is NOT a web page. Just because something uses XML doesn't mean that it's a web page, or need have anything to do with the web.
Maybe XForms would make a good standardized office file format. Maybe OASIS (aka OO.org's format) would be better. I don't know the technical details well enough to say, but since they're both open XML formats I'm cool with either one.
But dear god I want a SEPARATE PROGRAM for my word processing. I want my web browser to browse the web. I want my file manager to manage my files. I want my word processor to process words. Sure, they can all link to the same XML parser library behind the scenes, but I don't want there to be ANY confusion at the application level about what the program is doing.
Konqueror has started to get confused in KDE 3.x between how it should behave when it's a file browser and when it's a web browser, which is bad enough. I do NOT want my word processor to suffer the same fate. I refuse to open a web browser to do LOCAL work.
If I wanted "one bloated ugly program to do everything even if it's not designed for it", I'd skip X and just install emacs. (*dons flame retardant suit* I don't use vi either, don't worry!)
Bottom line: Use whatever open file format works best for the word processor of tomorrow, but keep the bloody web browser out of it. I'm not interested in pointless bloat and interface methods that don't make any sense in context.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Okay I hate word too and try to do all my work on linux, except sometimes I absolutely must open my NT box to get word and powerpoint work done. Here is reality. I am going to state the business reality and then a solution that will work.
In the business world, just about everyone uses word. Everyone hates word. I hate it more than most possibly, but in general the rule is that if you do not accept and return word and powerpoint documents, you cannot get work done and probably will lose jobs if you are a freelancer. I always request rtf, or plain text, and mentioned OOo but that is not sufficient. These days many companies also rely on word's document comparison function, it is part of the business process now even if it is insecure and buggy. Business users do not use every little thing, they know word sucks and only use the bare minimum to get the job done. To me this is full word compatibility, basic editing, table of contents, outlining, word counting, auto dictionary lookup, underline/superscript/bold/italic/coloring, tables, document comparison, and maybe a few others. Also it must start immediately and never cause you grief if you use it for the bare minimum. As far as I can see business users have found that MS Word 2000 fulfills all these objectives and there is no reason to buy any later version. That looks like a target to me!
Now about where I am coming from.. Don't even talk to me about trying to write a document with history checking turned on, I am totally fed up with trying to figure out whether this comma has an invisible barrier next to it so I have to delete it from the left side instead of the right side, etc. Don't talk to me about clippy. Microsoft and Word in particular get me so angry I become incoherent, and then we can't talk.
Now maybe I am a bit more strict since I require English and Japanese too. But OpenOffice, though I want to like it and have used it a lot, unfortunately sucks badly. Its suckiness is more apparent when you are using one version older, or using Japanese, or exchanging Word documents, or using on a limited system, or trying (really trying hard, honestly!) to design HTML docs in it, or trying to print anything (in Japanese again, but I will be experimenting more with my new printer)... okay it sucks. Hey it has a lot of great stuff but it is not ready for prime time and it is slow. Word processors are tough things to build! They deserve a medal so far anyway!
But the only solution I can see to this mess is the crystal clear, utterly simple, icky solution that you don't want to hear but is convincing, the way a spaceship falling on you is convincing.
Solution: Make a 100% identical-looking, identically-operating clone of Microsoft Word 2000 and Powerpoint 2000. And Excel 2000 too. Make it free. Make it fast. If you feel you must add new things to it, make a mode that removes them from menus so you have only a clone of the ms software.
Guess what? It will cost a lot of money and a lot of programmers, and it won't be fun (unless you enjoy screwing MS badly which might include a lot of people), and it will require professionals involved (management, programming, documentation).
Probably it would be much better for the world to give that money to people doing non-clone software, after all MS still has $30bn in cash they will be around making trouble for a while. But if you have a millionaire who really wants to screw Bill Gates, you could do worse than to take away MS' bread and butter which is MS Office.
"My biggest annoyance with the current version is that it keeps reinstalling features, which requires me to reinsert the master disc over and over."
I'm sorry, but from the moment he opens his mouth, this guy sounds like a PC n00b from the moment he opens his mouth. Leaving aside the fact that I've never had this problem, you might start to suspect that just maybe something in Word's inner workings got corrupted to cause that sort of problem. That's further supported by his next statement,
"An error occurred and this feature is no longer functioning properly. Would you like to repair this feature now?"
Come on now. It doesn't take a genius to see that this just isn't a Word design flaw or bug, it's more like you've downloaded too many warez with viruses or spyware or possibly even deleted something you really weren't supposed to. But no, this is Word kludge that EVERYBODY has a problem with since he has a problem with it. Then he has a moment of genius--
"I suppose I should reinstall Word, but..."
--Immedietly followed by herd stupidity and laziness. Word does have fusterations, but I've managed to disable or circumvent nearly all of them. God forbid, I even disabled clippy and I haven't seen him since dispite the incessant bitching one hears about it on a regular basis.
The funny thing is, I agree with the man that Word needs streamlined and overhauled, but not for the reasons this guy is citing. Over half of his story relates to an issue that is an obvious corruption in the program itself and really does need to be reinstalled. Something ate its lunch and it's time to repave over it. It happens.
And given the fact that this guy is so the expert on the subject, I can't help but to note that he didn't even mention the submitters suggestion to move to an open source solution if Word is in such dire need of an overhaul. If the open source option is as good as the submitter claims, you'd think that'd be the most obvious solution right there instead of bitching at MS to rework Word. Switch and vote with your wallet. But this 'expert' doesn't even touch the topic.
Go figure.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Sounds like you should go use notepad...there..all features off from start. That's a rediculous statement. You should learn to use something before actually doing so. Most word users like that feature or it WOULD be shut off by default. But turning off all features is just absurd.
Does anyone know of an open source text-editing program that allows you to easily write maths formula? I installed Linux a couple of years back and it came with it, and I think it'd be great if I could find it again (for Windows this time ;)).
Obviously power users of any application can make things work, but Dvorak is probably just a typical Word user like my mum, confused by all these popups about installations, 'features', apparantly random 'auto formatting' etc etc. And if average joe has problems with Word, then it IS a valid issue...
"Stop fucking trying to help me, and do what I fucking tell you to do."
It doesn't work, of course - within minutes I'll be in some impossible blind alley of formatting that has nothing to do with what I tried to do. Paste a chunk one place, it changes the style. Paste it another, it works fine. Paste it in a third, it decides to indent itself another level and use tiny flying pigs for bullets.
The resulting tension and anxiety has now extended to my use of Microsoft products in general - I really don't want to bash them, but their products are much worse in this regard than anyone else's. KeSIs Dvorak even relevant any more? In the last year any of his articles I have come across are rants based on his own preferences with conclusions that have no basis in reality. Maybe he had a clue 10 years ago, but not now.
LyX is a move in the right direction. It may not be quite abusive enough, but at least it doesn't allow a user to format using spaces and tabs and discourages direct font choosing.
Here's the scenario. I get a .doc file as an e-mail attachment. I click on it and Word boots.
Um, isn't this like one of the top ways viruses get spread?
John Kerry is a Joke!
He went to MacWorld. He thought he saw the end of the road for Apple. He unequivocally stated that the Mac was not destined for, but already in, the scrap heap of history.
I really would like to put together a site that keeps tabs on industry pundits and prognosticators. Wouldn't it be useful when reading the latest predictions from industry windbags? You could look up that windbag's track record. My goodness, it might even force some accountability among tech journalists.
Hell, you could even use the principle on regular ol' journalists and opinion-makers of all stripes. It seems to me that although politicians lie and make excuses for the votes they made in earlier years, media hacks don't get called to the table often enough because until quite recently they controlled the information flow.
My guess is there are hundreds if not thousands of regular Slashdot readers who are much better at predicting tech trends than many of the journalists who are paid to prognosticate.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
OpenOffice does everything, and even better.
Writer: The style list works, and doesn't have the bugs on bugs of winword.exe (if you get into styles and images, and conditionals, you will know what I mean)
Presenter: Lusciously simple! Actually easy to create a new slide, even when you know all the short cuts in powerpnt.exe you can get frustrated.
I only wish they would change the interface for writer a tad more when editing HTML, as this would be a kick ass HTML editor environment, with CSS and XHTML compliancy. Or even XML XSL natively? point? Create data sources and bind them to JSF components?
Going to far? The 'browser' as the future application interface is misleading, I disagree, as 'browser' is now any internet enabled xhtml complaint renderer on a million of devices.
I do not see any need to improve on OpenOffice for its purpose as a Document writer. With CSS and the understanding of what a document is (content and formatting), and the critical mass of people with good keybaord and word processing skills (professional layout etc.) can we finally label a word processor a commodity?
Kick out office, perhaps one of these notables who is saying this (who cares if the OS crowd are pushing them along) should start a 'Drop MS Office' campaign and have regular funny (to get people to take part) reviews of how people kicked office out of thier office.
Using this viral anti-marketting, and infact, a meme with a destructive payload (basically spreading that taking off MSOffice should be done, and suddenly it is cooler than an iPod to do it)
This will get people who would rather spend 2 minutes uninstalling, 20 minutes downloading, and 2 minutes installing OpenOffice, then open that email from thier boss lying in thier Outl... ThunderBird inbox.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
"... For instance, if you have the replace-as-you-type thing turned on and type a row of underscores (or was it hyphens..." "...I finally found out that Word creates the line by formatting the previous paragraph with a bottom border line, and the answer is to highlight the previous paragraph and edit its formatting to remove it..."
:) and many others. Enjoy.
After an undesired auto format occurs in your document just hit back space, it will only undo the undesired auto format without touching what you typed. It works with your example of a line, with the asterisks who change into a doted line, with emoticons after you type
Now do some one know what do I have to do or to deactivate if I want to paste some text that I just copied from the internet to my word document without having word wanting to connect to the internet and then applying some lame undesired formating. I just want to past clean text that's all. Right now what I do is pasting my stuff in notepad and then I copy it again in word but the process is a pain in the ass.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Nice try smart-ass, but that sentence is fine. Although it sounds awkward, continually can be used to describe is. Therefore, continually serves as an adverb like it should.
I never had a problem with Word for my own text proccessing needs really. I did try OpenOffice but i didn't see a reason to switch to it since i generally found it slower and since i write simple docs i don't care about more/better features it might have.
The one thing that bothered me with Word recently though has been the styles and formatting . My wife has been doing a lot of group work in school lately and i've been the appointed clean-up-guy for all the docs they create. Throwing together docs with different formatting and getting all the headings, margins, bullets and what not to be the same style is a real pain. I wish combining a bunch of docs would somehow have Word ask me to uniform headings and such into one style/formatting.
Don't know if OpenOffice does this but that would be nice.
The article is kinda silly, the complaints seem to be Office somehow didn't get installed properly, i experience no such problems with my installation.
Sample this!
Look mods, clippy bashing is *such* a cliche knee-jerk response to an MS Office article that it warrants "Troll" only.
It's plain not funny. It's the response of loser sheep who think they "belong" because they know the bash-MS "jokes".
You're thinking about the 3.1/95/98/ME notepad, which is limited to 32kb. The Windows 2000/XP notepad has no problems opening documents several megabytes in size.
Besides, if your web page is over 32kb, you need to fire your web designer. Seriously. 32kb is 6.5 seconds on 56k - with a good connection. And that's before you add in all the graphics, stylesheets, scripts, and other external jazz.
The US Constitution is less than 28kb. Why should your web page be any longer?
For the first time in my history of schooling all my notes are made available on the net, so making my summary notes on the computer makes sense. However I need a program that does it now. If SP2 is any indication on how quickly Microsoft brings out new stuff I will have finished university before it comes out, either by failing my courses repeatedly or finishing normally.
