|
|
Word look alike?
Hi,
I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Word look alike?
On 9/16/20 8:28 AM, this is what Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. You can set Libreoffice to default to the .doc (word 97) format in settings. Options - load/Save - General You'll find a tick box to turn off warnings if not odt and a drop down for default format (pick word 97 doc). Al |
Word look alike?
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. If online only is acceptable there's also google docs. |
Word look alike?
Carlos E.R. wrote:
I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. https://support.google.com/docs/answer/6055139 Work with Office files You can edit, download, and convert Microsoft® Office files in Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides. To edit an Office file, you can either: Edit the file using Office Compatibility Mode (OCM) Convert the file to Google Docs, Sheets, or Slides. Once you've edited a Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides file, you can then save and export it as an Office file to share with others. The formats (from wp): Files in the following formats can be viewed and converted to their Docs format:[34] For documents: .doc (if newer than Microsoft Office 95), .docx, .docm .dot, .dotx, .dotm, .html, plain text (.txt), .rtf, .odt -- Mike Easter |
Word look alike?
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. Here's something that's free: https://www.amazon.com/MobiSystems-I...266972&sr=8-13 or https://amzn.to/35HozLF I've never used and know no details about it, so I have no opinion on how good it is, but you might want to try it. -- Ken |
Word look alike?
Chris wrote:
That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. The 365 subscription gives you the Office components to install on your own computer. I had an Office 365 (now called Microsoft 365) subscription for 3 years, and went from the 2016 to 2019 Office components *installed* on my computer. You do NOT need to be online to use Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc as you are using the local programs. Anyone can use their web apps (via web browser) ... and for free! For "Office 365 but is online only" then you are talking about their free web apps only. I did not see the OP wanted local programs, but then the OP did not mandate web apps were unacceptable. Since the OP mentioned LibreOffice and AbiWord, those are local/offline programs, so likely he is looking for similar offline alternatives, and not for web apps, like Microsoft's free 365 web apps, and neither for Google Docs. If online only is acceptable there's also google docs. Google does not sell an Office suite you can install locally and offline. So, yeah, web apps is the only way to use Google Docs through a web browser. Microsoft 365 gives you offline programs and their web apps (but the web apps are available to everyone, and for free). Google Docs is a free web-based office suite (i.e., web apps suite) that is part of all the services you get with a Google account (Gmail, Google Voice, Maps, YouTube, Drive, yadda yadda. |
Word look alike?
"Carlos E.R." wrote:
I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200¤ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. If the implied "other user" knows Word, why can't they use Writer in LibreOffice? It can be configured as to which is the default output document format. LibreOffice has a new but experimental ribbon bar that mimics the one in the Office components; see: https://www.howtogeek.com/294439/how...n-libreoffice/ Abiword has not bothered to update their site certificate. When I go to abisource.com, I get an error regarding lack of support for TLS 1.2. TLS 1.0 was just SSL 3.0 with different handshaking, so they are incompatible. SSL 3.0 was deprecated because it was insecure, which also means so, too, is TLS 1.0. TLS 1.2 is the minimum supported by most web browsers, but there may be workarounds, like a setting to enable the older versions of TLS. Most sites have moved up to TLS 1.3. They probably don't need a site certificate because I can't see why they would need to encrypt anything from their site. Downloads are public, their site content is publicly accessible by anyone, and they probably don't have any accounts to log into. A bit foreboding that a site thinks they need a certificate when nothing must be encrypted; however, lots of similar sites use a cert to identify you have reached the site you intended to visit. Why does the Word alternative have to be supported? I'm using an NNTP client that was abandoned 15 years ago. AbiWord is open source and free. That usually means no support, so it's not like the "other user" is going to contact AbiWord for help. Likely they rely on peer support in a web-based forum, if they even operate one. You can buy Word alone, or buy a standalone suite that includes Word. With Microsoft 365 (aka Office 365), you get a suite of products, not just Word, along with a 1 TB storage quota in OneDrive, and