[BloodEagle]

Does anyone know if LibreOffice / OpenOffice files are compatible with M$Office?

I ask, because when I checked OpenOffice out the first time (it was a while ago, I admit), the documents it outputted drastically changed when opened in M$Office.

[Bobboau]

it has gotten better, but it's still not perfect.

[S-99]

Keep saving your documents in microsoft formats with libreoffice/openoffice until microsoft implements that office suite's format better.

At least we can finally save documents as docx in libreoffice/openoffice. But, i don't use that format, so i don't know how well libreoffice/openoffice implemented that format, as i don't have microsoft office to test that with (i still save documents in the older microsoft office formats...possibly an old habit depending on how well docx adoption has been going). This may be an alternative.

Does bloodeagle specifically need to use libreoffice/openoffice formats for a specific reason?

[Mongoose]

I just found out about this LibreOffice fork the other day (terrible name, for what it's worth).  Why is it that these sorts of projects can never exist for a few years without something like three or four other versions splitting off?

[BloodEagle]

Does bloodeagle specifically need to use libreoffice/openoffice formats for a specific reason?

I would be saving in M$'s format, in the first place.

Specifically, I would be using the program to open files that were created in M$Office, edit them, and then save them in the same file format.

[KyadCK]

Open office has the ability to open .docx and that's all it needs. Just save everything in .doc, MS Office can still open it.

[S-99]

I would be saving in M$'s format, in the first place.

Specifically, I would be using the program to open files that were created in M$Office, edit them, and then save them in the same file format.

So your question wasn't one of file format. Just one of making documents in libreoffice/openoffice. I did this all of the time back in college working on documents made in openoffice needing to continue my work later on in microsoft office in a campus computer lab.

I saved as doc. Everything seems to work fine doing this. I didn't end up with anything ****ed up moving from one office suite to another and back again. Same thing with powerpoint and excel files made with libreoffice/openoffice using. Worth testing out saving in docx in libreoffice/openoffice (perhaps it still new, but i was surprised to finally see that it does it finally). But, as kyadck has reiterated. You can always trust doc to work.

[Klaustrophobia]

openoffice and microsoft never played nice when i tried to use them.  excel sheets would appear blank in openoffice, and openoffice even destroyed one of my lab reports.  opened with all kinds of funky characters, and when i went back to MS without saving in open, i had three words remaining at the top of the paper.

[BlueFlames]

I've been finding that Open Office has pretty lousy support for RTF documents as well.  Formatting and font information seems to get saved improperly, so you wind up with text incorrectly formatted and a file bloated to twice the size it would normally be, coming out of Word.

[S-99]

Sounds like a situation of you get what you pay for. Microsoft office costs a premium, and libreoffice/openoffice is free. Microsoft office is better. But, if you have no money or are a cheapskate, libreoffice/openoffice does fulfill basic office suite needs good enough.

[BlueFlames]

Sounds like a situation of you get what you pay for. Microsoft office costs a premium, and libreoffice/openoffice is free. Microsoft office is better. But, if you have no money or are a cheapskate, libreoffice/openoffice does fulfill basic office suite needs good enough.

You can certainly make that argument, but there is some shadiness to the Microsoft Office suite.  MS has been doing for years, with Office, what people fault EA and Activision for doing with the Madden and Modern Warfare franchises - releasing the same product year after year with a freshly ludicrous price-tag.  My laptop still runs Office 2000, and I've yet to be in a situation where I needed a new version of Office to open a file I've been sent, nor have I ever been in need of a feature exclusive to a newer version of Office.  I've even been able to open *.docx files in Word 2000 with a minimum of tinkering because the file formats are just that similar, even with all those years of "development" and $199 price-tags separating them.

The only reason I haven't installed Office 2000 on my current desktop is because Microsoft deliberately and artificially broke compatibility between Windows 7 and old versions of Office.  That'd be a little bit like my local Ford dealership sending someone out to smash my car's engine and then tell me with a straight face, "You should really buy a third-generation Focus."  No, I really shouldn't.  I should find a business that will provide me with an equivilant product and not attempt to break it in the name of fattening their revenue figures.  In the case of office software, Oracle happens to provide that equivilant product, and the fact that it's free is a bonus.  The primary draw is that Oracle isn't as likely to try to yank the rug out from under your feet in a few years by breaking their own product in an attempt to get you to buy the product again.

