Microsoft Office
Plum
Every time I open an email attachment, I get a pop-up telling me I only have
another 10 (or so) goes on M/S Office before it self-destructs. If I do not
pay (huge sums for the latest version but old version cheaper) will I lose
access to all these attachments? I do not want M/S Office and have never
needed it. Many thanks for any replies.
Paul Rudin
Presumably you are currently using it to view attachments?
If you don't want office and still have a requirement to read e.g. word
files that people send you as email attachments then openoffice works
well for the vast majority of files and is free. Download from
<http://openoffice.org>.
Malcolm
sounds like you have an evaluation verson that has expired.
Which sorts of attachments are you opening?
I suspect the free microsoft word viewer
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3657ce88-7cfa-457a-9aec-f4f827f20cac&displaylang=en
might be what you need (there are also viewers for other office formats)
Tim Ward
news:coKdnSPW0eE0Y57W...@brightview.com...
If you don't want Office why have you got it?
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Jon Green
> "Plum" <chey...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
> news:coKdnSPW0eE0Y57W...@brightview.com...
>> Thanks for the help with AVG.
>>
>> Every time I open an email attachment, I get a pop-up telling me I only
>> have another 10 (or so) goes on M/S Office before it self-destructs. If I
>> do not pay (huge sums for the latest version but old version cheaper) will
>> I lose access to all these attachments? I do not want M/S Office and have
>> never needed it. Many thanks for any replies.
>
> If you don't want Office why have you got it?
It's often bundled on a try-before-you-buy basis on new systems. In
that form it does indeed give you a certain number of "tries".
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Richard Kettlewell
>> Thanks for the help with AVG.
>>
>> Every time I open an email attachment, I get a pop-up telling me I
>> only have another 10 (or so) goes on M/S Office before it
>> self-destructs. If I do not pay (huge sums for the latest version
>> but old version cheaper) will I lose access to all these
>> attachments? I do not want M/S Office and have never needed it.
>> Many thanks for any replies.
>
> If you don't want Office why have you got it?
Some computers come from their manufacturer with a "test drive"
version, even if you don't ask for it.
Tim Ward
news:zrSdnbES0PLp9JnW...@brightview.co.uk...
> Tim Ward wrote:
>> "Plum" <chey...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
>> news:coKdnSPW0eE0Y57W...@brightview.com...
>>> Thanks for the help with AVG.
>>>
>>> Every time I open an email attachment, I get a pop-up telling me I only
>>> have another 10 (or so) goes on M/S Office before it self-destructs. If
>>> I do not pay (huge sums for the latest version but old version cheaper)
>>> will I lose access to all these attachments? I do not want M/S Office
>>> and have never needed it. Many thanks for any replies.
>>
>> If you don't want Office why have you got it?
>
> It's often bundled on a try-before-you-buy basis on new systems. In that
> form it does indeed give you a certain number of "tries".
Ah, I try to avoid crapware when I'm buying a new system, but I agree that
it can take a bit of effort plus a bit of knowing what you're trying to
achieve. Would I be right in thinking that at least people don't any longer
get given a "free" copy of Works with no upgrade path to Office?
Duncan Wood
Well it's no longer "free", it's advert supported.
--
Duncan Wood
Jon Green
> "Jon Green" <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:zrSdnbES0PLp9JnW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Tim Ward wrote:
>>> "Plum" <chey...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
>>> news:coKdnSPW0eE0Y57W...@brightview.com...
>>>> have another 10 (or so) goes on M/S Office before it self-destructs. If
>>>> I do not pay (huge sums for the latest version but old version cheaper)
>>>> will I lose access to all these attachments? I do not want M/S Office
>>>> and have never needed it. Many thanks for any replies.
>>> If you don't want Office why have you got it?
>> It's often bundled on a try-before-you-buy basis on new systems. In that
>> form it does indeed give you a certain number of "tries".
>
> Ah, I try to avoid crapware when I'm buying a new system, but I agree that
> it can take a bit of effort plus a bit of knowing what you're trying to
> achieve. Would I be right in thinking that at least people don't any longer
> get given a "free" copy of Works with no upgrade path to Office?
Quite so -- MS has discontinued Works. There are still plenty of
systems "in the channel" that have it installed, but the emphasis in MS
is now to ship TB4YB Office pre-installed instead.
The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org)
and make sure that MS Office no longer is the default program for Office
files.
Paul Oldham
> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org)
> and make sure that MS Office no longer is the default program for Office
> files.
FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
way) that the same may apply in reverse so it can't be relied on
interoperability if formatting is important.
The only free software I've found which reliably renders MS/Word
documents is MS/Wordview.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"A man's home is his castle, in a manor of speaking"
Jules
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org)
>> and make sure that MS Office no longer is the default program for Office
>> files.
>
> FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
> documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
> way) that the same may apply in reverse so it can't be relied on
> interoperability if formatting is important.
I've had lots of success opening Word docs in OO, but less so going in the
other direction - to the point that I normally have to run stuff viw my
wife's XP machine and just sanity-check them before release. Normally it
seems to be font issues rather than layout, though - and maybe the
problems are less apparent in newer releases (and possibly non-existent on
Windows platforms where OO presumably uses the same fonts as Word would)
Fevric J. Glandules
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org)
>> and make sure that MS Office no longer is the default program for Office
>> files.
>
> FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
> documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
Recent experience? I've not had any problems with OO failing to
render .doc in a *readable* way recently, which is all that matters
to *me*.
> way) that the same may apply in reverse so it can't be relied on
> interoperability if formatting is important.
I tend to submit as .rtf, which *should* not have any rendering
issues, and is still (to a Windows user) just another Word doc.
> The only free software I've found which reliably renders MS/Word
> documents is MS/Wordview.
Because the only way of faithfully copying the bugs in the Word
engine is to copy the whole damned engine.
Paul Rudin
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice
>> (www.openoffice.org) and make sure that MS Office no longer is the
>> default program for Office files.
>
> FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
> documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
> way) that the same may apply in reverse so it can't be relied on
> interoperability if formatting is important.
(Of course this assertion presupposes that you know what it is to render
a word document "correctly". )
> The only free software I've found which reliably renders MS/Word
> documents is MS/Wordview.
I don't use Word day to day, but people are always sending me word files
and OOo works perfectly well for reading the contents, and occasionally
modifying documents to send back.
David Woodhouse
> I've had lots of success opening Word docs in OO, but less so going in the
> other direction - to the point that I normally have to run stuff viw my
> wife's XP machine and just sanity-check them before release. Normally it
> seems to be font issues rather than layout, though - and maybe the
> problems are less apparent in newer releases (and possibly non-existent on
> Windows platforms where OO presumably uses the same fonts as Word would)
You don't really need the _same_ fonts; just fonts with the same
metrics.
Which is an important distinction because it means it's possible to
create a set of freely-distributable fonts which meet the requirements.
This has been done, and it helps quite a lot.
http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/
https://www.redhat.com/promo/fonts/
Of course you do still have to reproduce all the bugs of the "real"
rendering engine too.
In my experience there are sometimes slight imperfections when
rendering .doc or .docx files, but nothing particularly problematic.
When I send files to others, I'll often send PDF if they don't need to
edit it. And if they do need to edit it, I usually just send ODF.
It's a real standard, and it's much _less_ obnoxious than sending .doc
files -- at least I'm not asking the recipient to change operating
system or pay money for something that can read what I'm sending.
If they don't like it, they can have TeX.
--
dwmw2
The Natural Philosopher
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org)
>> and make sure that MS Office no longer is the default program for
>> Office files.
>
> FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
> documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
> way) that the same may apply in reverse so it can't be relied on
> interoperability if formatting is important.
>
With basic styled text I have had no issues at all.
It gets better every release, too, unlike Word, which gets worse.
Tim Ward
news:1258625728.1...@macbook.infradead.org...
>
> When I send files to others, I'll often send PDF if they don't need to
> edit it. And if they do need to edit it, I usually just send ODF.
>
> It's a real standard, and it's much _less_ obnoxious than sending .doc
> files -- at least I'm not asking the recipient to change operating
> system or pay money for something that can read what I'm sending.
>
> If they don't like it, they can have TeX.
If someone sends me a file that I can't read then ... duh! ... I don't read
it.
So whatever they wanted me to do with it doesn't get done, simple as that,
it's up to them.
Matthew Woodcraft
> If someone sends me a file that I can't read then ... duh! ... I don't read
> it.
> So whatever they wanted me to do with it doesn't get done, simple as that,
> it's up to them.
What if it was you who wanted the information, and they were doing you
a favour by sending it?
-M-
Paul Oldham
> Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> writes:
>
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>
>>> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice
>>> (www.openoffice.org) and make sure that MS Office no longer is the
>>> default program for Office files.
>> FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
>> documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
>> way) that the same may apply in reverse so it can't be relied on
>> interoperability if formatting is important.
>
> (Of course this assertion presupposes that you know what it is to render
> a word document "correctly". )
Quite. I do hear rumour that even different releases of MS/Word can
exhibit this behaviour.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix so don't drink and derive"
Paul Oldham
> Paul Oldham wrote:
>
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>
>>> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org)
>>> and make sure that MS Office no longer is the default program for Office
>>> files.
>>
>> FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
>> documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
>
> Recent experience? I've not had any problems with OO failing to
> render .doc in a *readable* way recently, which is all that matters
> to *me*.
Lord yes. Very recent. But note what I said. I said "rendering
correctly" not rendering *readably*. Those are two very different things.
It's not generally a problem if you're genuinely only concerned with
content but sometimes the rendering is implicitly part of the content
and that's where it gets dangerous.
For example these rendering failures often include putting page breaks
in different pages (so you then find someone referring to "the last
paragraph on page four" when from OO that's the first paragraph of page
five) and getting ordered list numbering all to cock (with similar
issues when discussing a document).
>> The only free software I've found which reliably renders MS/Word
>> documents is MS/Wordview.
>
> Because the only way of faithfully copying the bugs in the Word
> engine is to copy the whole damned engine.
Yup.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"I presume you've tried curry, nipple stimulation, making love, long walks?"
Paul Oldham
> For example these rendering failures often include putting page breaks
> in different pages
D'oh: different *places*.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"If flying is so safe, why do they call the airport the terminal?"
The Natural Philosopher
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
>> Paul Oldham wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> The solution, of course, is to install OpenOffice
>>>> (www.openoffice.org) and make sure that MS Office no longer is the
>>>> default program for Office files.
>>>
>>> FSVO "solution". In my experience Open Office doesn't render MS/Word
>>> documents correctly and I suspect (although I've not done it the other
>>
>> Recent experience? I've not had any problems with OO failing to
>> render .doc in a *readable* way recently, which is all that matters
>> to *me*.
>
> Lord yes. Very recent. But note what I said. I said "rendering
> correctly" not rendering *readably*. Those are two very different things.
>
> It's not generally a problem if you're genuinely only concerned with
> content but sometimes the rendering is implicitly part of the content
> and that's where it gets dangerous.
>
> For example these rendering failures often include putting page breaks
> in different pages (so you then find someone referring to "the last
> paragraph on page four" when from OO that's the first paragraph of page
> five) and getting ordered list numbering all to cock (with similar
> issues when discussing a document).
>
That can be an issue with any document using a proportional font that
doesn't contain its own fonts.
If that's important., even Word to Word will break if the sender has a
font the recipient does not.
PDFS and standard, or embedded, fonts are the only guarantee.
Fevric J. Glandules
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
>> Recent experience? I've not had any problems with OO failing to
>> render .doc in a *readable* way recently, which is all that matters
>> to *me*.
>
> Lord yes. Very recent. But note what I said. I said "rendering
> correctly" not rendering *readably*. Those are two very different things.
Hence my emphasis.
> It's not generally a problem if you're genuinely only concerned with
> content but sometimes the rendering is implicitly part of the content
> and that's where it gets dangerous.
>
> For example these rendering failures often include putting page breaks
> in different pages (so you then find someone referring to "the last
> paragraph on page four" when from OO that's the first paragraph of page
> five) and getting ordered list numbering all to cock (with similar
> issues when discussing a document).
Fair point.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> For example these rendering failures often include putting page
> breaks in different pages (so you then find someone referring to
> "the last paragraph on page four" when from OO that's the first
> paragraph of page five) and getting ordered list numbering all to
> cock (with similar issues when discussing a document).
MS Word's list numbering is famously crap, and inconsistent within the
same version of Word!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jon Green
> If someone sends me a file that I can't read then ... duh! ... I don't read
> it.
You'd turn down work that trivially? *boggle*
Jules
> For example these rendering failures often include putting page breaks
> in different pages (so you then find someone referring to "the last
> paragraph on page four" when from OO that's the first paragraph of page
> five) and getting ordered list numbering all to cock (with similar
> issues when discussing a document).
Anyone who writes and references things in absolute positions like that
probably deserves to be shot :-)
Tim Ward
news:SNt*ee...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
I should be so lucky!