Surprise, Dvorak's article doesn't mention alternatives such as OpenOffice.org at all. This didn't catch me off guard, since mainstream news never seems to mention the cause of spyware, but rather how to fix the problems temporarily. I guess nobody wants to upset their corporate masters.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
I used to use pico like you until I found SciTE.
Lightweight, instant loading with solid syntax features and other goodies. Available on win or nix.
http://scintilla.sourceforge.net/SciTE.html
However, their default "global configuration" file needs some tweaking before things are to my taste...
http://scintilla.sourceforge.net/SciTE.html
My personal opinion is that they're all EVIL and they're out to RUIN MY GODAMM LIFE.
/a to recover. Love it. Right. Word makes Windows 98 with no virus scanner look fun to support.
I've used Word - various versions of, from Word 5 for Mac to Word XP. I've used OpenOffice from pre-1.0 to 1.9-m47 . I've used kword, I've used Abiword. I HATE THEM ALL.
I swear, word processors are the one type of software that appears doomed to go from bad to worse to awful.
If I had to use a word processor, it'd be Word 5. Even if I had to run it in Basilisk under a virtual MacOS 7. Failing that, prob'ly Abiword.
I absolutely loathe OO.o . It's like a clone of Word done even worse, and the 1.9 alphas literally make me want to reach out and start strangling them. Toolbars popping into existence from nowhere and moving the working frame around; autoformat that's even more overzealous than before, etc. *arrggh*. I've been trying to test it, as we use OO.o at work, but I literally haven't been able to stand it for long enough.
I have to say that Word is evil in a somewhat more competent way. Somewhat. I think the UI is a lot better than OO.o's - mostly because OO.o's UI is a crap clone of Word's, rather than because Word's is good. I do love the way that an accidental keystroke can make seriously freaky shit happen - like making the app hide all its toolbars and menus, but not in a way that can be restored by the normal full-screen key - I eventually had to run it as winword
I seriously question the concept current word processors work on. I hate the way formatting works in every single one of them - it's like you fight the program more often than it helps you. When I seriously begin thinking about using LaTeX for a quick purchase order (and I don't know LaTeX very well at all) I begin to wonder if word processors are even a good idea.
Perhaps I should try out WordPerfect. It seems that it might at least help restore sanity to the formatting task.
I'm going to unclench my teeth and go do something not involving word processors (*twitch* *twitch*) now.
Let's face it, throughout the years, it seems that Dvorak typically can't possibly hold a job. He's very quick to make rants and judgements about all kinds of things. I don't recall the show, I didn't like it much, but the only thing I've ever known him to be qualified for is to state his opinions on video games on TV.
Well that being said, there are literally millions of users of Word which are in fact happy. I personally write all my technical documentation in Word before using a Word to TeX filter I wrote using the ODK. I have written roughly 800 pages of documentation in the past year. I started trying to use OpenOffice. That was the most pathetic thing I could imagine. At the time, ABI Word for Windows just required too much effort to install, so I didn't bother. What it boils down to is the Word is the best Word processor out there. I typically prefer to use it on OS X when I can since I like the font display better.
OpenOffice is just slow and bothersome when you use it for hours each day. I think that since Dvorak still types with 2 fingers, it's probably a problem for him to begin with. I must admit, I would love to make a living from sitting around for 20 years simply writing articles or making TV shows where all I have to do is express an uneducated oppinion about a topic, but all things considered, I prefer to earn respect, not use a magazine name to gain it.
If you're reading this John, please in the future, hire a qualified IT professional, or at least invite your 13 year old nephew over to fix the problems with your computer before you start complaining that Word stinks because you don't know how to run a spyware/virus scanner which will block those pop-up ads you spend a lot of time looking at from damaging your system.
I know a company here in PA that has a mish-mash of Office suites to include everything from Office 95 to 2003. You don't know comptibility issues until you encounter THAT!
Of course, there's always PDF export...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This is all well and good and does make Word immediately available but, on the other hand, there's a whole heap of memory other programs cannot use as a result.
Personally, I'd rather have the system memory available because then the overall speed of my PC should be better, rather than just the load-up time of Word.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I use Word.
I like Word.
I've used OpenOffice.
I like Word. I like Excel. Hell, I don't think PowerPoint's too bad either. I like Visio. I like Internet Explorer (I use a Mac with Safari 90% of the time but IE is way better driving database forms for me).
I have been using Word since version 4.0? I was in 6th grade (12?) and now I'm 26, so that's 14 years using Word. I enjoy the squiggly underlines when I misspell something. I like the tab interface. I turn off all the autocorrect features and fast save and I am left with a program that does *exactly* what I want: write Words.
It's hard to fuck up a word processor and while people complain about bloat and all sorts of features never used, in 10 years of consulting, I have used EVERY feature of Word, from mail merge to macros to customizing the toolbar to autolinking graphs to speaking text to grammar check to HTML export and back. Word is the kitchen sink and it's stable. Word never crashes on me.
Reminds me of a quote I read about automobiles and how the wheel and accelerator metaphor is so dated; cars of the future will be controlled by joysticks and whatnot. Okay, that's fine, but the steering wheel and gas pedal works for me now. Just like Word.
I do not want to install X11 libraries and molest my kernel to make OO load faster. I don't want new revisions all the time. Hell, I boot up Office 98 on my travel PowerBook and go to town... and that was released seven years ago!
Word: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.
And all you zealots please remember this:
#1. Bill Gates didn't get rich writing bad software.
#2. Microsoft is made up of some of the smartest people in computing.
#3. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to buy a Windows box.
I love linux and frankly in five years it won't matter because we're moving away from platforms to services in a natural evolution.
But you can have Microsoft Word back when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands because when I need to write, I write.
As in someone average PC users might listen to was advocating switching to FOSS, but no. Your punctuation is very disappointing. :(
Here's a few things SO has over OOo:
;)
Support. Better spell checker. Database (Adabase). WordPerfect compatibility. More clip art and fonts. Slightly sharper interface. Cool Sun logo.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
and that is to kill the entire Office Suite.
Even if there is a far superior Word alternative out there people will still buy/get Office for Outlook/Excel/Access/Powerpoint and since they'll get Word with Office "for free" they wont need to buy an other Word.
Or do you know anyone who actually bought (not pirated) Word allone? (the only place where its "allone" is in the Works Suite with MS Works, Encarta and some other apps) but its been a long time since i've seen Word outsite MS Office
Personally, I take anything Mr. Dvorak has to say with a grain of salt. Most of his articles read almost as delusions and have very little to do with the lives of people who use the technologies he often gripes about.
Word, for instance, is used by millions of office workers around the globe. I am one of those people who use it for writing technical documentation. While I agree it is not perfect, I do not see a need for an immediate replacement. Really, it does what it was intended to do.
Now, if you are using Word to do layout for magazines and newspapers, perhaps you should invest into more appropriate packages for your task. I hear Adobe has a great lineup of software for advanced layout and design. But, if you plan on typing up manuals, legal papers, and doing the things people buy word to do, then I don't see the big deal.
I guess Dvorak is out to just get people talking and mentioning his name. What better way is there to trick people into thinking you are smart?
Take a look at Yeah Write.
I did, and now I have a headache. 1995 called, they want their user interface design back.
And there may be more to it than that. Ever notice how MS documents are recognized as such by the OS even if YOU'VE NEVER LOADED OFFICE on that computer??!
This is why the E.U. is demanding that MS release it's hidden API's. And this is why MS is fighting this so hard. If Office is found to be pre-pre-loading with the OS, they are going to be in very hot water indeed and not just with the Euros.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
...on the dying Apple. The only usable option on OS X is MS Office 2004, but then again ... it does not suck as much as Office on Windows.
P
Who cares what Yeah Write looks like? It's an example of a styles-driven word processor that will not let an idiot use 67 different fonts and stuff.
Idiot.
Anyone know if there is a DLL/print driver available for enabling the Print to PDF in windows? One that *doesn't* require the purchase of PageMaker (which is how I picked it up way back when).
9 series screwed up my brand new comp and I'm no genius so I don't know how to fix it.
Just type
spawn monster_demon_clip into the console.
- Buy Antivirus software
- Buy firewall software
- if pc's really bad:
- reinstall windows
- reinstall everything else
- install firefox
- un-install word
- install word with all features
for plain text use a text editer besides what does he want plain text for its only programs and webpagesrendering text is the job of the font server/X server. It should be implemented there and it would then work for all applications.
I know enough about computers to not blame the software when the system has been junkified with conflicting software, but this does not seem like one of those situations. I see a product breaking down in "out-of-the-box" configuration. Why does it crash when loading or manipulating its own files? Perhaps they put so much work into crash recovery that they think they don't need to prevent crashes anymore.
If I'm way off here, please tell me. Maybe i have to set "thip-croinkle-spoit" (dilbert reference) to OFF? Maybe this is indicative of some other problem?
or open up the format. Microsoft doesn't support the format for word 6 but a shitload of people insist on using it.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Can you at least tell me how to kill the paperclip? No matter what I try, the next link I click will be an open invitation for more paper-clip goodness!!! yayyyyy!!!
I sell out to The Man every day.
It's here
Seems like Dvorak has been whacking-off a bit too much. Kill Word - Yeah, right!
I'd have loved to have been in the product meeting when Word 6 "features" where being thrashed out. "OK so we have, in Word 2, a really good word processor. If we work really, really hard we can turn it into a crap desk top publishing program which will also be a lousy word processor. lets to do it." My frustration at Word (a product which I seemed to be spending more than half my live battling with) finally boiled over about a year ago when I couldn't get it to create a atble of contents and leave it in the right place without crashing (it insisted that what I really wanted to do was "float" the contents page over the text that was underneath it). I now do all my editing in OO, and load the file into Word to check it is OK before sending it to my clients. I'm yet to have a compatibility problem and it's a damn site quicker.
Matt Stone and Trey Parker also.
Kill Bill.
I just made the connection, I feel like Feebie standing outside Central Perk, and saying 'I just got that'
I always saw her as the ugly one, although she is quite fit. I need to do some work... must... work.... aaaaargh....
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
John C. Dvorak writes: My biggest annoyance with the current version is that it keeps reinstalling features
So, he has encountered an annoying bug in a program, therefore the program should be junked and its developers shot. I've felt that way at times, but I try to keep a perspective.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Word.
Peace, Out.
Backups are for wimps. Real men post their data in comments and have slashdot mirror it
Millions of average users mean millions of functions.
What one user considers average and typical functionality another doesn't.
Word is a mature product that has grown and grown without any thought into how feature additions are affecting people. Microsoft depend on the revenue from Office (and Windows) and so they keep adding and tweaking features just to release a new version. This is done in the interests of their bank balance more than users.
They could release a Word Lite but then some people have a phobia against buying cut down, basic software. They feel they're missing out.
There are a bunch of free ghostscript based solutions.
Free (Gratis): pdf995, cutepdf.
Free (Libre): PDFCreator
Cheap to expensive: STFW
So don't capitalize the whole thing!
It can't be "killed" as long as there are so many people
who preferred to reformat their harddisk and reinstall Windows,
instead of just switching their browser.
Well yes. This allows Word to restore the
document in all its glory. I guess the programmer
that wrote the doc -> HTML converter
had never heard about "defaults" yet. On importing,
If Word would assume the default tab interval if
none is specified, it wouldn't need to add all that
crap to the HTML file.
All this trouble they went
through and they didn't even bother rendering
accented characters to their codepage-free
HTML equivalents such as "é", "ç" and such.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
it's supposed to read:
Time to kill Microsoft? Word!
