Strange network connectivity issue

[Gewehr98]

Regarding the OpenOffice Ick Factor:

Mtnbkr, Ben, and Brad expressed my sentiments quite nicely.

Free is nice, but in a professional world, you go with the industry standard that works.  OpenOffice doesn't do that for me, and I'm not going to risk a customer's or client's wrath because there's an "oopsy" in formatting between OO and Office, or that a recipient can't open a document.  As much as I love my swappable Linux installation on my workstation, I still default to MS Office for professional results.  YMMV, of course - if it works for you, more power to you, but don't assume everybody gets that warm and fuzzy OpenOffice feeling.  

[tyme]

Openoffice's UI seems faster in windows than in linux.  I wonder if they used native Windows APIs for menus and toolbars, while using some sort of dynamically interpreted config for menus and toolbars in linux?  Anyway, OO(windows) doesn't seem noticeably slower than MS Office to me.

The other points rest on the assumption that whoever you're exchanging documents with is using MS Office.  That is becoming less certain.  If some people you're communicating with are using OpenOffice or Google Docs, there are going to be formatting snafus even if you do use MS Office.

My rather limited perception is that outside of a homogeneous office environment (in which case the corporation typically buys MS office for everyone), people don't care very much if formatting of office-suite documents is perfect.  When I see a word or excel document where someone has obviously spent hours meticulously formatting it, I wonder why they place such a low value their time.

Excel and Word (and Powerpoint) are not professional publishing or presentation software.  Are there any serious publishing software ecosystems that use something other than Adobe software, or the unix-ish TeX route?

[Gewehr98]

Tyme, I cannot answer for everybody, but MS Office is the de-facto standard in all the industries I've worked for, be it the U.S. Air Force, GE Healthcare, Dane County Sheriff's Department, Production Machine, and Ikaria.  Outlook, PowerPoint, Word, Excel, Access, Project, you name it.  We're all idiots for doing so, I understand, but perhaps useful idiots?

[mtnbkr]

The other points rest on the assumption that whoever you're exchanging documents with is using MS Office.  That is becoming less certain. 

No, not really.  It's a safe assumption that the receiving party will be using, or at least have installed, MS Office.  Especially in large corporate environments.  I've heard a few companies make noise about using alternatives for cost savings, but they eventually drop that idea because their clients all use Office.

My rather limited perception is that outside of a homogeneous office environment (in which case the corporation typically buys MS office for everyone), people don't care very much if formatting of office-suite documents is perfect.

Potential customers can be lost if the documentation you send them isn't crisp and polished, something near impossible to accomplish if you're trying to move between different applications.

When I see a word or excel document where someone has obviously spent hours meticulously formatting it, I wonder why they place such a low value their time.

Nice subtle dig.  Properly formatting a document doesn't take hours, it takes seconds as you are writing.  When you are writing a large, complex document, a little formatting beyond paragraph breaks enhances readability and organization.  Or maybe you find charts or graphs a bit too pedestrian?

Excel and Word (and Powerpoint) are not professional publishing or presentation software.  Are there any serious publishing software ecosystems that use some
thing other than Adobe software, or the unix-ish TeX route?

No, they aren't, but there is space for proper documentation between notepad/vi and a true desktop publishing system.

And while it may chap your hide that corporations aren't cranking out dense text files of data with vi or producing simple reports with desktop publishing software, the reality is they are using Office.  Deviating from that standard doesn't enhance productivity, nor does it make a statement that needs to be made in that context.

Hell, even my manager, who is a hardcore geek and not a character from Dilbert, insists output from scripts be formatted for readability and easy importation into excel.

Chris

[Brad Johnson]

Some folks will take any opportunity to find fault with Office, not that it's hard.  They will use any line of reasoning to justify using of something else, no matter how mainstream or business-norm the offending product might be. (queue mandatory Mac-is-better-than-PC quip).

Heck, I'm a die-hard WordPerfect fan.  I debated tossing office in favor of the latest WordPerfect suite.  Debated it a lot.  The WP interface is much more intuitive, it is much more flexible in terms of custom formatting, and far easier to deal with when it comes to dealing with funky formatting and auto-insert issues. 

But I didn't.

Why, because Office is the business norm.  Set the "Save In Format" option to Office 97 and documents can be opened virtually anyone in the business community, and without significant formatting issues, if any (presuming you aren't like my ex and insist on fonts used by no one else on planet Earth).

My rather limited perception is that outside of a homogeneous office environment (in which case the corporation typically buys MS office for everyone), people don't care very much if formatting of office-suite documents is perfect.

Get out more.  Most businesses care, and care a lot.  If the formatting isn't correct they risk losing time and customers.  That means losing money.  Often a lot of money.  Try sending a don't-care-very-much-if-it's-perfectly-correct presentation to the Board of Directors for a Fortune 500 company and watch how fast they pick the other guy to do business with.

Like Chris said, formatting is done in situ.  Proper document formatting is not a function of the software.  If the person writing the document doesn’t have some sense of grammar, syntax, spacing, and punctuation, then software is the least of the problems.  Sure, the software can help catch the occasional improper spelling or usage, but that should only be as a redundant backup.  The first line of defense is that grey mush between the writer’s ears.

Plus, that "homogenous office environment" you're talking about is what most of us deal with every day, only we don't just deal with our own.  We also deal with all those other "homogenous office environments" that result in the consistency and continuity of our paychecks.

Excel and Word (and Powerpoint) are not professional publishing or presentation software.

Correct. Nor were they meant to be.  That's why Office Pro is five hundred dollars per license, not five thousand like some of the big commercial publishing software packages.  Office products are, however, perfectly acceptable and capable for generating day-to-day business presentations, correspondence, and small-dataset spreadsheets.  Docs that can be sent, opened, and read, without any undo gyrations or technological headaches, by pretty much every other business.

tyme, you may not like it but Office is the accepted business standard.  Sounds like you enjoy playing the rebel outsider, using something free that gets you close enough for your standards.  That's fine.  I used to do the same thing.  However, in the business world "close" is not enought.  Companies don't have the time or patience to sit back and admire your rebel outsider-ness.  All they care about is they can't read that proposal you sent, but they can read your competitor's.  To be competitive you have to be compatible.  In this case "compatible" equals Office.

Brad