Tim Ward
> Tim Ward wrote:
>> If someone sends me a file that I can't read then ... duh! ... I don't
>> read
>> it.
>
> You'd turn down work that trivially? *boggle*
Well, I didn't think of that scenario, as no approach from a potential
client has ever started with an unreadable attachment.
When a client did start sending me files I couldn't read I went out and
bought the appropriate tool, obviously. But we're talking about a
specialised format and a specialised tool here, not a bog standard
human-readable document.
John Aldridge
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
> > Because the only way of faithfully copying the bugs in the Word
> > engine is to copy the whole damned engine.
>
> Yup.
In article <160gt6-...@bigjohn.hug>, pa...@the-hug.org says...
> Quite. I do hear rumour that even different releases of MS/Word can
> exhibit this behaviour.
Ah... there's the rub. If MS fix the bugs they get accused of changing
behaviour between releases. If they don't they get accused of having the
bugs define the standard.
Of course, no software I've ever written has run into this problem...
--
Cheers,
John
Fevric J. Glandules
> Ah... there's the rub. If MS fix the bugs they get accused of changing
> behaviour between releases. If they don't they get accused of having the
> bugs define the standard.
There is no standard worth talking about, hence the bugs define it.
In My World, software would be as open or as proprietary as people
wanted it to be, but it would be a matter of law, principle, and right
that people's own data should be accessible to them; IOW all stored
data formats would have to be published, to allow people to access
their own data using any tool they wished to purchase or develop
themselves.
Talking of MS, there's a fabulous quote from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/18/windows_7_heart/
The problem is that the operating system is full of internal
dependencies, and as Russinovich admitted: "We don't really
understand those dependencies".
> Of course, no software I've ever written has run into this problem...
Atone for your sins and buy some Bad Code Offsets:
http://codeoffsets.com/
Jules
> John Aldridge wrote:
>
>> Ah... there's the rub. If MS fix the bugs they get accused of changing
>> behaviour between releases. If they don't they get accused of having the
>> bugs define the standard.
>
> There is no standard worth talking about, hence the bugs define it.
I think it's worse that that - they think there's a standard, but it's
buggy, or incomplete, or ill-definied, or they simply can't stop screwing
with it. UI bugs are annoying, but they can* be fixed / patched relatively
easily - but when there are problems with the file format itself all sorts
of odd things can happen.
* whether this actually happens is another matter
> In My World, software would be as open or as proprietary as people
> wanted it to be, but it would be a matter of law, principle, and right
> that people's own data should be accessible to them; IOW all stored data
> formats would have to be published, to allow people to access their own
> data using any tool they wished to purchase or develop themselves.
Hmm, I really like that. :-)
Fevric J. Glandules
[MS Office formats]
> I think it's worse that that - they think there's a standard, but it's
> buggy, or incomplete, or ill-definied, or they simply can't stop screwing
> with it.
To be fair, and there's an MS-droid blog post or interview somewhere
on the subject, they *did* stop screwing with it round about '97.
The latest change is AIUI an attempt to bring it all into an XML
world: hence, a certain sort of openness.
>> In My World, software would be as open or as proprietary as people
>> wanted it to be, but it would be a matter of law, principle, and right
>> that people's own data should be accessible to them; IOW all stored data
>> formats would have to be published, to allow people to access their own
>> data using any tool they wished to purchase or develop themselves.
>
> Hmm, I really like that. :-)
It is, as I see it, a simple concept with potentially far-reaching
consequences. It would be a far simpler and more effective remedy
to the MS monopoly than all that EU-style farting about. It is
readily understandable to even the most technologically-challenged
jurist. It completely undermines the MS bleating about "innovation".
It is devoid of FLOSS-fanboi baggage or RMS-style politics.
NB that data "on the wire" is another consideration.
This may all be moot anyway: AIUI MS have a spec out for OOXML - which
runs to a mere 6546 pages.
The Natural Philosopher
> Jules wrote:
>
> [MS Office formats]
>
>> I think it's worse that that - they think there's a standard, but it's
>> buggy, or incomplete, or ill-definied, or they simply can't stop screwing
>> with it.
>
> To be fair, and there's an MS-droid blog post or interview somewhere
> on the subject, they *did* stop screwing with it round about '97.
> The latest change is AIUI an attempt to bring it all into an XML
> world: hence, a certain sort of openness.
