Why use Open Source when Microsoft products are so cheap... 10014
I haven't used it for heavy editing of large documents. I can't say how it performs for reformatting 200 pages with a new font, or pasting objects into the middle and renumbering, etc. If the startup issue is indicative, it's slow at everything else as well. It just feels slow overall - though the "speed of a word processor" is kind of oxymoronic.
I'm just used to snappy applications, and I won't use slow ones if I can help it.
That's your opinion, based on little experience and lots of bias. The truth is, the vastly overwhelming percentage of .docs from earlier versions of Word convert and open identically in new versions of Word.
You won't mind if I don't take your word for it.
By that standard they should open the source code of Windows and other Office components. And every other product enjoying a monopolistic position should be effectively donated to the world. That will be a sad day in American history if it ever happens.
Publishing the file format specs of Word would immediately reduce its market value by some large percentage, say 50% to 75%. MS would still successfully sell Word in the Office bundle, but I think standalone sales would plummet as a truly 100% compatible version suddenly becomes available at presumably a lower price.
All to satisfy 8 disgruntled cola nuts and a few non-compebreastive software vendors? It's your dream come true. I don't think it will ever happen. I sure hope not.
It benefits the free market because it offers a standard format for marked-up document interchange. An OpenOffice Calc document is effectively worth no more to someone without OO than is an Excel document to someone without Excel.
I don't know of one. There's certainly no barriers to entry into the word processing market. The fact that people won't buy WordPerfect for Windows at the rate at which they buy MS Word for Windows is no reason to force MS to open up their IP.
Why use Open Source when Microsoft products are so cheap... 10017
snips You have to quantify it because "slow" is meaningless. I've worked on codebases where, despite distributed compilation and a good number of machines cranking away, compiles require better...
Lack of knowledge of program features and user errors are just that. They have no bearing on the value of a file format.
Why use Open Source when Microsoft products are so cheap... 10015
Which is an absolutely terrible design if it really does behave that way. Why "take that hit" for every single feature the user may or may-not...
Good. Every owner and inventor of IP should be so fortunate.
Why use Open Source when Microsoft products are so cheap... 10019
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:00:08 GMT Good points. I'll admit were I to design a system similar to MS's Word in documentation format, I'd use...
I think they created their own version to make the syntax easier to learn and use.
FYI, Access also offers the option to use and generate ANSI92 syntax.
Why use Open Source when Microsoft products are so cheap... 10016
The Ghost In The Machine Why would I have to quantify it? My quantification is not...
90%+ I would think. As far as I know, FileMaker and a lesser-known engine called VistaDB are the only current realistic compebreastion for a Windows-based file-server dbms. There used to also be Lotus Approach, Borland Paradox, and Borland Visual dBase, but they're dead now.
That's putting it very mildly.
That sounds familiar: it describes every single computer language in use today.
Your opinion betrays a lack of experience in the environment of large businesses. Macro and VBA documents are widely used, especially in accounting. I've seen several sophisticated accounting and real estate investment analysis models built in Excel, and sold by Big 6 accounting firms.
Not for Kelsey. He's just getting started.