a 60-minute quota of SkypeOut. You can look at Microsoft 365 as either buying Office and getting a free 1 TB OneDrive quote, or as buying the 1 TB OneDrive quota and getting Office 365 for free; however, whichever way, you are buying into subscriptionware. FreeOffice.com is Softmaker's free version of their office suite. As such, it is crippled, but many users find the free version more than sufficient for their needs. They have a free vs paid comparison at https://www.freeoffice.com/en/freeoffice-comparison, but it doesn't list all differences. I remember back a couple years ago when I trialed it there was some function missing that I wanted, so I would have to buy to get a more robust product. The payware edition has customizable ribbons, but not in the freeware edition. You can see more detailed comparison at: https://www.softmaker.com/en/compari...ftmaker-office. Be aware they sell both a subscriptionware ("NX" edition 1-year license) and lifetime license versions of their product. With a subscription, you get updated to whatever is the latest version. Microsoft Office 365 costs $100/year (but you can find cheaper licenses elsewhere) while a Softmaker Office costs $40/year. Their lifetime licenses are a lot cheaper, too. Start with FreeOffice to see it is satisfactory for your "other user", and let them decide whether or not to buy it. You never mention the budget for the "other user". Do they demand the product be free (after all, they are now paying for Microsoft Office), or have they budgeted for a payware alternative? As for the default output document format, I suspect that's a user configurable option. If the "other user" only accepts freeware alternatives, and besides LibreOffice which you don't specify why it is not an alternative, you can check the manuals at https://www.freeoffice.com/en/download/manuals; else, you can view the online manuals at https://www.softmaker.com/en/manuals for the payware edition. Softmaker is a German company. I've trialed WPS Office (back then they were called Kingsoft). Used it for several months, and then WPS turned it into adware, so I uninstalled it. A year ago I still saw user complaints about WPS showing ads when you load their software. Alas, that's the affliction with many freewa you accept their ads (whether for their own products or for others) as the price you pay for their, ahem, "free" ware. See https://blog.malwarebytes.com/detect...onal-kingsoft/. Kingsoft (or WPS as they now call themselves) is a Chinese company. Avast (a Czech company) has a free version that lots of users employ, but also had ads, especially when their Marketing group decides to start another ad campaign to push popups at their users. WPS has a ribbon bar that mimics the one in later versions of MS Office. The 1-year WPS subscriptionware license is currently cheaper (for their sale price however long that lasts, but becomes more expensive) than for Softmaker Office NX, but the WPS lifetime license is significantly more expensive than for Softmaker's lifetime license. Obviously their freeware edition is the same price as Sofmaker's FreeOffice: zero (unless you count the ads in WPS as a price). At the WPS site, I saw no link to online copies of the manuals, just a bunch of FAQs. FreeOffice/Softmaker Office and Kingsoft/WPS Office are not open source. However, you did not mandate FOSS as a requirement for alternatives. You're already using one, LibreOffice, which you should already know can be configured regarding the default output document format. Look at its Load/Save settings. |
Word look alike?
Ken Blake wrote:
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200¤ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. Here's something that's free: https://www.amazon.com/MobiSystems-I...266972&sr=8-13 or https://amzn.to/35HozLF I've never used and know no details about it, so I have no opinion on how good it is, but you might want to try it. "Offers in-app purchases" hence adware. Mobisystems is at: https://www.mobisystems.com/ but their Office Suite is homed at: https://www.officesuite.com/ They list Windows, Android, and iOS are supported, so they have both desktop and mobile apps. Since the OP is looking for an alternative to MS Word, and if Android was an option, Microsoft has their own Office apps available for free on Android. I have MS Word, MS Excel, MS Powerpoint, and MS Outlook on my Android smartphone, and they're all free ... and not adware. However, mobile apps are rarely as robust as desktop apps, so the MS Android apps are less featured when compared to their desktop cousins, but then the majority of Office users rarely ever use much of what is in these suites or even within a component of them. I don't how Mobisystem's desktop and mobile apps compare regarding which, if any, features are missing in their mobile version; however, their Android version is also adware. MS Android Office is not adware. Plus, Mobisystems' Android app suite is trialware, not freeware. |
Word look alike?
|
Word look alike?
