Notes re Open office & Linux/Win data

[Mark Jarvis]

OOo-2 is ->IMMENSELY<- better than OOo-1. Since I used OOo-2, trying to 
use OOo-1 drives me up the wall! Awareness of problems or MSOffice vs OO 
obviously varies with what one does. I frequently create a document 
having outline numbering intermixed with non-numbered example lines. I 
usually have to fight with MSWord to get what I want. Not too 
unexpectedly, I have a similar fight with OO, but the kicks & tweaks are 
a little different. Assuming that you use fonts that are available on 
both sides, however, plain vanilla documents and presentations transfer 
very well.

My experience is that documents saved from OO (i.e. OOo-2) as .doc files 
pull up just fine in MSWord, but that documents saved from MSWord will 
more often need tweaking when pulled up in OO.

Because of the many available design templates readily available in 
PowerPoint, I tend to start presentations in PP, then move to OO. (I'm 
sure that there's an equally good source for OO design templates, but 
haven't taken the time to look for it.) Once again OO --> PP seems to be 
better than PP --> OO. One caveat: many PP design templates involved 
objects which rendered v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y in OOo-1, making them 
effectively unusable. I haven't tested this thoroughly with OOo-2, but 
the problem seems to be almost, if not entirely, eliminated.

-mj-

Eric "Shubes" wrote:
> Vaughn Treude wrote:
> 
>> I switch back and forth a lot, too.  I do whatever I can on Linux, but
>> most clients want me to develop on the dark side.  I normally use Open
>> Office, written to MS Word format or exported to PDF.  But if they need
>> a Word document that's pretty, I copy it to my wife's XP machine and
>> check the document out in "real" Office.  The transition ALWAYS messes
>> up the formatting in one way or another.
> 
> 
> Is OOo version 2 any better than v1 in this regard?
>