I work for a large publishing company and I use Word 2004 on a G4 PowerBook and am very happy with the "track changes" and commenting features. The graphic flowchart of comments/changes can get a bit wild if the MSS is hacked and slashed, but it seems to work very well with moderate edits.
... paper?
How else can I review a chapter, pass it to a copyeditor, review the edits, and then pass back to the author to "accept or reject" the edits?
Hmmm
Really, any suggestions for other apps/systems that do this would be GREATLY appreciated.
Sometimes it happens if you install some different application that replaces a shared DLL. Other times, it seems that the Office app simply forgets that it has a certain feature installed.
I've also seen it happen if your registry gets corrupt. Or if windows disk cleanup wipes out a file in error.
.......unless, obviously, they start trying this: http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/sphinx/. My father is an MD, which in italian roughly translates into " his handwriting is a Brownian function", and I know he'd love a good speech recognition program. what hampered its development until now is that it is a resource hog (http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/athlon64-350 0/index.x?pg=7
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
This is like saying "Let's kill off Dremel tools because they are too good. Here have a cheap imitation instead". Or "Let's kill off BMW. Have a Kia instead."
Build me a better (compatible) mousetrap and maybe I'll consider it. I doubt it. Frame was a good choice but Adobe did a Computer Associates to it and neglected it agressively. So Frame is dead, long live Frame.
Until there are actual competitors who are:
a) as good as Word
b) productive as Word
c) has the advanced revisioning and editing features as Word
d) can collaborate with my colleagues as well as Word (say for example, Team Editing features)
e) all my clients have it
f) * just works *
the people who make such suggestions can make sweet love to a chainsaw... sideways.
Andrew van der Stock
LaTeX might be suitable for that kind of work. Basically, you enter plain text with a few structuring commands and let (La)TeX render a nicely formatted document. The learning curve is probably steeper than with Word, because you have to learn some of the TeX language to do anything, but it works quite well after you've learned it.
"But dear god I want a SEPARATE PROGRAM for my word processing. I want my web browser to browse the web. I want my file manager to manage my files. I want my word processor to process words."
I hear ya, but let me try to explain why it IS important.
Remote working.
Our company has three offices, and has loads of people working from other locations. Clients, homes, you name it.
We obviously can (and do) utilize Terminal Servers, to serve complete Office Desktops to remote people, but its not always practical. First of, Terminal Servers are stil a Biatch to setup and run reliably. Second sometimes they dont work, ports are blocked by large corp clients inert firewall people, client software doesnt run, whatever.
There are solutions: plan ahead, buy rediculously expensive and overpowered laptops, send 20MB PowerPoint presentations on CRD's via FedEx, threaten the head of -insert American Airline here- Maintenance Training to release your suitcase with documents form customs early (yeah, pre-911) or there wont BE any training.
So in short, I want to VIEW, EDIT, and SAVE my data, be it text, graphics, or numbers or a combination, from EVERYWHERE. And Terminal Servers are just a crap middle ware solution, for a problem that can be avoided by proper a web-editing app.
peace
"/Dread"
But you can create clean html with Word. Just save as Web Page, Filtered, and you get this:
/* Style Definitions */ /style>
/head>
/div>
/body>
/html>
< html>
< head>
< meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
< meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
< title>Hello Word</title>
< style>
< !--
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:21.0cm 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
<
<
< body lang=EN-US>
< div class=Section1>
< p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-IE>Hello Word</span></p>
<
<
<
The main reason I'm not using Open Office.org is that it doesn't print envelopes properly. I run my own small business and I have envelopes that need to be printed off. My handwriting is also atrocious, so handwriting them is out of the question. Open Office did not print out standard envelopes properly on my setup, and the bug tracker said that this problem wouldn't be fixed until the next major version, whenever that will be. After all this, I uninstalled it and reinstalled Word.
.rtf files. The program also insisted on moving the images external to the document, meaning that I had to copy a number of files over if I wanted to show the document to someone else. Since I'm a game developer, screenshots are an important part of many documents. Being unable to handle images in the most portable format available did not instill me with confidence.
There's also lots of other little annoyances. For example, Open Office did not properly display inline graphics properly in my
I really would like a free alternative to Office. Unfortunately, the main alternative doesn't fit my needs so I am stuck with Word for now.
My view,
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
OpenOffice.org support pivot tables - they call it DataPilot.
However, it's a severe resource hog if your source data is large (several thousand rows). Word is quite fast at recalculating sums when rows/cols are changed in the Pivot table, but it seems to have a limit on the number of rows/cols/sums you can include. At least, this is the case for Word 97.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
That's still not nice, efficient HTML.
I have to say, my favourite editor in Windows is: PSPad. It's free, very intuitive, and there's hardly any configuration needed.
It has tabs, it has syntax highlighting, it has single-instance process, it is easy and you can detect/convert DOS -> UNIX -> MAC format. It makes Notepad ridiculous..
Ever tried to replace a long string in Notepad? Nope, that doesn't work correctly.. Why anybody would use Notepad is beyond me, they must really like extra line-breaks for long lines (like in pico) and random bugs.
Btw, with single-instance, PSPad is fast to open!
For UNIX I use Emacs and vi.
Uma thurman: "I will kill Bill"!!
To complete the sentence.
Man, you are confused. They way I see it, the browser's role is as a renderer of structured information. It matters not one jot whether the stuff it renders comes over a TCP/IP connection or off a local hard drive.
A letter can be a structured document just as much as a web page can be. Some, me included, would say that information should be stored in structured documents, and that content should be abstracted from presentation. Word does a first-class job of mashing them all up together and that is precisely why we don't like it.
How exactly do you know it's a fairy tale? You don't. (Neither do I for that matter.)
I send OO docs saved as DOC files to my boss all the time. He has never once complained.
Your boss is not a statistically significant sample set. If all you do is send very basic Word docs - paragraphs, bullets, etc. - then it makes sense that there wouldn't be an issue. The problems arise in more complicated formatting efforts and sometimes in longer documents (or both).
What OSS zealots fail to realize:
The point is that quite often in the World of Work (WoW), customers expect their documents to be FULLY functional. The customer is concerned about the content of the RFP response, contract verbiage, schedule, etc; if the document is a mess in Word because Zealot Boy insisted on using OO the customer will not be mollified by enthusiastic claims of OSS goodness. The organization will appear unprofessional and the now-former customer will find a vendor who has its collective act together.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The version of Word in Office XP doesn't even allow you to type a document without IE 4 or later installed -- the entire thing is uneditable. 'Nuff said.
Most of Dvorak's commentary is just grumbling about a bad product, but here is what might be the core of the problem:
A more stable format is needed by businesses, agencies, organizations and individuals that value the information stored on their local drives, archives and file servers and/or is finds a benefit from the access or re-use of such information. This is especially true for documents that must be reusable or must be stored for longer than the half-life of the MS-Word formats (about 18 months). For these, there should be some concern about choosing a more stable file format at least.
A more stable file format is not an option when toeing the MS line, because MS uses changes in [default] file formats to drive the sales of new versions of MS Office. Especially since 68% of MS Office sales come from sales of new hardware, where in contrast for MS Windows this is 90%. That means that some portion of that 32% represents the sale to owners of earlier versions and is presumably driven by file format incompatibility. Given that MS-Office is one of the two *profitable* lines for MS, that's not likely to change for the better. In fact, Microsoft has recently quit the U.N. standards group:
and is the only member of OASIS holding back on the XML-based file formats.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Word is an overbloated set of old word processing ideas that holds the computing world back in the stone age. Word's word processing ideas are one step removed from the old electric typewriter. With so many great pro publishing packages around, you'd think that some developers would borrow some of their general page creation advancements and apply them to the common word processor. For instance, when using Quark Xpress or Adobe's InDesign, all you need to do is draw a box on the page and it sets your text boundaries. Draw another box and it provides an absolute position and size for your picture. Postscript and pdf are known and available. The simple creation of a letter could be so much simpler than Word allows! And why do I need both an email client and a word processor? Things could be so much better, but an over dependance on one outdated app is holding back a lot of innovation.
YEP it is about time indeed !
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
....is the instead of keeping it as a Word Processor, M$ have gone and slapped two billion DTP functions into it - which means that its more of a DTP package than a word processor. WP programs are inherently very simple - write lots (and lots!) of words, check spelling and grammar.
... it gets h0sed.
;-)
Instead, the DTP stuff gets in the way - you type something and suddenly its formatted all weird, you've got strange alignments, it cant handle huge documents without crawling as it handles things like pagination and paragraph layout
This is why I wrote my Thesis in LaTeX. Colleagues who chose Word suffered pains and tribulations that I would never have gone through. We had weekly Word v's LaTeX 'battles' in the office
I wonder why they use a signed integer to hold the size of the data. Can you have -1 bytes of data associated with a control?
Did you make a study about it?
When I am forced to use the monstruosity that Word is I frankly prefer to rely on my limited English skills.
Even I can spot how wrong the suggestions of Word are regarding English grammar.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I must say that we can stand to lose MS Offie.
MS offie? Is that where you buy your MS beer(tm)?
Nobody in their right mind uses Word to create plain text files. You use Word to create Word docs and really that's it. It doesn't create HTML very well either. Absolutely true, but so what? That's not it's primary purpose either, and not a reason to scrap it.
I use OO at home, but it's not ready from prime-time. In a corporate environment, people use Word because you can automate it. VB/VBA is a security meltdown waiting to happen (thus the annoying "disable macros?" prompt), but it's the main reason for using MS Office in the first place -- you can programmatically get at the vast majority of the features of *all* the MSO apps using it. And you can suck data in from a variety of sources including SQL.
One thing he's right about is the annoyance of the MSI re-installing features over and over. Home user? Yeah absolutely, what a pain in the butt. Corporate User? Make the IT guy fix it :)
How do you set up a listserver, weblog or usenet newsgroup that would automatically convert forwarded .doc notices to plain text ASCII ?...
.doc
Boston City Council sends out by email public notices of Council Committees public hearings formatted in
City Hall is unwilling to send public notices like the Council Human Rights Committee public hearings in plain text ASCII formatting.
As if John Dvorak is the cornerstone of reason. It's almost pathetic that his name, let alone a link to one of his rants, has appeared on Slashdot.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Web apps don't make sense for certain things. For example: we have several users that perform data entry. Entering orders, sales leads, etc. from stacks of postcards and order forms that are mailed in. The data-entry forms programs are GUI (Gtk2-Perl), and keyboard shortcuts are heavily used. Very little (or no) mouse at all. A typical record entry would involve F1 (new), start typing, tab between fields, and F9 when finished. I have yet to see a web-based application that is as productive for data entry as anything else (even old green-screen stuff).
A summary of the usefulness of MS Word in two short sentences! The REALLY funny bit is, did MS Word also add the full stop to the "After" sentence? LMAO
Free Firefox news reader.
"Viable options like Open Office.org"
Even WordPad does a better job at word processing than OOO. The layout is pathethic, cluttered, imo completely worthless. Not to mention that OOO is by far the slowest piece of software I have ever seen.
So puh-please, OOO is not a viable alternative. In fact, on my list of alternatives it takes the noble last place.
Actually, OpenOffice 1.0 "encountered an error" and "needed repair" so often here that I kept the
Like a broken record, I'll get in my standard comment that Word always did look like a text editor that programmer wonks threw "secretary-type stuff" into. In contrast, WordPerfect seemed like model software development. Do the analysis of what people would want to do and how they can do it best, and then start programming. Our department fought like badgers to keep it and were distributing copies of WordPerfect Magazine's article "500 things Word 97 can't do" around the college. To no avail.
So y'all stampeded with the herd, lived in the Microsoft monopoly PR dream -- and are starting to wake up?