On 2020-09-16 05:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. Hi Carlos, Free Office: https://www.freeoffice.com/en/download/applications It is the previous edition of Softmaker Go into settings and set the default to word. It runs really well in Linux and loads my Libre Office files literally 10 times faster than does Libre Office. -T |
Word look alike?
On 9/16/2020 8:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. does Google docs apply? not familiar at all to say -- Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D. https://www.dalekelly.org/ Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner |
Word look alike?
T wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote: I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200¤ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. Free Office: https://www.freeoffice.com/en/download/applications It is the previous edition of Softmaker Go into settings and set the default to word. It runs really well in Linux and loads my Libre Office files literally 10 times faster than does Libre Office. I just looked at their comparison page. While they have 64-bit versions for Mac and Linux, they only have a 32-bit version for their freeware version. That doesn't mean the 32-bit version is slower. It does mean you can't open documents bigger than 4 GB; however, a document that size is obvious way too huge for personal use which is what the freeware version is geared for usage. I supposed if you got nuts with attaching lots of photos (making your document really a photo gallery) that you could run out of space. The subscriptionware version at $30/year and the perpetual license at $80 are definitely a lot cheaper than Microsoft's 365 package, but with Office 365 you also get 1 TB of OneDrive storage along with 60 minutes/month of SkypeOut). I've only, so far, consumed 3 GB of my 15 GB OneDrive quota (5 GB default + 10 GB loyalty bonus). If I needed more than that, getting 1 TB of OneDrive quota includes Office 365. I've tried Google Drive (now Google Backup & Restore), but found their client conflicts with OneDrive: when both are trying to sync the same file to online storage, Google Drive errors but OneDrive succeeds. Softmaker's FreeOffice is good, but Softmaker's Office payware is definitely far more comparable to Office 365 (minus the online perks of 365). FreeOffice is faster to load documents than LibreOffice, but LibreOffice is more comparable to Office 365 (minus the offline perks), and is free like FreeOffice. If LibreOffice got rid of the banners (to announce it is loading), document load times would get shorter. Whether you notice LibreOffice is slower than FreeOffice depends a lot on what you have for hardware. With an m.2 NVMe 1GB SSD, I'm not sure I would see a difference in doc load time between LibreOffice and FreeOffice. Without any noticeable different in doc load times, for me, I don't feel any impetus to pay for Softmaker's Office payware to get nearly the same feature set as LibreOffice. With a slow desktop or laptop, yeah, you might see LibreOffice is slower than Softmaker's FreeOffice or Office. This is regarding personal use. If the office suite is used in a business scenario, and unless you have a good friend that is a computer guru and only asks for a beer in return for their help, most businesses should be geared to getting support for the software they employ, so buying the software is almost a given. You don't suffer your business operations because you went cheap on support. Between freeware LibreOffice and payware Softmaker Office, both are nearly equal in features, but for business use you get support with Softmaker and are own your own with LibreOffice. If support is a non-issue, why pay for Softmaker when you can get LibreOffice for free? With freeware as the only choice (which very likely means for personal use, not critical business use), why go with the lesser featured FreeOffice than go with more featured LibreOffice? Does the OP need the most compatibility in feature sets between Microsoft Office and the alternative candidates? If so, FreeOffice is not a choice, and only Softmaker Office and LibreOffice are candidates. If not in a business deployment where support can be critical to prevent suffering business impact, support is important, and that costs money. LibreOffice doesn't have support. Yes, there are user communities, like here, but that is not the same as business-level support. LibreOffice is not a candidate alternative to MS Office if support is important unless you're willing to save on support costs by doing it yourself. There are lots of decision factors that were not presented by the OP. Is freeware the only option? If payware is acceptable, what is the budget for the product? What is the budget for support? Is Office, and its alternative, for personal or business use? |
Word look alike?