>
>>> In My World, software would be as open or as proprietary as people
>>> wanted it to be, but it would be a matter of law, principle, and right
>>> that people's own data should be accessible to them; IOW all stored data
>>> formats would have to be published, to allow people to access their own
>>> data using any tool they wished to purchase or develop themselves.
>> Hmm, I really like that. :-)
>
> It is, as I see it, a simple concept with potentially far-reaching
> consequences. It would be a far simpler and more effective remedy
> to the MS monopoly than all that EU-style farting about. It is
> readily understandable to even the most technologically-challenged
> jurist. It completely undermines the MS bleating about "innovation".
> It is devoid of FLOSS-fanboi baggage or RMS-style politics.
>
Look Microsoft can't even meet their OWN specs..let alone anyone elses.
Paul Oldham
Yeah, I have an ever growing list of people who will be first against
the wall when the revolution comes.
But in the shorter term ...
Paul Rudin
> Jules wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:08:06 +0000, Paul Oldham wrote:
>>> For example these rendering failures often include putting page
>>> breaks in different pages (so you then find someone referring to
>>> "the last paragraph on page four" when from OO that's the first
>>> paragraph of page five) and getting ordered list numbering all to
>>> cock (with similar issues when discussing a document).
>>
>> Anyone who writes and references things in absolute positions like that
>> probably deserves to be shot :-)
>
> Yeah, I have an ever growing list of people who will be first against
> the wall when the revolution comes.
>
> But in the shorter term ...
In the long term LaTeX is so much better for preparing documents than
either Word or OOo. Lyx <http://www.lyx.org/> is not a bad attempt at
giving a fairly useful frontend for people used to pointy-clicky
interfaces.
For many situations plain text is just fine. Sometimes adding some
lightweight markup conventions (e.g. reStructuredText -
<http://docutils.sourceforge.net/>) is useful. The advantage with this is
the the source document is perfectly readable as plain text without
needing any special software to process it.
The problem is that we're stuck with Word documents being the de facto
standard for large groups of people.
Fevric J. Glandules
> For many situations plain text is just fine. Sometimes adding some
> lightweight markup conventions (e.g. reStructuredText -
> <http://docutils.sourceforge.net/>) is useful.
That's very interesting, thanks.
Paul Bird
> John Aldridge wrote:
>
>> Ah... there's the rub. If MS fix the bugs they get accused of changing
>> behaviour between releases. If they don't they get accused of having the
>> bugs define the standard.
>
> There is no standard worth talking about, hence the bugs define it.
>
> In My World, software would be as open or as proprietary as people
> wanted it to be, but it would be a matter of law, principle, and right
> that people's own data should be accessible to them; IOW all stored
> data formats would have to be published, to allow people to access
> their own data using any tool they wished to purchase or develop
> themselves.
>
> Talking of MS, there's a fabulous quote from:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/18/windows_7_heart/
> The problem is that the operating system is full of internal
> dependencies, and as Russinovich admitted: "We don't really
> understand those dependencies".
Some years ago I discovered "Joel on Software" and I have to say he has some
pertinent points, in one particular article that I first read years ago and
is fortunately still online he explained why companies don't like to rewrite
all their code, which is probably how Microsoft got into the mess you
describe above.
"When you throw away code and start from scratch, you are throwing away all
that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work."
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>
Although clearly in this case not rewriting also including forgetting to
understand how their own code works.
[Disclaimer: IANAProgrammer]
--
Paul Bird
Fevric J. Glandules
> Some years ago I discovered "Joel on Software" and I have to say he has some
> pertinent points, in one particular article that I first read years ago and
He usually does.
> is fortunately still online he explained why companies don't like to rewrite
> all their code, which is probably how Microsoft got into the mess you
> describe above.
Except that Windows NT *was* the start-from-scratch rebuild...
Plum
my attachments and have even managed to get videos people sent me that I
could not previously open. It does help to pay attention to the type of
file. Many thanks.
"Plum" <chey...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:coKdnSPW0eE0Y57W...@brightview.com...
> Thanks for the help with AVG.
>
> Every time I open an email attachment, I get a pop-up telling me I only
> have another 10 (or so) goes on M/S Office before it self-destructs. If I
> do not pay (huge sums for the latest version but old version cheaper) will
> I lose access to all these attachments? I do not want M/S Office and have
> never needed it. Many thanks for any replies.
Malcolm Lee
True, but NT was written close to 20 years ago - adequate time for MS to
screw its successors up.
Malcolm
The Natural Philosopher
And they still had/have serious bugs in it.
> Malcolm
>