Dvorak is a spectacular example of a Hilariously Clueless Tech Writer, but he has a valid point here (I've experienced every single one of the Word problems he names.) He seems to be missing the main one, though: Word is a bad word processor. It would be laughed off the market overnight if it's name didn't start with Microsoft.
I've used Word several times: Word 98 on Mac, 2000 on 2K, 2003 on XP. They all sucked, bad, as a word processor even when everything worked. My company is forcing me to write user manuals lately, and Word is the chief obstacle. I can't name a single Mac word processor that is less functional.
Random crashes aren't all that common on XP (unless you use Word.) I can't think of a program that's slower or more awkward to use (flat out bad UI design, worse than Visual Studio if that can be believed.) The way that styles randomly change and migrate around pages (I just spent an hour cleaning up a new manual so the TOC feature would work, because the header style was scattered everywhere and removing it requires completely reformatting text, which screws up all bullet lists, etc.)
Why do people tolerate this? Do secretaries somehow learn to work around the problems? Is the huge boatload of semifunctional features what people really want? (Do they even get used: I discovered that Word's HTML export was non-editable and crashed browsers other than IE, so I've ignored it since.)
The exception to this is one Microsoft Word, which will mess up your footnotes, appendices, et al. It will then crash, with about a 20% chance of corrupting all or part of your document (and having lost any changes you made over the last half hour). Interestingly, this is often triggered when it tries to background save a backup copy!
...or is Word 2000 better than my copy?
Bill and Steve are kicking back their heels and smiling while thinking, "Take your best shot."
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I can't agree more with Dvorak's frustration, this has been an ever increasing problem with MS applications in general.
After installing Office on my new Windows workstation, I couldn't do anything without reinserting the original media. The selection to Run Everything from my hard drive was made during the install -- obviously the installer chose to ignore this option. What really interests me is how the install is happening when I am only a lowly user on my local machine. Obviously, the Office installer makes it convenient for anyone to make a modification to the installation. Is this a security risk or is that just my impression?
A quick check of the directory options indicates that lowly users don't have write access. So what exactly is Office installing and where?
Equally signficantly, the user interfaces are complicated and repleat with unnecessary embelishments. I do not want a "Getting Started" box to soak up half my screen every time I launch Word. When I'm ready to write a document a blank page is perfectly acceptable, and the reason I'm launching Word is so that I can write a document. Also, I have no interest in "searching the web" from inside Word, it's perfectly acceptable that I need to start Firefox to do this.
It doesn't help that my company has standardized on MS Word, but I am using OpenOffice for documents whenever possible. It's just easier, my wordprocessor needs are nothing like what MS Word wants to offer me.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
But yes, you are typical of many people who have had their documents trashed. Quite often they can be recovered by using OpenOffice.org, simply by opening, and re-saving, where the Monopoly product has failed.
Says it all really.
OOo is the best M$ Office disaster recovery tool you can have, it should be on everyone's PC for that reason alone.
Did you really read that link? I'm not following how a "container" is any different than a "start marker", the "contents", and the "end marker" in Word Perfect.
From what I've read from a variety of sources, a Word file is actually a serialized dump of Word memory. Which is horribly stupid, as a document format. Or horribly brilliant, I guess, from a business standpoint.
So no, the horror of Word may not be representable by rational codes ...
After that "lets create a new keyboard" thing, nobody listens to Dvorak. Besides, what the heck kind of name is Dvorak? Sounds like a new German car company.....
... have saved me from chewing bits off my laptop when Word crashes out and stopped me from crying as all my in-table formatting suddenly disappers. WYSIWYG is a curse...
Put the install disk back in the CD; when the installer starts select modify installation and remove the office assistants that you don't want; add the ones that you do. I actually don't mind Rocky (the dog).
Dvorak's job is to make people mention him. He succeeds brilliantly. He used to write about the death of Unix. Unixers wrote letters to the editor in droves, leading to increased ad revenue for his magazine, and probably a pay raise. Now he's using Word lusers the same way.
He really knows a LOT about how to get you and me to mention him!
I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I have only had 1 problem with Word. That article was posted sounds to me like his IT department doesn't know jack because I've installed it on hundreds of boxes and never had an issue like that. The only issue I've had with Word is the hidden code, but that has only happened once. I guess I'm just special. Word can be klunky, but I've done term papers, professional reports, and anything else that Word can do and I have never had an issue.
it has a spell checker. what could be more nifty is reject posts with spelling error.
In complete sentences.
As the title says. Windows, Linux, whatever, I find Oo.o's font rendering to be completely crap.
;)
For starters, yes, it doesn't seem to do any anti-aliasing. Even under Windows. And since it has nothing to do with sub-pixel hinting, it's just as crap looking on a CRT as on an LCD. Probably worse looking on a CRT, actually.
Second, when you scale a document (yes, I like to have the page scaled to fit the window width), instead of getting the fonts simply rendered at the new size, it looks like something that got first rendered and then unevenly scaled.
I.e., to quote MacHall, "Hey, it doesn't look like OLD ass. It's CLASSIC ass." If you want that CLASSIC look you used to have in Windows 3.0 with a non-accelerated Trident graphics card and non-scalable fonts, you can't beat OOo for that.
Third, and most annoying, I'd like it to just fscking use whatever fonts are already installed on that machine. X and all normal X application can already use them. Nah, for OOo you have to explicitly install the fonts _again_ in OOo.
Once for each user, too. Whoppee.
Presumably because, for all the crack talk about how standards are great, OOo still does its very own font rendering. And if it at least did it better than Windows or X, I could see the point. But a hack that actually is _worse_ than using the standard libraries? Well, that's gotta count as cool.
Add other OOo "features" like the highly annoying nagging. E.g., daily I _have_ to edit one excel file: the hours I've worked in that day. Sometimes more than once a day. Every fscking time I have to click "yes" on not one, but _two_ nag dialogs.
You'd think it would be able to get the idea that _yes_, I do want to save it back as Excel. I know it's mind boggling that after loading a file, I'd want to save the changes back in the same file. Probably noone in the OOo team ever save their changes to the exact same file they loaded
And that _yes_, I still want to exit the program nevertheless.
At least, you know, give me a "don't ask this again" checkbox. It's not like it's that new and unheard of idea. But nah, some cretin probably felt a Holy Duty to nag the users to death to completely switch to OOo formats. Probably is even proud of that idiocy.
Etc, etc, etc.
Basically IMHO OOo is a substitute for Office in much the same way as a bullet to the head is a cure for headache. I.e., not really, other than in the "well, technically speaking..." way.
It's getting sorta in the right direction, but it has a looong way to go.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Sure, there are Word features that suck - the thing is - 90% of people have no clue how to use 90% of the features.
They even don't bother to learn how to use styles, they can only change font, adjust font size and color, set bold and italic, that's about it.
Whowever really cares about formatting won't use Word (you'd use a specialized authoring tool like InDesign or such), other than that quite a few people _can_ use it to their satisfaction, and a huge majority has no fucking clue how those features work - but they feel it's OK because they are used to the GUI.
The next key feature of an office suite is integration with other productivity tools and that's what MS is focusing on these days (Sharepoint, Exchange, Cisco switches, CRM, etc.).
Feature-wise all wordprocessing software is to some extent overbloated, what is going to be important is productivity and integration, so whether X word processor is cheaper or less bloated won't be as important.
The auto line is actually easy to remove. It's a "borders and shading" option for the paragraph. You can either format the borders and shading, or you can click the border button and choose to shut off all borders (as if it were a cell in a table).
I'm a Word expert, and there's usually a way to fix these problems without doing a cntrl-z. The problem is that there are so many shortcuts that you should really know how to do them all without using shortcuts, which few people take the time to learn.
This article certainly will get better acceptance from the average home computer user than a speech on free software or technical merits. This guy sounds like my parents describing their computer problems. Although experience tells me that the problems he describes arent normal (no you should not just accept them Mr. Dvorak), I have had them all so I expect alot of home users will identify with these issues. This is some of the worst kind of press your software product can get; national platform, accepted source of news, laymans terms.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Slightly OT: Anyone have any scoop on Gnumeric for Windows? Thanks.
"you've got to have a very feature-rich application."
...) want it to work right out of the box. They don't want to dick around buying and installing a half-dozen extra plugins. They want to pop in the CD, click "Install," and get to work on their term paper, or writing up Grandma's recipes.
No. You need to have a very stable application with a very good plugin architecture.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but do you really think even 1/100th of Word's target market give's a rat's behind about "a very good plugin architecture?"
Do you really think that the kind of people who will buy Word are the same people who will happily browse Best Buy's rack of "Word Plugins," and buy the Spellchecker Plugin, Grammar Plugin, Japanese Language Plugin, and HTML Export Plugin, without complaining?
Users don't want "plugins." Developers do. So while a good plugin architecture might make sense in an IDE or source-control solution, it is utter overkill for a layperson app like a word processer. People who buy Word (and Money, and Excel, and PowerPoint,
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I can't reduce it to one compelling explanation like modal efficiency, but I have been using vi for eighteen years, giving various excuses such as availability, needed features (Vim), efficiency over slow connections, predictability, regular expression power, and so on.
...
The only time I don't use vi is when I'm under orders not to (by my Word Nazi boss or, in ancient times, a Wordperfect Nazi boss), or when writing through a web-based interface, but even then, if it's more than two freeform pages, I write in vi (Vim, usually) and cut and paste into the web-based interface.
After I first used it on Unix, I wrote to an electronic bulletin board to ask where to find a version of vi for MS-DOS. One person replied, saying that I didn't want that! He said that I wanted a "good copy" of Emacs, and to learn to use a "real" editor. I was quite sure that I did not want this particular Emacs user's help, and the surest way to avoid it was, well
Word's grammar checker actually pretty much likes my work. I've always tried to speak in active-voice sentences; they really do sound better to me.
But a faintly amusing story: a few years ago I wrote a book using Word, around 500 pages long (technical book, not fiction). Word liked it, except for my habit of using "which" where technically "that" is called for: "Press the button which is labelled xxx" should really be "Press the button that is labelled xxx", according to Strunk & White and a bunch of other style guides. Something about restrictive clauses.
Personally, I prefer "which" in those cases, so I ignored Word's suggestion. That is, until I got the book back from the professional copy editor, whose job is to know such things, and all of the restrictive clauses were corrected.
I know many of you will probably fault both Word and the copy editor for their grammar naziism, but I try to follow the rules as much as possible, if only to avoid distracting readers with potential grammar problems, which are not the point of the book. That's especially true in professional writing: I do the technically correct thing as long as it's not obviously worse than the natural thing.
If the natural thing and the technically correct thing conflict, I'll often rewrite sentences. For example, another change the copy editor had me make was to never start a sentence with a variable from the code, which would necessitate either mis-capitalizing a piece of code or distracting the reader with a sentence that doesn't begin with a capital letter.
Ultimately I've come to bury Word, not to praise it: if I had the book to write over again I swear to God I'd do it in emacs. I'd tried very hard to format the book as it would be published, only to have them do it all over again in professional typesetting software. Then I reviewed a manuscript by a famous design writer who'd written the whole thing in double-spaced Courier with hand-drawn pictures.
To conclude: Word blows! But I've seen far, far worse things than the grammar checker.
How come no one's recommending the LyX gui for LaTeX? Here's an interface to what enlightened professionals use for documents and publications.
Perhaps the biggest advantage (although this applies to using any non-MS product) is that LyX doesn't try to outthink you by moronically anticipating what you're trying to do and applying autoformatting everwhere. It does what a computer program should do -- provide the tools you need to do your job.
And just the very idea of a closed, non-competitive, doc format strikes me as a reason to reject any piece of software or vendor. It is irresponsible and incompetent for IT managers to choose MS products for this reason alone.