VanguardLH wrote:
That doesn't mean the 32-bit version is slower. It does mean you can't open documents bigger than 4 GB; 32-bit does not mean that. Without dwelling on detail, 32-bit Photoshop could malloc around 1.8GB of memory. If Photoshop had multiple undo buffers, then the uncompressed size of images in memory could be "relatively small" by modern standards. The 1.8GB value was related to the 2GGB:2GB address space split, with 2GB for kernel addresses and 2GB for user-space addresses. And the malloc of memory for the program is in user space, and in that example, can't be more than 2GB. And for Photoshop, this number happened to be 1.8GB. We don't really know what filesizes might correspond to the availability of that much RAM. Maybe a 2MB GIF decompresses to fill a 1.8GB space in memory for example. There are filesystem primitives, that support 64-bit operands from a 32 bit call. I can seek to an offset of 7.8TB and read one megabyte if I want. I can use open64() and seek64() in a 32-bit application. The operands are 64-bit operands in the call. The FAT32 filesystem has a limit to the size of a single individual file, but this is not what we worry about with 32-bit applications. The 32-bit application may not even know or care, that the filesystem is FAT32 or NTFS (limits or no limits). It's only if we try to exceed those limits, a write error occurs. Like take Firefox downloading onto a FAT32 volume - it does not warn us in advance "hey, if this download is over 4GB, you are screwed". It just hits 4GB, returns a "too bad, so sad" error and quits. And it's up to the user to smack their forehead and declare "doh, dammit, FAT32 limit". For document processing, 1.8GB of RAM is pretty decent. The terrible scroll performance will drive you crazy, before it runs out of RAM. Paul |
Word look alike?
VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote: That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. How can it be wrong when you say exactly the same as I did below? The 365 subscription gives you the Office components to install on your own computer. I had an Office 365 (now called Microsoft 365) subscription for 3 years, and went from the 2016 to 2019 Office components *installed* on my computer. You do NOT need to be online to use Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc as you are using the local programs. Anyone can use their web apps (via web browser) ... and for free! For "Office 365 but is online only" then you are talking about their free web apps only. See? How is that different to what I said? |
Word look alike?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 22:06:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. How can it be wrong when you say exactly the same as I did below? The 365 subscription gives you the Office components to install on your own computer. I had an Office 365 (now called Microsoft 365) subscription for 3 years, and went from the 2016 to 2019 Office components *installed* on my computer. You do NOT need to be online to use Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc as you are using the local programs. Anyone can use their web apps (via web browser) ... and for free! For "Office 365 but is online only" then you are talking about their free web apps only. See? How is that different to what I said? He's just nitpicking your choice of words. The product is called Microsoft 365, but you said Office 365. I call it that myself, but after his comment, I checked and see they don't actually call it that. |
Word look alike?
In article , Paul
wrote: That doesn't mean the 32-bit version is slower. It does mean you can't open documents bigger than 4 GB; 32-bit does not mean that. usually it does, often 2-3 gb due to os limitations, but not always. Without dwelling on detail, 32-bit Photoshop could malloc around 1.8GB of memory. you mean skipping detail. 32 bit photoshop on windows can address 2gb of physical memory, 3gb with the /3gb switch and ~3.5gb on mac. photoshop also implements its own virtual memory system which can go beyond the 32 bit address space limit of 4gb, up to a theoretical limit of 4 exabytes for photoshop 7 (20 years old). If Photoshop had multiple undo buffers, it does, and has since version 5, nearly 25 years ago. then the uncompressed size of images in memory could be "relatively small" by modern standards. The 1.8GB value was related to the 2GGB:2GB address space split, with 2GB for kernel addresses and 2GB for user-space addresses. And the malloc of memory for the program is in user space, and in that example, can't be more than 2GB. And for Photoshop, this number happened to be 1.8GB. We don't really know what filesizes might correspond to the availability of that much RAM. Maybe a 2MB GIF decompresses to fill a 1.8GB space in memory for example. no. |
Word look alike?
On 9/16/2020 2:48 PM, dale wrote:
On 9/16/2020 8:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. does Google docs apply? not familiar at all to say here's a link https://docs.google.com/ -- Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D. https://www.dalekelly.org/ Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner |
Word look alike?
Chris wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. How can it be wrong when you say exactly the same as I did below? Because your wording is interpreted as: - Office 365 ... online only. Wrong. With the subscription, you get the local apps to install on your computer. - "Paid one", because you differentiated from Office 365, means the perpetual license (aka standalone). See? How is that different to what I said? There's what you meant to say versus what you said. YOU said "Office 365 but is online only". Since that is not true, others figure you mean their web apps. For "the paid for one" to be different than what Office 365 really is (local apps and web apps) means others figure you meant their standalone/perpetual license. Why would you differentiate "Office 365 online only" and "paid" as though they were different when you claim you meant they were the same? |
Word look alike?
