Nice tool... but Chicago Tools make a cutoff tool as well... It works.
The Dewalt sells for about $250... the Chicago sells for $20. They mostly do the same thing... Are they equal?
Me? I'd go with you.
Posted on 04/22/2008 1:45:14 AM PDT by Swordmaker
You have zero information about who I am or what I do. Is this how you make your investment decisions?
“There is, IMHO, absolutely NO reason, whatsoever, for the continued MS Office extortion game....”
Not all Powerpoints open in OO.
Geez, have you guys done any business. People send you powerpoints, If they are your vendors sometimes you can hammer them to cut down on the features and send compatible files. But if they are prospective customers the last thing you want to do is say, ‘dude, before we do business you’ve got to give up MS-Office 2007 and go backwards or stop using this or that feature.”
That said I will try it again. Do you know of ANY thing that can go into an Excel spreadsheet or Powerpoint that OO does not handle perfectly? I have this one client that hires these kids out of college to do models and presentations that find the most obtuse Office feature. Drives me nuts but part of the job?
I personally haven’t run into compatability issues with MS Office...but then again, everybody we interact with uses OO.
There is a good help section at the website...
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/Search;jsessionid=54747FD7155321E6E8F49E71A5A515E1?resultsPerPage=40&query=ms+office&Button=Go
that has some info about MS Office compatability
good luck........
Relictele,
I apologize. You may indeed make more money than I do although I am not going to get into a “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” discussion.
My comment was very wrongly worded,and not intended as a personal attack but I have grown increasingly sensitive to the “flaky” description aimed at me and the people I work with every day. What we do is critical for the success of the enterprise and we are, on the whole, a highly educated and well-remunerated group.
(On the other hand, the fact that you have been on FR 4 years and never been personally attacked is astonishing. For most of us it is a daily occurrence.)
Thanks, believe me I would love to find a way out of using windows. Drives me nuts. One thing AAPL could do is join OO and push the technology to support more compatibility - if enterprise users mattered to them.
I wonder why there is not a complete ActiveX compatibility box in Firefox. Somethings work and some things do not. Frustrating. When a website does not work I end up in try this, then try that, then try something else, then fire up Parallels then windows then IE then go through all the update nonsense then bang the website connects. Frustrating. Sometimes these are call that are only set up a few minutes before they begin and I end up missing the beginning screwing around. AAPL needs to do SOMETHING.
I tried your link and it was kind of not that helpful.
I found these two:
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-430774.html
Not very encouraging. Again, my complaint is that Macs are not compatible with industry (vs. open standards) and it is a real problem for many business users. I have no problem paying for technology but I need compatibility and that is were AAPL is lacking.
The Mac fanboys just don’t get it and most anti-AAPL posters complain about imagined problems: cost, liberal management, blah-blah.
I have been a Mac user since 1980 and the compatibility is going backwards.
That is amazing, considering that Apple didn't start selling Macs until 1984.
What is that magic number, FastGlock?How many Mac OSX users will it take before spammers and hackers will be knocking down the door? Especially when you know that at least 90% of them run no anti-malware on their Macs, have more disposable income than PC users, and are, according to PC users at least, unsophisticated computer illiterates?
Is 10,000,000 enough of a target? How about 20,000,000?
Self propagating viruses have been written by hackers for vulnerable populations of 12,000 machines. Viruses have been written for populations of under 1,000... but somehow the crackers who will write for those miniscule numbers refuse to write a viable virus for a population that is now 32,000,000 and growing far faster than the computer market in general. That strikes me as a significant target... that still has ZERO viable viruses in the wild, ZERO viable spayware,
I had a nice Apple Mac, I could not give the thing away, i paid literally to ship it to a third world country where they (family) would appreciate it.
How old was your "nice Apple Mac and how long ago did this event take place," Fast? I find it hard to believe you had to pay to get rid of it. Macs hold their resale value far beyond PCs... that's been proven time after time in numerous studies.A six year old iMac that sold originally for $1300 still brings $350-$450 on eBay or Craig's List... yet you had to pay someone to ship it to a poor family overseas? Heck, 10 year old original iMacs still bring $100 when you count shipping costs... and they can run, albeit slowly, OSX.5 Leopard.
My five year old PowerMac G5 Tower, that I bought new in June 2003 for $1799 is still being sold on eBay (as of April 6, 2008) for $650 - $900. And it runs Leopard faster than it did Tiger, which was faster on the same hardware than Panther before that. How many PCs of that vintage would bring those kinds of prices? And how many PCs of that vintage could even load the latest incarnation of Windows? None.
In what way did Newheart attack YOU??? What Newheart said in post 44 was:
"As one of the flaky types in the “art” department (who by the way probably makes more money than you do) the reason “why ‘no Macs’ is no longer a defensible IT strategy” is because it was NEVER defensible.The usual argument is “security.” True enough. IT fears Macs because we don’t need them the way PC users do.
That was a comment. His comment about "probably" making more money than you is less offensive than your generalization that people in the art department being "flaky" (Dictionary definition: Crazy or eccentric) is hardly an attack.
If that's an attack, then you haven't seen some of the attacks on Mac users on FR.
Camino is faster, better integrated, smaller, and less configurable than Firefox.
Firefox 3 is supposed to help with integration and speed.
thanks for the reply...
False. Macs are incompatible with proprietary Microsoft standards. That is by Microsoft's design.