That said, my only complaint about LaTeX/LyX would be that it can be a slightly massive learning curve to create your own styles or doc layouts.
John Dvorak is a legend in his own mind. He hasn't said anything worth listening to since his old days at PC Magazine. Since then he just writes like a movie critic and hate everything that wasn't his idea.
The feature bloat in Word is pretty astounding, and while power users may utilize extensive features in Word, the average Joe doesn't. And power users wouldn't mind downloading/tweaking plugins to get their application to do exactly what it wants.
A plugin architecture merely allows features to be extended and added as necessary, while still offering a baseline product that fulfills the needs of the basic user.
It's getting down to what a basic user really needs . . . there's the rub.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I reverse engineered the PowerPoint format. I worked for a company that needed it done. They had also reverse engineered the Word format before I started there. Putting in a reveal codes function should be trivial for them. We essentially did it, and we only had a partial road map. (iirc the MSDN 94 CD had a partial spec of the containers etc, but it was taken out for the MSDN 95 CD. The partial spec gives you a good start on it)
Sees The Day
Well, it's real easy to simply get rid of the Office Startup shortcut in the Startup group so Word won't be preloaded. Even then, it starts up much, much faster than OpenOffice. OO is ok, but ultralethargic to compared to the MS Office even for simple operations. It (OO) needs a ton more polishing to be quite frank.
Ever try plotting a simple dataset in the OO spreadsheet proggie? It is excruciatingly slow. Using the exact same dataset, when I click to generate a graph of it in Excel, it appears essentially instantly. But in OO, the same type of plot using the exact same dataset can take 45 seconds to plot once you give it the ok! Yes, this has been confirmed on multiple computers, and by multiple users. Basically, it's unusable.
Again, I'm all for something like a free, totally functional office suite, but at this point OO is nowhere close to MS Office except for the most rudimentary tasks. If the average joe justs does rudimentary tasks, well, they are probably OK with OO. But I certainly find it frustratingly limiting and unpolished.
Oh, guess I should say I am still using Office 97...
With all the versions of Win NT/2000/XP/whatever's next..., one thing which hasn't changed that usually seems to help, is to ALWAYS make sure that you are logged in as the local Administrator when you install or configure software, and that you then test it by logging in as a mere mortal (i.e., a user). Ok. Network Admin mode is fine too, but local Admin mode (this is the first account that is setup when the OS was installed) is the one to use - it's the most relevant in a non-networked installation (most typical residential setups). This gives the best chance of ensuring that the program is installed properly, with proper security permissions applied throughout all program files, directories, and temporary workspace paths. So, although it doesn't give clueless developers a 'get out of jail free card' if they overly complicate a simple install with byzantine logic, it will usually make your life easier if you are grappling with a difficult to diagnose program installation issue. BTW... this strategy assumes that software is installed as an Admin, and run as a User (Yes it's true- I am a dreamer).
So to recap: Install Word as an Admin, and select the "Run all programs from this computer" option. If it still doesn't satisfy the 'auto-feature-install thingy', then login (again!) as an Admin and do the same thing to trigger the feature installation routine. You shouldn't have to keep re-installing this crap every time Word tries to use the feature.
Ok. If all of this fails, you might have to a) login as Admin & add the user to the Local Administrator's group (temporarily). Then logout and back in as the User, & then let the feature install thing run one last time. But that should be it. Then remove the user from the LA group.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a big Word or Microsoft fan!
Gigantic troll.
I've worked for a state agency that moved from Word Perfect to Word and I've worked for a fortune 500 company where Word was mandatory. The move from Word Perfect ruined year's worth of publications which had never had a problem but then had to be reformatted every time Word changed versions, printers or computers. The people who had to edit, maintain and print those things hated Word with a passion. The fortune 500 company had given up on Word as an archival format four years ago, but still inflicted it on everyone as an editor. I used two versions of it and can say that Office XP was worse than the one before it. I can also say that it is the worst word processor I'd ever used.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
HTML is a prime example of how this has cause problems. Initially, you separate the presentation from the data, leave that problem to the browser writers on what ever platform that maybe. Then marketing stepped in and look at all the crazy and fucked up things tables have become just to make it look the way that they want it to look rather than letting the browser lay it out. HTML wasn't designed that way.
I'm not bashing nice looking documents but there are formal disciplines for typesetting and proper ways to do things. Should you mess around with making it look nice or should you focus on the content and let some computer program figure the rest out?
I do a lot of writing -- manuscripts for publication, business documents, software documentation -- so I use many different tools for getting words onto paper.
LaTeX is very utilitarian, and the document sources (being pure text) are eminently portable. But for letters, short documents, and many tasks, I prefer a simple, clean WYSIWYG word processor.
Long ago, on a planet far, far away, I took a liking to the original versions of Microsoft Word -- even the non-graphical version that ran from the MS-DOS command line. It seemed cleaner and more logical than Word Perfect.
Up until a couple of years ago, I used Word under Windows -- but as time passed, I enjoyed using it less and less. Microsoft kept piling on feature after feature; the constant upgrade cycle was frustrating in the extreme. Until just recently, though, "free" and "open" software really didn't provide a good and reliable tool. Today, I have several "free" choices -- and that makes me quite happy.
I'm not fond of OpenOffice. OpenOffice is much too slow on start-up, and it feels almost exactly like Word, but "klunkier". And OpenOffice does not, as of this moment, compile for 64-bit AMD64 (yes, I know I can use 32-bit binaries, but I don't want to).
I like Abiword, though it has bitten me several times with crash bugs. I tend to use Abiword for MS Word documents.
For manuscripts, letters, and most word processing, I've settled on KWord. It starts quick, runs reliably (your mileage may vary), isn't overtly complex, and I have yet to try doing anything that KWord couldn't handle.
On the other hand, for spreadsheets, I've found Gnumeric to be more comfortable than KSpread or OpenOffice Calc.
For me, the appeal of "free" software is choice. I don't really care if other people prefer different solutions -- what I care about is that people can do their work comfortably and reliably. I think companies like Microsoft have forgotten this; they're so wrapped up in trying to force people into upgrades and service contracts, they've lost a sense of building products for people. While "free" software certainly has its problems, I at least get the sense that I'm working with software written by people, not marketroids.
All about me
John Dvorak is an idiot. He's a chronic complainer and has never been right about anything. Why he still has gainful employment I do not understand.
Word is the most stable of the open-source alternatives. I had to finally break down and buy it for my Mac because AbiWord and OO have crappy font support.
WP has a right-click feature called "Paste without Fonts/attribute". You right click anywhere in the document and you an paste cleanly. I wish OpenOffice.org would consider such a feature since that is what I use at home.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Why does that prevent the display of codes, HTML style? HTML is also nothing more than containers in containers.
If you had taken 20 seconds to scan the linked-to-article's first 2 paragraphs, you would have discovered that these nested containers contain pointers to formatting definitions contained at the beginning and end of the Word file. The situation described seems to resemble selectively applied style sheets, but even this is only a crude approximation of what is probably going on. Ultimately, HTML and Word files do their formatting work in entirely different ways and for you to compare the two on the basis of "nested containers" is like thinking peanut butter and butter must both be dairy products.
blog
I've deployed MS Office 2000 and XP (2002) routinely in multi-user and secure environments. I never have to grant any user "temporary admin" access to start using any Office app, including Word.
HOWEVER, there is one annoyance I've had to work around. Depending on the network's group/system policies, restricted users might not have CD-ROM access (!) enough to do the inital setup for their profile from the Office CD-ROMs.
The fix was to create an administrative installation on one of the servers and install it to the stations from a share (I use "\\server\office2k$" and deliberately hid the share with the "$"). I also granted Read and Execute permissions to regular users. That way, when a new user starts to use an Office app, the first time setup occurs from the network share and works just fine as a restricted user. This network share seems to work very quickly even over a DSL WAN connection (320 kbps) without taking an absurdly long time to finish.
Office 2003 goes a step further and puts the first-time setup and repair files on the local hard drive, foregoing the CD-ROM or network share access requirement for a first time use. You can remove those to save disk space (about 290 MB) if you have a network share as described above.
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
Now if I could only get her to use her Linux as a desktop, I'd be _very_ happy. Kills me to pay $100 for an upgrade to WinXP when I have subscription service to Slackware.
Oh we can fight back and forth all day about default options. However, the end result is this: Large, complex programs (most programs nowadays) have many options. It is extremely rare that the program will come with the default options exactly how you want them. Changing the options in Office/Firefox/Adobe is the first thing I do after installing them. There is no way to define the 'casual' word processor user, or identify what they want. Your complaint is like buying a new car and then saying that the radio presets aren't stations you listen to, so the car must be bad.
You said:
;)
"Now do some one know what do I have to do or to deactivate..."
You meant:
"Now does someone know what do I have to do to deactivate..."
It looks look you turned off the legible English feature in Word also.
Abiword is the devil. It once locked my computer for an hour before finally giving up and issuing a STOP error. Might be a Micro$oft problem, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time. OpenOffice is much better, even if it does create idle processes that eat up lots of virtual memory.
Opera + MSN
OpenOffice still has problems with limited users and multiple users on XP. And AbiWord last I read requires Administrator access on Win2K to run.
Have these been fixed? And without any voodoo installation that each user has to perform MANUALLY in order to use the thing?
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
So much whining. Word has a lot of features, in fact so many that after using it professionally for what seems like forever I'm still finding new features. Recently my girlfriend took a course, and I was blown away with several things that i just plain didn't know was possible within word.
Sure, to the novice it's irking "why did that indent"? but once you figure out (or god forbid take a course / read a manual" (ie, what does shift-enter do or ctrl-tab on a ordered list?)
I bet if Bill Gates bought him a sandwich he'd quit his bitching though.
I stopped using word,due to buggy bloated errors,but im not happy with open office, TOO SLOW!!
they need to speed it up,602 PC suite is better but its $30
I have absolutely no issues with the mac version of MS Word. Never asks for a CD, starts up really quick, does what it's supposed to do and gets out of your way for the most part. I haven't used the windows version in a while though, so I don't know how similar they are?
I had this exact same problem and what I did was record a macro. I made sure that the text I wanted to paste was already on the clipboard, then Record Macro, Edit -> Paste Special -> Unformatted Text, Stop Recording Macro.
Then, assign that macro to a shortcut key(s), mine was Ctrl + Shift + V. Works every time!
Quick course in copy edititing:
Worst BBC News Stories
Choose Print from the menu (or cmd-p) and then from the print dialog, click the "Save as PDF" button.
Oh wait, that's an OS X feature... never mind.
Or did the article not mention any alternatives to Word, while the Slashdot write-up says the article advocated AbiWord and/or OpenOffice as replacements?
C'mon people, I think the fact that we're all on Slashdot already pretty much says which side of the fence we fall on. There's no need to embelish on stories like that. Who are you trying to prove it to?
Hax.
http://www.haxwell.org
strings word.doc|fmt >word.txt
You, sir, are a living god.
Sincerely,
An anonymous OS X user
I mean it is quite simple to hit "Full Install" when you are installing Office and you will never once be asked to insert the CD to install a feature.
You can either choose to install key components and insert the CD when features that are not installed are needed, or install the full application. This way it is very unlike the Linux bloat of having 15 word processors, etc. The people get choice this way.
I hear ya, but let me try to explain why it IS important.
:-)
Remote working.
Two words: X Forwarding.
Oh yeah, Windows doesn't have that, 10 years after the *nix world got it. *pats his Linux box*
Seriously, though, I do understand where remote access to a document can be useful and necessary. But that doesn't require turning the entire computer into the Web Browser That Ate Tokyo, when in fact the majority of users and applications don't need that level of complexity. If you want to have an extra browser plugin or module or KPart that lets you edit a word processing document from within the read-only-based interface of your web browser, eh, ok. But for my use, having my word processor cluttered with web bookmarks and a reload button and other "web browser" functionality is a hinderence to me getting my job done. And I do work for an Internet company.