That being said, I do have a virtual machine set up to boot to XP.  Hmmm....

[Grizzly]

I just found out about this LibreOffice fork the other day (terrible name, for what it's worth).  Why is it that these sorts of projects can never exist for a few years without something like three or four other versions splitting off?

Just one actually - Sun apperently started meddling with Openoffice.org a bit too much, so most of the devs left and made Libreoffice. As a result, Openoffice.org hardly had any staff left and subsequently has been cancelled. Libreoffice is basically a continuation under a different flag.

[S-99]

You can certainly make that argument, but there is some shadiness to the Microsoft Office suite.  MS has been doing for years, with Office, what people fault EA and Activision for doing with the Madden and Modern Warfare franchises - releasing the same product year after year with a freshly ludicrous price-tag.  My laptop still runs Office 2000, and I've yet to be in a situation where I needed a new version of Office to open a file I've been sent, nor have I ever been in need of a feature exclusive to a newer version of Office.  I've even been able to open *.docx files in Word 2000 with a minimum of tinkering because the file formats are just that similar, even with all those years of "development" and $199 price-tags separating them.

I have a love hate relationship with ms office. The planned incompatibility is the same thing my mother encountered with ms office 2000. She however is getting along with libreoffice/openoffice just fine though (it's similar enough for her). What i am waiting for to be completed that will help bypass a lot of planned incompatibility is wine on windows (wine runs plenty of programs that ms dropped support for and many more). Aside from this little tidbit, I consider ms office better for the features that libreoffice/openoffice doesn't offer. I like libreoffice/openoffice better for the freedom, and that it offers office suite functionality to get the job done.

Stuff i don't care about ms office specifically:
Price
Microsoft doesn't support anything but their own formats very well (whodathunk on that?) which was great for locking people in.
Microsoft's docx shenanigans were disgusting.
The ribbon.

I say that my argument works both ways at the same time which just amounts to pros and cons.

Other nitpicks which just constitute reality:
There's only two realistic ways for people to be able to open the legitimate documents you send them. Using microsoft formats, or send a pdf. Other than that, there's pretty unorthodox ways to send documents such as saving as text, html, or send the document as jpg or png (if you have to send a documents in any of these formats, then that really gets things down to the nitty gritty). **** if people can open odt, but you know that people can open microsoft formats and the other things (at least libreoffice/openoffice user base is increasing).

[KyadCK]

60,000 word, 1500 page document saved as .ini (txt), .doc, and .docx:


.docx not only saves to one tenth the size of .doc, it saves to one fifth the size of a .txt

Just thought it was worth pointing out. Everything else sucks though, ya.

[Ghostavo]

docx compresses content, try 7zip or some other archiver on it to see.

[KyadCK]

docx compresses content, try 7zip or some other archiver on it to see.

Look at it from the average user prespective, the built-in zip is golden. No having to deal with whatever compression or email attachment limitations.

You also have happy managers now that email attachments are way smaller and they can fit more.

You also have happy techs because they arent getting yelled at by the managers about attachment file size limitations (as much) and they dont have to explain compression to the users anymore. Also, many big companies have internal email. Smaller attachments means fewer resources need to be put tword the Email servers.

Downside: Every other office program out there has to conform to a new standard, and of cource MS isn't going to make it as simple as just unzipping it.

EDIT: and using 7zip on the .doc doesnt make it much smaller then the .docx, so to anyone who uses Office 07/10 its a convenience.

[ssmit132]

Downside: Every other office program out there has to conform to a new standard, and of cource MS isn't going to make it as simple as just unzipping it.

I saw what S-99 wrote about "docx shenanigans" and looked it up on Wikipedia since it was the first time I'd heard of that - is this the reason why it was a big deal that the docx standard was pushed through by Microsoft?

(I mean I saw in the general standardization article that because a standard exists it doesn't mean it must be used, but since people are going to use docx then other office programs would need to be able to open it.)