And nobody at AAPL gives a crap.
I'll warily take your word for that, but there's not a lot Apple can do if developers use someone else's proprietary technology. If Apple tried to come up with some way to run ActiveX controls natively in MacOS, they'd be set upon by Microsoft's lawyers before you could say "Bill vs. Steve in a steel cage death match."
That is not true. There have been many business sites that when appraised of the facts, such as there are approximately 25,000,000 Mac OSX/Safari users in the United States, most of them consumers, customers they do not want to piss off, have changed their websites to be Mac compliant.
ChevronUSA's website is one that comes to mind. The website literally required customers to be using a PC with an Intel processor, a Windows OS, and Microsoft Internet Explorer to use it. I first tried to use Firefox and the website insisted that I had to use Internet Explorer. So I opened the site with IE for the Mac and the site told me I had to be using a Windows OS... so I fired up VirtualPC running WindowsXP SP2 and used IE for windows, and was informed by the website that I had to be running a PC with an Intel processor... I had an AMD machine here that I was working on for a client and fired it up, only to be informed that I had to be running with an Intel processor! Talk about restrictive.
After getting no response from repeated emails to their website managers, I wrote a letter to both the President and CEO of Chevron complaining about their PC/Intel/Microsoft only website. In my letter I politely pointed out that I spend almost $3,000 a year at Chevron Stations, that there were (at that time) 22,000,000 Mac users like me that would be offended by their website requirements, and then asked if Chevron was in the business of selling gasoline of promoting Intel and Microsoft products. I received very polite apology letters from both the President and CEO saying they were unaware of the problem. Two months later ChevronUSA's website was fully international HTML compliant.
Just five years ago there were FAR more non-standards compliant websites than there are today. Apple also wants to be informed of non-compliant websites and will work with those web designers to redesign their sites using international HTML standards so that they are compliant.
3) Mac sure the people you do business with will not send you MS-Office files with Macros, etc.
Then don't get MS Office '08 for the Mac... buy a copy of the older version which works fine. The fact is that very few organizations use Macro's any more because so many places will strip them out because of the threat of Macro viruses.
Your last two points are just FUD. 99% of people will not have a problem. A2 more and more of the now 32,000,000 Mac users complain to the owners, presidents, CEOs (not the offending website builders) of companies with non-compliant websites, more and more of them will move into compliance with international standards rather than building sites with tools from Microsoft that are designed to maintain their monopoly.
I have been a Mac user since 1980 and the compatibility is going backwards.
1980 = 1980’s
Got one of the first. Also had a Lisa. Never owned a Apple II.
Nice tool... but Chicago Tools make a cutoff tool as well... It works.
The Dewalt sells for about $250... the Chicago sells for $20. They mostly do the same thing... Are they equal?
Me? I'd go with you.
And that is different from a sole source "operating system" vendor how?
One is harware and the other is software. Running Windows may lock you down to a single OS vendor, but gives you the widest possible choice of hardware vendors. Running generic Linux gives you mostly the same choice of hardware, and some range of choices of OS vendor. Mac gives you no choice of either. Any of them involve some compromise. There is no perfect answer.
“Your last two points are just FUD. “
Come on Sword...give it up.
People, do not listen to Sword on this. Listen to me - carefully check out all websites and apps before buying a Mac. They are great computers but may not be compatible with the websites and applications you need and/or require kludging around.
Some consumer sites may have caved in. But others have not. Delta last time I flew I could not print the boarding pass on Safari.
But that is not my VALID point. Before buying a Mac users should carefully check out the websites they need for their jobs or business. Some may not work. I used to NEVER have problems with conference calls but there is a fair percentage today that require IE6 or later. And if you understand how this works IN THE REAL WORLD you would know they are sometimes set up just before they begin so testing and jerking around with Flip, switching User agent under Firefox, etc, sucks.
If you listen to a lot of earnings calls or look at company presentations or models just use windows and save the hassle.
If you are even a modest active trader you need windows. Even Schwab does not support Mac for its premier retail software. Forget professional trading tools.
I am in windows at least once a day out of necessity. Parallels is my first windows machine in 20 years or so. During earnings season I live in windows.
The dilemma for some people using MS Office is that the old Mac versions do not open the new file formats and the new ones do not run macros. While some users do not, if your customer saves his MS-Office files in the new format with macros, you have to find workarounds — Windows again!!
Macs are supposed to be easy. But when it turns out that your job is Doctor or Wall Street guy it is becoming obvious you need windows.
Try to run the hottest EMR or Practice Management Apps on a Mac - go ahead - try.
I was at HIMSS and something very close to ALL of the vendors only offered MSFT required application. No linux, no Mac, they all REQUIRE IE6 or better.
The MSFT booth was PACKED with developers all doing this. PACKED. You can tell me this is crazy and I can tell you this is crazy but it is a fact. Now can you if you are the CIO of a hospital require open only apps - sure - but your choices go down dramatically - and if you are not the CIO or CEO you get what the practice of hospital supplies and these guys are sucking firmly on the MSFT teet.
These are REAL compatibility issues and not FUD. Look I do not like MSFT any more than you do but to belittle my points is not appreciated.
I don’t care what your opinion is on this but Mac is not ready for the enterprise generally, by MSFT design, because of compatibility.
But MSFT is worlds ahead of AAPL and IBM in setting industry MSFT proprietary standards for real world business applications.
There, fixed it for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.