Ironically KParts, which is what makes the integration of Konqueror possible, could be handled to make both worlds possible without causing craploads of problems. Assuming they separate the tight file browser / web browser coupling first so that it doesn't end up hindering the rest of the system. (Aside from that problem, I absolutely love the work the KDE folks do.)
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
What a coincidence, I just wrote an article called "Time to Kill John Dvorak?"
As a tech writer forced to use Word for years I feel like a person who has been kidnapped and forcibly addicted to heroin. To think that I once knew vi, troff, and FrameMaker! Nevertheless, fair is fair on one of Dvorak's points. Dvorak complains about the mess you get when you accumulate too many marked-up changes in Word. I don't know of any automated diffs tool that doesn't get confused once the bulk of changes gets beyond a certain point, or once you start moving whole sections of text around. The same thing used to happen when we would diff two versions of a troff document. After a certain point, the whole document was one big change. Best practice is never to accumulate more than one round of comments/revisions per version: when you have dealt with those and the necessary approvals are in, you accept all the changes in the document and start afresh. The old markup becomes dead copy once all its issues have been addressed. If you want to save it, do so separately from the newly finalized version.
Word is fine for what it does: Desktop Publishing. I believe that's what Word is supposed to be used for primarily. It's just that the majority are just using it for writing papers and memos, etc.
For actual writing, I use Emacs (turn off your flamethrowers, zealots). It stays out of my way and lets me write, which is what I'm there for.
There's not going to be a decent alternative to Word until someone looks at the normal tasks people are doing with Word, and determines a new way for them to do that work. Clones of Word, near-copies of Word, etc, they all buy into the same paradigm and no one's going to see a compelling reason to switch.
Various versions of Word aren't 100% compatible. Dvorak and some editors tried to use the change-tracking markup, and "we had a huge mess." What was this mess? He didn't specify.
The problem is that changes tracked with Word 2000/XP lose their author information when loaded in to earlier versions of Word. They all show up as an unrejectable change made by "unknown" rather than a rejectable change made by one of the individuals in your group.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
First, I'm sure nobody wants to "kill" word. What would be nice is to simply reduce it's strangle-hold on the market. Second, the key to Microsoft's stranglehold is clearly .doc compatibility. OO has good .doc compatibility, but then who would send their boss a critical memo that got 2% of the formatting wrong?
The way to break .doc's strangle-hold is for corporations and government agencies to establish and adopt a completely open word-processing standard. Call it something like Universal Text Exchange (or whatever acronym isn't taken.) .ute needn't necessarily be "complete". But it could shoot for 95% of .doc's bell's and whistles. Next, corporations and government agencies would require that any used word-processor be capable of reading and writing .ute. Third, corporations would next require routine documents to saved in and distributed in .ute. Finally, work would immediately begin on .ut2
There are any number of existing text formats that could serve as a base for .ute. They just need to be opened up (if they aren't already) and (here's the tricky part) embraced and demanded by corporations and governments.
I hate the spell checker the most. It just says YOU ARE WRONG. Now I'm no expert but let's say I start righting something
"writing."
God is real unless declared integer
The main reason to dump .doc and .xls is.... patents. I think we can all see where Microsoft's game plan is headed at the moment. Longhorn will lock in the Microsoft world to just that, Microsoft and all associated products. They tried it with IE (frontpage, non-compliance with WC3, etc...), but it didn't catch (not fully, anyway, as MS wanted it to). Now, they're trying the Apple approach: closed standards, at least as far as the breadth of the stardard is. Developers will be permitted, under the new patents the MS are investing in at a furious rate, to develop utilities and methodoligies to interoperate with MS formats, as long as those formats are used within a MS application. The .doc and .xls formats will be phased out and replaced with a new standard file format put forth my MS, forced down our throats, as it were, by the new office applcations. The same will happen to networking standards, to combat Samba. We have to get new, universal standards that are not reliant on Microsoft, and force Microsoft to adhere to them, because they will find themselves in a position unable to only conform to their piece of the pie, and not the rest of the world, which is slowly but surely moving away from MS. They'd patent the english language and bar open standards from being released in english if they thought it possible.
Microsoft's "intelligent agent" is a product of Microsoft Bob which featured loads of these things. I think that those of us who are computer-literate often forget that there is a "great unwashed mass" out there that cannot for the life of them find that last file they downloaded and still don't know how to cut and paste or drag and drop between applications.
Microsoft has been "dumbing down" Word ever since Word for Windows version 2 and Word for the Macintosh version 5. I note that with Word 6 the automatic saving and restoring of names and addresses for each letter one made went away. "Autoformat" became "manual format" and has now "morphed" into "how Microsoft thinks your document should be formatted instead of how you really want it."
Unlike Cringely, I am hesitant to "upgrade," knowing full well that the next iteration of Microsoft's software will be worse than the last, requiring me to learn how to get around its maddening dumbing down "features." I found that when I moved to OS X, I had to upgrade to their Office X -- I was able to use Office version 4.2.1 just fine with Apple's System 9, which did not eat up processor cycles with "intelligent asisstants" and "a more colorful user interface."
Until Excel, or a better spreadsheet, ceases to be a requirement for me, I shall continue to rely on Office X and not install PowerPoint, the Office Menu Bar and their E-Mail program (which is dangerous to use because of the ease by which it may be spoofed by Macro Virii).
If I recall the Great Word Processor Debate of the 1980s and early 1990s, the definitive answer was: The Word Processor You Know Best Is Always Superior.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
thanks :~) I was always searching for the actual adobe product, since for some reason I thought that PDF was proprietary.... isn't it? nm, google shall answer that one.
Math looks like crap. M$ word is not usable for producing quality tech documents. Only LaTeX is suitable.
Must be how flame wars get started. [rimshot]
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
I see some other suggestions here, but here's one I used:
RedMon redirects a print stream into a program. Install a PostScript printer (say a LaserWriter), print through RedMon to ghostscript to produce a PDF.
Disregarding for the moment, the open standards and availability of Office Suites like OpenOffice, WordPerfect, is still, in my opinion, -the- best word processor ever.
There were a few versions that stumbled, i.e. 7, 8 and maybe 9. But everything since 10 has shown a definitive re-emergence of WordPerfect as -the- premier application suite.
Focusing just on WP itself, it is volumes better than Word. First off, where do you think Word got all it's ideas from? WP of course. And now, WP takes it one step further, giving users even -more- options than Word.
I've used WordPerfect for years, and like many, have been forced to use Word at work. I have literally spent -hours- on a Word document, trying to get it formatted the way it needs to be for official project documentation. I have, at times, given up on Word, after hours of frustration, and completed the -same- document in WP in less than an hour. And I'm not talking about copying and pasting -everything-, I'm talking about start to finish, inserting text, inserting charts, inserting photographs, etc. And -then- when I'm all done, I push a button and WP exports it to PDF. Word still doesn't do -that- for me. And it would appear that WP is delving into more of the open standars too.
So, for an MS Windows platform, I say there is nothing better than WordPerfect.
And now for Linux, I must say I haven't used anything better than OpenOffice, except that I -have- tried WP 8 for Linux and -do- like it, but it's pretty old at this point, so OpenOffice -is- better.
And lastly, for those script files and settings files that I have to edit or create for my Linux systems, I use VI exclusively.
It's a matter of using the right tool for the job, for me anyway.
Since they are both using XML as a way to create the documents.
Apparently his word processor doesn't check for sentence fragments.
The "Track Changes" option is the only thing that keeps me bound to MS Word. OpenOffice.org has a track changes option for the Windows OS version, but not for Mac OS X, so far as I can tell. Since I recently switched to a mac, my only remaining option seems to be MS Word.
...
... please? :-D
As a result, I am forced to continue to suckle on the Microsoft teat. Grrr
It would be fabulous if developers would consider writing a plug-in for OpenOffice or AbiWord adding a "Track Changes" option compatible with OS X
I try to reason with my wife and kids about this on a more fundamental level. I keep telling them "just type what you want to say first, then, after you have the content down, apply what formatting you need." More often than not they simply never get to part of actually putting together a coherent thought because they're constantly inturrupted by figuring out how to get the colors, pictures and margins right.
This happens at work too. I get so many memos typed up by "high-priced executive secretaries" that look like a figgin' ransome notes with word-art scattered through it - just to tell me that there will be a meeting next wednesday with a guest speaker. Sometime I think Word and Powerpoint suck more time and productivity than they are worth because people spend so much time fiddling with it, trying to be "creative", when it has little or no impact of the purpose of the document. It is because of this that there is so much feature-creep and bloat in software.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Pdf is proprietary in that Adobe controls the format and the definition, but they openly publish the specifications and don't try to control implementation. They seem to be more interested in selling high-end solutions than bothering with little stuff like print driver replacements.
Mind you, they have shown a dark side...
yeah but it is not HTML anymore so why call it that???
love is just extroverted narcissism
My biggest grievance about Word is the way it does styles. If you change a style by actually going into the style and changing it, Word will ask you if you actually want to update the text that's in that style. Um, of course! And trying to get text to actually conform to its style is another exercise in frustration. It means many extra keystrokes for every change of the style, which can be a lot when you're tweaking fine things like paragraph spacing, indents, etc. Styles in Word seem to be an afterthought, rather than the basis of things. Word's clearly designed for people who don't use styles; it pretends to be a good DTP package but isn't.
I was pleasantly surprised when I started using OO.o. Its styles are much more like a professional DTP package. When you change the style, the text of that style just changes. No annoying "Would you like to update the style, update the text or do nothing?" questions. And OO.o has the "Standard" format option, to forcibly make text conform to a style in a couple mouse-clicks. OO.o isn't perfect, but the way it does styles was enough to convert me.
I like Microsoft a great deal. I think Bill Gates gets a bad rap, as his foundation does great work. I like .NET and think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
But I hate Word with all my soul.
I think you've got too much faith in the average person's level of grammar knowledge.
Many people I know don't need Word's help to put a bunch of extra commas in sentences where they don't belong. They can do that just fine by themselves.
The problem seems to stem from apathy on the part of most people I know. Who needed to learn English back in high school? After all, we were all going to be scientists and programmers. Let the Technical Communication people worry about it, right?
It's a rare occurrence, and quite extraordinary in my opinion, when I find someone at my university who can write in a way that doesn't make me wince. Proper spelling, grammar, and overall English usage seems to be an increasingly lost art, and I think it's sad.
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
After reading the prior messages on this thread, there is ont other reason I'd like to submit for moving away from MS Word: forced migrations.
Software companies primarily make money two ways: selling copies of software and, once they've saturated their target market, getting current customers to buy new versions or upgrades of the same software.
MS does the latter very well. They release new versions of MS Office every 18-24 months and bundle them with the new computers your organization buys, essentially "infecting" your organization with software that constantly reminds people that there are old, "obsolete" versions hanging around impeding your computing productivity. You either upgrade or buy an enterprise license and reimage PCs to deal with the document compatibility issues.
About 10 years ago I worked in an organization with over 2,000 people at our location. Our standard word processor was MS Word 2.0 (for Windows, not Mac). Then MS released Word 6.0. (They allegedly skipped 3.x through 5.x so the Windows version would have a higher number than the Mac version and achieve numerical parity with Wordperfect.)
Twelve people in the organization got Word 6.0 and started releasing their documents into the wild. Those of us with Word 2.0 complained that they needed to save in a format we could read. The Gang of Twelve responded that the rest of us were computer Luddites that needed to upgrade so they wouldn't have to change their default settings.