Pat wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 22:06:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. How can it be wrong when you say exactly the same as I did below? The 365 subscription gives you the Office components to install on your own computer. I had an Office 365 (now called Microsoft 365) subscription for 3 years, and went from the 2016 to 2019 Office components *installed* on my computer. You do NOT need to be online to use Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc as you are using the local programs. Anyone can use their web apps (via web browser) ... and for free! For "Office 365 but is online only" then you are talking about their free web apps only. See? How is that different to what I said? He's just nitpicking your choice of words. The product is called Microsoft 365, but you said Office 365. I call it that myself, but after his comment, I checked and see they don't actually call it that. My "nitpicking" is Chris stating "Office 365" (now called Microsoft 365) is *online only*. That is wrong. Regardless of him attempting to backtrack, he definitely thought Office 365 was an online-only web app suite, because then he differentiates it in his later statement from the "paid" version (for the perpetual license). I went by what he said, not what he meant to say. |
Word look alike?
Paul wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: That doesn't mean the 32-bit version is slower. It does mean you can't open documents bigger than 4 GB; 32-bit does not mean that. Without dwelling on detail, 32-bit Photoshop could malloc around 1.8GB of memory. If Photoshop had multiple undo buffers, then the uncompressed size of images in memory could be "relatively small" by modern standards. The 1.8GB value was related to the 2GGB:2GB address space split, with 2GB for kernel addresses and 2GB for user-space addresses. And the malloc of memory for the program is in user space, and in that example, can't be more than 2GB. And for Photoshop, this number happened to be 1.8GB. We don't really know what filesizes might correspond to the availability of that much RAM. Maybe a 2MB GIF decompresses to fill a 1.8GB space in memory for example. There are filesystem primitives, that support 64-bit operands from a 32 bit call. I can seek to an offset of 7.8TB and read one megabyte if I want. I can use open64() and seek64() in a 32-bit application. The operands are 64-bit operands in the call. The FAT32 filesystem has a limit to the size of a single individual file, but this is not what we worry about with 32-bit applications. The 32-bit application may not even know or care, that the filesystem is FAT32 or NTFS (limits or no limits). It's only if we try to exceed those limits, a write error occurs. Like take Firefox downloading onto a FAT32 volume - it does not warn us in advance "hey, if this download is over 4GB, you are screwed". It just hits 4GB, returns a "too bad, so sad" error and quits. And it's up to the user to smack their forehead and declare "doh, dammit, FAT32 limit". For document processing, 1.8GB of RAM is pretty decent. The terrible scroll performance will drive you crazy, before it runs out of RAM. Paul How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. Sure, the pagefile could get used (providing the user hasn't made it too small), but that means slowed buffer due to paging. 64-bit apps can access far more memory directly than the 4 GB that 32-bit apps, even after subtracting the reserved memory space for the OS (and worse if the OP is stealing some system RAM for the video buffer). Of course, if the OP doesn't have more than 4 GB of system RAM, the advantages of 64-bit hardware is lost. With a 32-bit OS, the largest block of memory accessible as one [data] block is 4 GB. However, the OP never even mentioned the bitwidth of his Windows installation. He may not even be able to install the 64-bit version of the program if he is still running a 32-bitwidth version of Windows. Why would he still be running a 32-bit version of Windows even if his hardware supports 64-bits? The 64-bit Windows has only the WOW64 (Windows 32 on Windows 64) emulator that allows running 32-bit programs on the 64-bit OS. The 32-bit Windows has the WOW32 (Windows 16 on Windows 32) emulator allowing it to run old 16-bit programs. If the OP has critical or very important 16-bit apps, he is using 32-bit Windows. Lots of users complained when they moved to 64-bit Windows to find out their old 16-bit programs wouldn't run or couldn't even [re]install. With a 4GB chunk of memory in a data block containing the document, it would take about a million pages in a document with an average of 4K per pages before buffering would be needed to chunk around inside the document to see all parts of it. I've never created nor had to view or edit a document anywhere near that size in pages, so FreeOffice available only as a 32-bit app will very likely suit the OP just fine. However, the hardware and OS protections afforded to 64-bit apps won't apply to 32-bit apps. The OS bitwidth info wasn't included in the OP's post or yet in a followup post. If the OP is on 32-bit Windows, that there is a 64-bit version of Softmaker payware and only a 32-bit version of FreeOffice is irrelevant. With 32-bit Windows, the OP will be using either the 32-bit freeware version (FreeOffice) or the 32-bit version of Softmaker Office (payware). Peculiarly, while Softmaker makes a 64-bit version of FreeOffice for other operating systems, they don't have one for Windows. Why would they bother with a 64-bit app for the other OS'es if there were no advantage over a 32-bit version? They know the huge marketshare for their freeware are Windows users, so they lose nothing by providing the 64-bit version for non-Windows platforms while using the difference as a lure on Windows to buy their payware version. |
Word look alike?
VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. How can it be wrong when you say exactly the same as I did below? Because your wording is interpreted as: - Office 365 ... online only. Wrong. With the subscription, you get the local apps to install on your computer. - "Paid one", because you differentiated from Office 365, means the perpetual license (aka standalone). You missed that important "also" in what I said, plus you aggressively snipped the context. Here's my reply again in context with the OP: If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. The OP already mentioned the paid and free ("gratis") versions of Office 365. My reply was confirming - hence the "also" - what he was uncertain about, that there was a free version of word available. See? How is that different to what I said? There's what you meant to say versus what you said. YOU said "Office 365 but is online only". Since that is not true, others figure you mean their web apps. For "the paid for one" to be different than what Office 365 really is (local apps and web apps) means others figure you meant their standalone/perpetual license. How do you know what others do or don't understand? Why would you differentiate "Office 365 online only" and "paid" as though they were different when you claim you meant they were the same? I "claimed" no such thing. |
Word look alike?
Pat wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 22:06:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. How can it be wrong when you say exactly the same as I did below? The 365 subscription gives you the Office components to install on your own computer. I had an Office 365 (now called Microsoft 365) subscription for 3 years, and went from the 2016 to 2019 Office components *installed* on my computer. You do NOT need to be online to use Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc as you are using the local programs. Anyone can use their web apps (via web browser) ... and for free! For "Office 365 but is online only" then you are talking about their free web apps only. See? How is that different to what I said? He's just nitpicking your choice of words. The product is called Microsoft 365, but you said Office 365. I call it that myself, but after his comment, I checked and see they don't actually call it that. You're right they've changed the name. I wasn't aware, thanks, but I don't think calling it the old name Office 365 is confusing. |
Word look alike?
On 16/09/2020 01:28 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. Have you looked at Softmaker FreeOffice www.freeoffice.com or WPS Office www.wps.com -- Chris Elvidge, England |
Word look alike?
On 16/09/2020 15.32, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. If online only is acceptable there's also google docs. Yes, I suggested that one. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Word look alike?
On 16/09/2020 17.10, VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote: That's also called Office 365 but is online only. The paid for one allows you to download the desktop applications. Wrong. The 365 subscription gives you the Office components to install on your own computer. I had an Office 365 (now called Microsoft 365) subscription for 3 years, and went from the 2016 to 2019 Office components *installed* on my computer. You do NOT need to be online to use Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc as you are using the local programs. Anyone can use their web apps (via web browser) ... and for free! For "Office 365 but is online only" then you are talking about their free web apps only. I did not see the OP wanted local programs, but then the OP did not mandate web apps were unacceptable. Since the OP mentioned LibreOffice and AbiWord, those are local/offline programs, so likely he is looking for similar offline alternatives, and not for web apps, like Microsoft's free 365 web apps, and neither for Google Docs. I prefer offline, but online might be acceptable. If online only is acceptable there's also google docs. Google does not sell an Office suite you can install locally and offline. So, yeah, web apps is the only way to use Google Docs through a web browser. Microsoft 365 gives you offline programs and their web apps (but the web apps are available to everyone, and for free). Google Docs is a free web-based office suite (i.e., web apps suite) that is part of all the services you get with a Google account (Gmail, Google Voice, Maps, YouTube, Drive, yadda yadda. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Word look alike?
