On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Zeke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>
>> wispygalaxy wrote:
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>> wispygalaxy wrote:
>>>>> OO.org is so versatile and useful in many domains. It's a complete
>>>>> myth
>>>>> that it's only for students who can't afford MS Office. I can get MS
>>>>> Office for a discount from my school, but I am very happy with OO.org.
>>>>> It's about the features, really.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't need to do anything fancy in a word processor, so why should I
>>>>> bother installing MS Word? I could use it in Wine if I wanted to- but
>>>>> it
>>>>> will be sitting there, unused. The MS Word proponents are
>>>>> overestimating
>>>>> what average people do with their apps. OO.org takes care of the tasks
>>>>> average computer users want to get accomplished. I love it!
>>>> Well said. 75% of Office users in corporate environments only use 25% of
>>>> the functionality....
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> It's sad that corporate people are so lazy that they don't bother to
>>> research better software solutions. They think that if you pay for
>>> software, it's better.
>>
>> They use it not because they pay for it but because "that's what we
>> always use".
>
>> Many moons ago Office was bundled free with Windows and so
>
> I'm calling bullshit on this claim that "MS Office used to bundled for free
> with Windows."
>
>
>> the corporate sector was sucked into using it.
>
> They used it because it was the first good word processor that ran on
> Windows. Prior to this the corporate sector got sucked into using
That is a blatant lie.
> WordPerfect which was the first good word processor for DOS. There's a good
> chance they would still be using WordPerfect today if it hadn't taken
> WordPerfect *years* to release a crappy buggy Windows version.
Word Perfect wasn't the only other competitor to msword.
>
>
>> And as businesses tend to
>> be VERY conservative about change that's what they use. Period.
>
> Corporations use what works. Spending a few dollars per year for a license
> is a negligible expense compared to what they spend on other things.
>
Corporations use what is more effectively sold to them.
If they end up with a legacy support situation then they use the legacy
system simply because they have no other choice. It's what they already
have and they have data tied up in the legacy system.
--
It's not the size of the CPU, it's how you use it. |||
/ | \
|
|