Within a year, we were all on Word 6.0, despite the fact that the new word processor provided no added value for people who were simply using the software as a wysiwyg typewriter.
This system of software migration essentially takes away an organization's ability to decide when its office automation software is obsolete and replaced it with significant pressure to upgrade existing software. Aside from the technical issues, I'd like to be able to decide for myself, and my organization, when my office software no longer meets my needs. Otherwise, we will continue to pay companies like MS for the privilege of upgrading our systems whenever they decide to release a new version through PC OEMs to improve their revenue stream.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
Kill Word because .. why again? I'm still waiting for a compelling arguement that makes more sense then, "because it's not free.".
Food, shelter, clothing and entertainment is not free, yet you want the company that is responsible for 100% of why computers are in your possession in your home today to give away everything for free without making a monstrous profit.
Well, communists, we live in a capiltalistic society: Go invent something and manipulate the system the way Bill Gates did, and perhaps you could be the one controlling what computer or device I'll be using in 20 years to surf the web or whatever other computing medium is the standard in the future.
Else - SPEND the money and quit complaining. -nothing- in this life is free.
What about this code is not standards compliant?
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
It happens that on Linux, the safe assumption is that the user will be effective as a SysAdmin, and therefore is better off seeing more detailed information.
In Windows, it happens that the assumption is that the user is someone's grandmother, and therefore needs text that says something like "go find a SysAdmin to fix this problem". (What you're looking for is the error log, but that's pretty well hidden and extremely incomplete as well, because most Windows programmers incorrectly assume that *all* users are someone's grandmother).
That's not a function of CLI vs. GUI at all. A programmer could, if he wished, show exactly the same information as the CLI on the GUI, but not vice-versa. Way to dis a better tool!
If Corel can find a single marketing executive who can sell his way out of a wet paper bag, with the help of Arnie, it would slaughter Word.
.sxw doc.
On the other hand...TEN YEARS AGO and more, I was reading reviews of word processors in PC Mag pointing out that 90% of all users used only 10% of the features, *ever*, and the 10% that used any of the other features only used them 10% of the time.
They're *supposed* to be word processors, not desktop publishers. How about *word* *processors*, with plugins for desktop publishing?
Alternatives:
- is there a version of Abiword 2 that does *not* break Apache (with aspell)? Abiword came up with a blank page for a new document in under 10 seconds on my 250MHz K-6
- is there *any* chance that OpenOffice.dog developers could be kidnapped, and forced to develop on something *other* than the machine that they play Doom3 on? I mean, for all practical puroses, I notice *zero* difference in how long it take me to bring OO.o up, and get to new text document, one my old 250MHz K-6, my laptop's 450, or my new-to-me 950MHz Athlon: about 30 sec. from file to to new text document. It takes that long, or longer, to open an existing 8k
Ain't my idea of competetive....
mark, ready to run WP 6 under Wine
That's not all that the WYSIWYM gets you. It also fits into the larger workflow. From Idea processors on down.
What is Microsoft Word? I only know Open Office and I am very happy with it.
"XML based formats are too verbose to be written or read by humans"
Which is why you use a special editor, like Vex or XMLSpy.
And before you say something smart about "Why do I have to use a special editor?" All editors are "special", unless you do all your work in binary.
There's an extension for Firefox that will allow you to copy the text as plain directly from the browser. No notepad required, no paste special required. It gives you an extra context menu option for copying - and maybe even a keyboard shortcut?
Enjoy!
I happen to work at Staples, and I do know that they sell the Student & Teacher edition for several hundred dollars less than the STD. edition (S&T is usually around $120 while standard edition is around $399)...
However, we also sell StarOffice for $69. an extra $50 off even the student and teacher edition of word.
it kills me when local small business owners come in and buy three copies of MS Word for full price. I really don't think there'd be any reason why your average business couldn't get along with OpenOffice considering if a business needs to buy three licenses, they're going to be out $1200.
$1200 can convince a lot of people to do a lot of things, you'd think using a replacement word processor and spreadsheet to perform basic funtions would be among them.
Take Care
A1miras
You will need to insert page breaks manually. Insert-->Manual Break and select "Page", but don't let it default to using Style=[None]. Instead, set each of these page breaks to use "Style=First Page". (This style has neither footers nor headers).
If you want to have headers on pages 2,3,4, but no footers, you will need to create a new page style, with headers turned on and footers left off.
On the page break preceeding the page where you want numbers to appear, select "Style = Default" (including both headers and footers) and checkbox "Change Page Number", entering the page number which you want on the next page. (In your case, probably changing the calculated page number "5" to be page number "1".)
In another common situation, where people have divided documents into multiple separate files, you would set your first page # to be much higher than "1". (Although dividing a document into separate files means that you can't generate a TOC automatically, and I don't recommend doing it.)
Modifying, Creating, and Applying Styles is the key to using OOo Writer effectively.
I agree entirely.
A GUI is, in most cases today, operating at a higher level of abstraction than a CLI. As with all such distinctions, the higher level conceals some of the details, in exchange for providing a simplified picture. As with all such distinctions, for tasks that require an understanding of those details, you must revert to the lower level tools, or choose a different higher level tool. And as with all such distinctions, for most other things Joe User will be much more productive using a suitable higher level tool. The trick is to build a good higher level tool, or range of higher level tools, which minimise the information loss while maximising the usability, and which get in the way as little as possible when you really do need to go lower.
An example close to the subject at hand is LaTeX. For most people, it's faster to produce a nicely formatted document with LaTeX by using a standard document class than it would be by using plain TeX, or by writing their own LaTeX class. OTOH, customising those documents is a bitch, so if you need to follow a house publication style, you're probably going to want to dive into LaTeX's innards and produce a custom class. For a document that doesn't fit any of the classic LaTeX formats, you might be better off developing your own macro set in plain TeX in the first place. It works for Knuth... In any case, you could have produced a quick letter faster using MS Word and a template, but the kind of person who uses a typesetting system instead of a WP finds that today's WPs give up too much control by going to that high a level.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I used lewp on my parents' machine for a while when I was in junior high. I wasn't computer literate enough, nor do I remember enough details to give any coherent impressions. Maybe the mere fact that I was fairly illiterate and I could still use it says something?
Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon
< rant> ... .NET bites, IMHO), and Excel2000 (although the [buggy] way that it impliments VBA is so evil that it should just be eliminated, IMNSHO -- VBA is just plain evil) /rant>
it[M$ Word]'s buggy.
it's always been buggy.
it seems to get buggier with every downgrade.
i, recently, installed M$ Office 2003 Pro. on one of my home boxes -- got a 'deal' through work. Brought a paper home, t'other day -- other primary author used Word 2000... loaded the paper on my home box, and swiftly went from confusion to horror, as I watched Word2003 change the doc formatting with almost every key-stroke. embedded images changed size and location, sometimes disappearing altogether. tables were a nightmare, with column widths mutating, seemingly at random. best of all, Word2003 insisted on applying (seemingly randomly selected) "style"s to all of the text/content, altering font type, size, indentation, &c., &c., ad nausium.
revisions which should have only taken me ~15min (~45pp doc) wound up taking a couple of hours... then I get to work, and can't load the &%^$@!*ing file (Word2000).
there are two (moderately) decent products that M$ produces: VisualStudio (6.0 --
<
You need a doctype; unless you're coding in HTML 3.2, you need to lowercase all your tags; you need a character set (meta) tag...
Yeah, right.
Nor does the average user care to save their work in .DOC format. They simply want something that changes their format and looks the same the next time they open it. Word fails both, but it's what most users get with their PC so it's what they use. It's up to us to get them something that meet their actual wants. OO, Kword, AbiWord, even Mozilla's editor do a better job. Enough Word users, such as Dvorak, have had enough of Word's problems.
They might also object to using Word as their email editor, if they knew better. Microsoft, however, strongly suggest that with Office XP.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
OK... you got me. It's been a while since I was coding HTML, and I think I was using HTML 3 then. Nevertheless I think my point stands, which is that Word's "clean code" is full of a bunch of other crap that doesn't need to be there. My failure to include 1 extra line (a doctype, which any browser I've ever used will infer anyway) and lowercase my tags doesn't make the point any less valid, even if my code is.
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
I would rather upgrade my connection to broadband than get a new release of notepad. But that's just me.
The more you know, the less you need. [Admin added: from me.]
So why does MS Word in Crossover Office start up faster than OpenOffice running in native Linux? I know that MS Word and Wine aren't being loaded at boot time, and there is nothing in any Autostart or startup directories causing MS Office to load when I start X. MS Office can't cheat under the Crossover/Wine environment, yet it still loads quite a bit faster than OpenOffice, though it is slightly slower than on Windows due to not being able to load anything when booting. Mabye Wine's dynamic linker is faster than the normal Linux linker, who knows.
Yes.
Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
The architecture is good. Font handling is an operating system service which should be provided to applications, each application should not mess about deciding how best to craft it's fonts. The beauty of Open Source is that there is no need for some clever person to waste their time fixing the problem in the wrong place when the correct place is just as available to go tinkering. (calling it a problem is a bit strong though, sub pixel font hinting or coloured fonts in general falls in to the eye candy enhancement bucket rather than the problems to fix bucket)
Plain text certainly is a problem. Word takes over almost all text formats, and for programmers there is no reason they'd enjoy having a text document open in word, only to have to paste to another WORD/ TEXT editor to save it properly in Plain text.
There are dozens of formats you can save to that no one uses, but why not the most basic one on all Windows computers, and other machines too?
It just doesn't make sense. It's like if Media Player 9 would play MPEG files, but not uncompressed AVI, for that you need to open Media Player basic to have proper support. It's lunacy.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Because I have seen too many people make this error: "Ever-changing .doc format: Yes, the doc format changes. How else are new features supposed to be saved? However, Office has XML-based formats that work quite well now, too (since Office2K, even!)"
This is just wrong: a properly specified document format is forwards *and* backwords compatible. You can have different versions of an application with different capabilities losslessly read and write the same files.
As a rather simplified example of this consider HTML. A useragent need only support a subset. If it doesn't know a tag it just discards it. For read/write ability in the most generic sense the tag would be anchored but invisible. Even if the application doesn't know how to parse it, it can still keep it around and save the same thing back out.
Still don't believe me? Try PageStream -- this is a desktop publishing application. As an example, the Pro version has some specialized text manipulation that the Standard version lacks. This doesn't present a problem in switching versions, however. Moreover, you can load a PgS 5 document into PgS 3.
PageStream's file format is IFF which is more-or-less 8-bit binary XML. (Most people associate IFF with the IFF-ILBM, but IFF just presents a standard way for arranging information.)
thoromyr
By the way, what was that comment about OSS thrown in there for? I'm not the author of any OSS that I am aware of, so that was nothing more than a non-sequitur. I'm glad you're not an OSS fan, though. Keep using MS software. I like the idea that the open source community is mostly populated by intelligent, easy-going, fun people, and your participation and support would really spoil that idea for me.
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
If you put the time in, you can create fairly useful though basic 3 D plans in Word. There's more to it than meets the eye. Therein lies the problem though.
Jack of all trades master of none sells to the masses. If theres a better way to do something, the average PC user doesn't seem to know about it. Heck, loads of PC users have probably never heard of other word processing software or formats other than *.doc (e.g., WordPerfect or RTF).
How many damn fonts do we need??? Half of them are just plain unuseable in a professional environment. Doesn't stop some people using 12 different fonts in the same paragraph...
Some days I miss simple Amstrad and Cannon Word Processors. They get the job done and don't take 3 weeks to start up and close down.
Ever tried editing Word docs over dial-up.....
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Its just too easy to create 50 Mb Word docs when 1.5 Mb RTF would do...