On 16/09/2020 14.28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. Thanks people for all the ideas :-) I like best making LO to default to another format, or using WordPad instead. The document needs are really simple. Unfortunately my friend has a friend that says she will install Word for her. I strongly suspect this means a pirated copy. :-/ The worst of this is that my friend "needs Word" for working at home because of the pandemic, thus her employer should be providing any software needed at their expense, but apparently they will not :-/ At least (being the education administration) they could have some kind of rebate plan, but apparently they don't. If you are curious, they contracted gmail for group or enterprises, thus google documents is certainly an enticing idea. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Word look alike?
On 17/09/2020 12.19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 16/09/2020 14.28, Carlos E.R. wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. Thanks people for all the ideas :-) Ah, yes, I'm the support guy that drinks the beer or coffee :-D but not these days with a face mask, we both have risk factors. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Word look alike?
On 9/16/2020 10:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory. PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem. -- best regards, Neil |
Word look alike?
On 9/17/2020 3:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 17/09/2020 12.19, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 16/09/2020 14.28, Carlos E.R. wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. Thanks people for all the ideas :-) Ah, yes, I'm the support guy that drinks the beer or coffee :-D but not these days with a face mask, we both have risk factors. I hate to drink with a face mask. I always prefer to use a glass or cup. -- Ken |
Word look alike?
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. Assuming it's a Windows PC at issue, there's always Wordpad (=Write) though you do have to specify docx as the preferred Save format. |
Word look alike?
In article , Neil
wrote: How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory. PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem. quite a bit of revisionist history there. photoshop implemented its own memory manager to handle larger images before photostyler even existed due to the limitations of the hardware at the time. adobe purchased aldus for their entire portfolio, not specifically photostyler, which wasn't in any way competition for photoshop. |
Word look alike?
On 9/17/2020 8:45 AM, Bennett wrote:
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a simple free (or gratis) program to replace Word. Me, I use LibreOffice without a doubt, but it is not for me. I need something simple, that ideally saves in word 97-2003 format by default, so that the user doesn't have to think. I was considering AbiWord, but to my dismay it has abandoned the Windows version for lack of volunteers. Are there other possibilities I should consider? If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; I know two versions: one that you pay once about 200€ and keep, with no upgrades, another called Office 365 that is a yearly subscription, and I think I heard about a gratis version, perhaps online inside a browser. Is this correct? If that is so, perhaps I should suggest my friend to use that online version and not spend an euro. Assuming it's a Windows PC at issue, there's always Wordpad (=Write) though you do have to specify docx as the preferred Save format. Yes, that's a choice. But as far as I'm concerned, WordPad is not really a word processor, it's more just a glorified text editor, with very few of the formatting choices a real word processor has. It might meet Carlos's needs, but it also might not. In my experience, it's inadequate for most people. -- Ken |
Word look alike?
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; Assuming that you are talking about the Microsoft Office suite (there are other Office suites), yes it does. But it not only come with the full suite, it comes with all the smaller editions too. -- Ken |
Word look alike?
On 9/17/2020 11:57 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil wrote: How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory. PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem. quite a bit of revisionist history there. photoshop implemented its own memory manager to handle larger images before photostyler even existed due to the limitations of the hardware at the time. adobe purchased aldus for their entire portfolio, not specifically photostyler, which wasn't in any way competition for photoshop. I don't know where you're getting your information about any of this, but it's clear that it's not from personal experience. OTOH, I made a good living using these apps professionally and know what their differences amounted to because it affected my work. Photoshop had quite a few shortcomings in comparison to PhotoStyler, such as its method of loading the full image into memory and a lack of customizable settings. Yes, Adobe purchased Aldus to acquire PhotoStyler and PageMaker, but their FIRST move was to take PhotoStyler off the market, and it was definitely a competitive product. But, this thread isn't about Photoshop, it's about image size limitations, and that was dealt with effectively by several pro-level graphics apps at the time and could be dealt with in the same manner today to allow editing of any size image. Believe whatever you want or find in some google search. -- best regards, Neil |
Word look alike?
On 17/09/2020 18.18, Ken Blake wrote:
On 9/16/2020 5:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: If I'm not mistaken, Word comes with the full Office suite; Assuming that you are talking about the Microsoft Office suite (there are other Office suites), yes it does. But it not only come with the full suite, it comes with all the smaller editions too. Is it possible to get Word alone? -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Word look alike?
In article , Neil
wrote: How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory. PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem. quite a bit of revisionist history there. photoshop implemented its own memory manager to handle larger images before photostyler even existed due to the limitations of the hardware at the time. adobe purchased aldus for their entire portfolio, not specifically photostyler, which wasn't in any way competition for photoshop. I don't know where you're getting your information about any of this, but it's clear that it's not from personal experience. OTOH, I made a good living using these apps professionally and know what their differences amounted to because it affected my work. it's very much personal experience, going back to when photoshop was in beta, long before photostyler even existed. i know people who worked on photoshop as well as good friends with the owner of a company that turned down the opportunity to publish it before adobe did. i've also written several photoshop plug-ins and was intimately familiar with the internals of photoshop. your version of history does not match reality. it's as simple as that. Photoshop had quite a few shortcomings in comparison to PhotoStyler, such as its method of loading the full image into memory and a lack of customizable settings. rubbish. photoshop always had its own memory manager due to limitations of 1980s era hardware, *before* photostyler even existed as a product. claiming that adobe copied virtual memory from a non-existent product is crazy-talk. Yes, Adobe purchased Aldus to acquire PhotoStyler and PageMaker, but their FIRST move was to take PhotoStyler off the market, and it was definitely a competitive product. the only advantage photostyler had was that it ran on windows before photoshop, which began life as a mac-only product and was ported to windows with version 2.5, well before adobe bought aldus. since there was no reason to have two nearly identical products, adobe eol'ed photostyler. But, this thread isn't about Photoshop, it's about image size limitations, and that was dealt with effectively by several pro-level graphics apps at the time and could be dealt with in the same manner today to allow editing of any size image. this subthread is about the limitations of 32 bit apps. Believe whatever you want or find in some google search. no need, since i know exactly what happened and some of the people involved. perhaps you should talk to people who actually worked on photoshop, although i doubt even that would convince you. |
Word look alike?
Neil wrote:
On 9/16/2020 10:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote: How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory. PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem. Do any of these techniques apply to MS Word, and its, so far, suggested alternative word processors? |
Word look alike?
In article , VanguardLH
wrote: How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory. PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem. Do any of these techniques apply to MS Word, and its, so far, suggested alternative word processors? no. |
Word look alike?
On 9/17/2020 2:02 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Neil wrote: On 9/16/2020 10:17 PM, VanguardLH wrote: How is a 32-bit program going to manage a data block (with the document) in memory that is over 4 GB in size? Yes, the program can, as you implied, use a buffer to load part of the over 4 GB file into memory, but, say, a search that scans the 4+ GB memory for the data block is going to dump one buffer to move it into later bytes of the file. That is for direct memory access to the file's contents. The techniques used by professional graphics apps in the 1980s made the size limitation of files based on disc size rather than memory. PhotoStyler was one such app that only loaded the portion of the file that filled the screen, and did so in a way that enabled detailed editing on enlarged portions or viewing the full image at screen resolution (which was minuscule by today's standards) without any noticeable delay. After Adobe purchased PhotoStyler, mainly to eliminate competition for PhotoShop which at the time was quite an inferior product, they began integrating the programs methods and features into PhotoShop. So, a 4GB file wouldn't be a problem. Do any of these techniques apply to MS Word, and its, so far, suggested alternative word processors? My response to your question about how a 32-bit program is going to manage a data block that is over 4 GB in size was just that, not about Word, which is why I clipped that portion of the discussion. IOW, the size of a file that a program can manage depends on how the program is written. -- best regards, Neil |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2006 PCbanter
Comments are property of their posters