Think what all that extra data is doing to networks..
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
you need to lowercase all your tags
Bzzt! wrong, sorry. Unless you're using xhtml (which he isn't, and shouldn't be), HTML tags are case-insensitive. And the character set may be provided by an HTTP header rather than a meta tag...
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Actually, browsers weren't designed to show web pages. They were designed to show research papers. None of these image things. None of these forms things. It was just supposed make it easy to get from one article to the articles it references. Oops. Now we have all these email apps and shopping carts, and no one seems to be complaining. Of course, the telephone was designed to transmit orchestral concerts long distances. Oops. When you release a technology, much as when you release a work of art, the creation becomes the property of its audience. Web browsers will become whatever we make them. I welcome the day when my files are all online, and a web browser grabs whatever I need. But even if you don't relish the thought, it's a mistake to think XForms and other XML technologies are to be trapped in browsers forever. For an example, look at Apple's upcoming Dashboard, which literally displays web pages in floating blobs. This is only the beginning. Some day, we'll look back and say "You mean we used to write software, and you had to have a separate copy on each machine!?! And I say let that future roll in.
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to do it by not dying." -Woody Allen
Fascinating. That was not my intended sub-text, and on re-reading it I find it very difficult to bring that out as the primary message. Yes I was having a go at the local OO groupies. That was all. I'd add that reviews of spreadsheets in grown up PC magazines also tend to leave me underwhelmed.
As to Gnumeric, OK, fair call, the next big personal spreadsheet project I take on I'll give it a spin.
The "browser" of today is designed to handle a number of simple interactive tasks. Web forms and Flash and JavaScript and so on are all there for one reason: to take the Web from being a set of hyperlinked documents to being a set of zero install cost applications.
Using just a browser, you can participate in a forum, you can play games, you can read email , go shopping or bid in an auction. Are those Web pages, or are those applications delivered via a browser?
Unfortunately, Internet Explorer is holding us all back. It's got us stuck in a technology rut, where existing standards are corrupted and future standards are stillborn. Progress cannot be made, and we're left with the cruft of the last browser war. Web developers want the new features of WebForms 2.0, XHTML, XSLT, and CSS, but have to target the current user base: IE5/6. Users, of course, never see anything but what the web developers produce, and that works fine in IE5/6. It's a lock-in.
So what you're asking here is impossible. The web browser is already an applications platform, and there are already hundreds of thousands of applications targetting that platform. You used one when you posted your comment, but I didn't see you complain, or insist that slashdot isn't a web site. New standards are an evolution, not a revolution. We have Web applications today, but the Web apps of tomorrow could be so very much better, if only Microsoft weren't in the way.
--bje
>John Dvorak over at ABC News is starting to
...and replace it with a program that only accepts the dvorak keyboard layout.
>question if it's time to kill Word...
--A witty sig proves nothing.--
It seems that PC Mag's aged columnist John C. Dvorak is forgetting to take his morning pills....
, 00.as p
For example, in another article he claimed that there is no advantage to using "fuel cells in" notebooks and portable computers. He ridiculed
fuel cells saying batteries are better: "unless you are stuck in the Gobi desert for months on end".
The article starts by saying:
"Look for a new generation of fuel-cellpowered laptops that people will gobble uponly to discover that a fuel cell is just a different kind of battery. To me, a fuel cell is a battery in which one of the components usually but not always a liquid deteriorates and is physically replaced rather than "recharged".
And ends:
"The advantage of a fuel cell is that with component replacement, you never have to find a power source to recharge the cell electrically.
But in today's world (unless you are stuck in the Gobi desert for months on end), there is no reason to prefer a fuel cell to a rechargeable battery"
Full article at:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1359929
Of course this is a guy that appears on the column photo blocking his ears with both hands... perhaps hinting about his readiness to hear about new developments and environment-friendly technology.
Maybe Bush, Cheney and Co. can name Mr. Dvorak for the National Science Foundation or the Environmental Protection Agency?
This is the same Dvorak who:
/ 01/90/f0/a9_1_b.JPG
1 5023412/http://w ww.pcmag.com/issues/1601/pcmg0024.htm
0 0.asp
2 ,00.asp
e wnews.cgi? category=2&id=1092414560
m an/files/e ComStation12_announcement.pdf ...and IBM has released two months ago official drivers implementing Speedstep (Centrino power management) in OS/2:f 7e05615 440e8f086256b6c005eac99/02b90dda6d6c99ec872568bd00 5b4622?OpenDocument
-Wrote "Dvorak's Guide to OS/2" (a book)
ISBN: 067974648X
Picture:
http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i
Dvorak 1997: "I don't think IBM will discontinue it (os/2) anytime soon"
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/199704
Dvorak 2001: IBM should open source OS/2!
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,5908,
Dvorak 2002: IBM killed OS/2, "OS/2 is dead"
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,76824
It's funny, because eComstation (based in OS/2 v4.52 + new ibm drivers + OpenOffice 1.1.1 + usb drivers, + serial-ata support) has shipped last month (August 2004).
August 13/2004:
eComstation v1.2 released
http://www.os2world.com/cgi-bin/news/vi
PDF press release:
http://www.ecomstation.com/edp/mod/file
http://www7.software.ibm.com/2bcprod.nsf/b
So Dvorak has fallen himself in the "kill os/2 every year" trend that journalist Nick Petreley called the "Clark Kent Hat law"
----
"Product most likely to be discontinued: IBM will abandon OS/2 Warp several more times this year. Well, to be honest, that probably won't happen. But it's the national pastime of the trade press to predict OS/2's demise, and I understand I could lose my Clark Kent press hat if I don't cooperate." - Nicholas Petreley, 1996
----
So, if it's *DVORAK* who is predicting the death of a product, I'd take it with a large bag of salt, and here I am predicting that the product will live on several more years, indeed.
I'd suggest everyone that is actually interested in seeing OpenOffice become the standard to actually *PURCHASE* StarOffice 7 from Sun.
You know, most of the money for OpenOffice development comes from Sun Microsystems, and by buying StarOffice 7, you are directly helping the future of OpenOffice.org.
Plus, with StarOffice 7 you get some extra goodies in there like a commercial Thesaurus, Clip Art, extra fonts, and tech support.
The inertia is too big. Projects like XFree86 are slow to accept changes, and adoption of new features goes very very slowly.
It could be argued that the whole environment is a big bag of application level hacks: widget sets, transparent windows, color management, window management, etcetera.
Font handling is an operating system service which should be provided to applications, each application should not mess about deciding how best to craft it's fonts.
Well, yes, but if the font handling provided by the OS sucks, then what?
(calling it a problem is a bit strong though, sub pixel font hinting or coloured fonts in general falls in to the eye candy enhancement bucket rather than the problems to fix bucket)
The whole point of fonts is to look good. Fonts on X look like shit. That is a very big problem.
Well, next time I am working on a one word document, I will use Word. Up to now, all my documents have contained at least two words, including my last letter to Microsoft, so I have been forced to use software with the necessary support for documents with multiple words.
I (Gentoo Linux user) never use any of these Office software. It started when I concluded HTML is very easy to learn and very easy to work with. Since that day I never used any office suite again. It allows you to build documents in a flash! (not macromedia)
If you think it hasn't enough functions you can also try XML
Another point of using HTML is that you can read/write it with almost all text editors even the form I'm writing in now!
Gedit does a fine job, my opinion.
windows users I advice AceHTML Freeware
make install, not war
Oddly enough, that makes perfect sense.
:| The fact that modern Word does this at all is one of the reasons I've switched to TextEdit for most of my writing, and Dreamweaver for things that require bullets. :P I haven't actually needed Word in a really long time.
Too bad they forgot the "discard formatting" option.
A bad interface is equally possible at a comamnd line level than in a GUI.
Place blame where it belongs -- firmly on those who wrote the product with the unclear dialog. And if that's Windows, that's Windows.
Hi, IAAPT (I am a professional translator), and what you're talking about is right on the money, so to speak. In fact, it's already being promoted in certain areas, specifically the kind of straightforward technical writing you're talking about. The term you're looking for is controlled writing, and there are even software tools to help technical writers match the style of specified writing projects. Controlled writing is of particular importance in machine translation, as there can only be a limited corpus of material in the translation database, and you want to be sure that you don't inadvertently throw something at the system that isn't already in there. As ever, the holy oracle of language usage has more to say about this if you're so inclined.
Furthermore, there are simpler translation memory systems that simply record the translations that a human has worked on. I use one such system from time to time, called Trados (disclaimer: no, I don't work for them or have any relationship at all aside from that of customer). Large corporate houses that handle significant translation volume can sometimes utilize such systems, which get better the more volume you have and the longer you use them. New documents for translation can then be run through the system for pre-processing, and then checked for accuracy. Whatever comes out the end that hasn't been translated at all can then be translated afresh, and possibly outsourced if the text is contiguous enough. (Outsourcers rightly enough often refuse to work on collections of discrete sentences, as there is often not enough context to either make out what is being said or to get into a good translating pace -- one major reason PowerPoint presentations are so difficult to outsource.)
Either route, the options presently available (and likely available for some years to come) still require knowledgeable and trained humans at the end to make sure you don't wind up with oddities like "there is a chisel in my dog" (hint: go to Altavista's Babel Fish page and translate "my dog has fleas" from English to Japanese and back again).
Anyway, this is probably more than you wanted to know, but there you have it. :)
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Actually, some of the more experimental (i.e., with big budgets and in labs, not the sort you'll be able to play with online) machine translation systems are showing interesting success rates using statistical models rather than any sort of conceptual processing. Instead of trying to imitate a human's range of knowledge and responses, the teams building these systems are coming at the problem from the point of view of, given X in language A, what is the most likely X in language B? And rather than approaching the text at the level of words (painfully failure-prone, requiring unwieldy grammatical modelling and extensive dictionaries), the models approach the text at the level of segment (usually sentences, but configurable). What some of the more successful systems have used is a set corpus of source texts, which the team then outsources to a number of different translators. These translations (target texts) are all fed into the memory system, with the relevant segments linked to the appropriate segments in the source corpus. Though now six years old, one such effort is outlined here.
However, ultimately, your comment of "narrow, carefully bounded areas of discourse" is perfectly apt -- the statistical model itself might be applicable to general discourse, but the amount of work needed to generate such a linked corpus precludes its creation for any but the most specific and clearly useful applications. Industrial language is a great area for machine and/or machine-assisted translation, in that the volume is high enough humans alone can't handle it without exorbitant cost, yet the language itself is constrained to the point that machine translation becomes feasible, even desirable in that humans would often be bored (the writers of such documentation also have my sympathies). Furthermore, new documentation is often only an update of what came before, meaning that most of it has likely been translated in the past, and the prior target-language text(s) can thus be reused. As I mentioned in another post in this thread, deliberately constrained writing can simplify the process even further. "Controlled writing" is much like a well-internationalized coding project, in that it is much more easily localized to other target languages.
I do tend to ramble on, but then translation is my livelihood. :) Cheers!
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I hear your point about defaults and personal preferences. However, your analogy doesn't quite work. Annoying defaults in Word actually get in the way of getting productive work done, whereas annoying defaults in a car radio hardly prevent one from driving (unless of course the music in question is bad enough to drive one to road rage...).
One of the subtexts of this overall thread has been that Word has erratic behavior, and finding and fixing the causes can be a long, drawn-out, and frustrating process at best. Leaving aside the issue of which defaults would be best, I think we can all agree on some level that Word has become cumbersome to use.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Do you mean a filter for use from within OOo? Been done. If you mean for use within MS Office programs, oofda. I can see the utility, but really, isn't it much easier (for those with it installed) to simply do any ex/im from within OOo?
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."