7 Best Alternatives To Microsoft Office Suite — 2019 Edition

On 12/6/19 10:23 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:17:01 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/5/19 9:50 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 21:07:22 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/5/19 6:54 AM, Mayayana wrote:
So if you think MS and Adobe are going to collapse then
you'll have to start by telling millions of people who work
in offices and graphics shops what Microsoft and Adobe are.
They really don't know. Most don't even know they're using
Windows. (They do know if they're using Mac but that's only
because they paid twice what it's worth to show off the logo.)

Having the active spread across the entire widescreen monitor also dries
me up the wall.

Then why do it? I assume you're speaking of your own behavior, since
other's behavior wouldn't be up to you. If you don't like it, don't do it
that way.

I rarely do things full screen. Google Maps, or any mapping type
program, would be an exception,

Sometimes, I get close to that with a program that has various control
panels on one side or the other. Such as a styles and formatting display.

I wasn't clear, but I was referring to things like writing a document,
and that's the only thing on the screen.

As for me, almost everything gets run full screen. I find it very
distracting to have multiple windows partially overlaid atop one another,
but I wouldn't tell anyone to do it one way or another. It's an individual
decision.

Regarding multiple windows on the screen, for me it depends on the
contents of the various windows. If those windows have different tools
that come with a particular program, it doesn't bother me.

But I don't have a browser window, email window, instant messenger
window, etc. all on the same desktop. For those situations, I use
alternate/multiple desktops. Each program is assigned to run in a
specific desktop. I've not found a way to do that with W10's Task Views.

It is an individual's choice. I get frustrated with people who choose
to do it one way, without knowing what their options are.

That last part is what gets you into trouble. I don't know how you can look
at someone and determine whether they know what their options are. It seems
much more likely that they're doing something exactly how they want to do
it. If *they* speak up and express frustration, that's different, but
until/unless they do so, you have no reason to be frustrated.

You can't look at them and know whether they know their options. You
actually have to ask and/or show them the options.

If the individual doesn't know what their options are, you can't assume
they are using what they want. If an individual only knows one options,
that's the one they are going to use. :-) Once you know they know
their options, and they choose to continue with the way they are doing
it, perfectly fine with me. :-)

Besides, your 'multiple desktops' approach isn't better than running an
application full screen. Those are just two different approaches that get
you the same result - an application with fewer distractions.

I disagree, with all due respect. I'm still not using full screen
windows the vast majority of time. I just have less that full screen
windows on the different desktops.



--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


Frustrating, isn't it?* These things are what I call the basics, and you
found in the manuals that used to come with the systems.


As I'm sure you already know, Ken, Apple does still provide LOTS of
helpful information:-

https://www.apple.com/uk/macos/catalina/

https://www.apple.com/uk/macos/catalina/features/

True. And Apple even has a basic manual right on the hard drive. Don't
see that from windows.

Those links are sales pitches, telling you *what* you can do, not *how*
to do it.

It's the how that I am talking about.

there are other links that explain how:
https://support.apple.com/manuals

It should be obvious that information found online is useless, when the
user does not know how to go online.

it should be obvious that isn't actually a problem.

it's not 1985 anymore. just about everyone already *is* online, has
been for years and knows how to search for stuff.

phones, tablets and computers will normally automatically connect to
wifi without the user needing to do anything, unless disabled.

not only that, but the only way to get the software is online, so if
someone can figure out how to *get* the various apps, they can figure
out how to also find help, assuming it's even needed, which it probably
isn't.

On 12/6/2019 11:01 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/6/19 10:23 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

Besides, your 'multiple desktops' approach isn't better than running an
application full screen. Those are just two different approaches that get
you the same result - an application with fewer distractions.

I disagree, with all due respect. I'm still not using full screen
windows the vast majority of time. I just have less that full screen
windows on the different desktops.



I agree with you. I also never run anything full-screen. I have two 23"
monitors. I always have at least three programs open on each screen (the
same three by default, but sometimes more than three). Each window is
large and takes up a good part of the screen, but the ones that are not
in the foreground have a corner visible, and that makes it very easy to
switch to it quickly.


--
Ken

On 12/6/19 11:08 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


Frustrating, isn't it?Â* These things are what I call the basics, and you
found in the manuals that used to come with the systems.


As I'm sure you already know, Ken, Apple does still provide LOTS of
helpful information:-

https://www.apple.com/uk/macos/catalina/

https://www.apple.com/uk/macos/catalina/features/

True. And Apple even has a basic manual right on the hard drive. Don't
see that from windows.

Those links are sales pitches, telling you *what* you can do, not *how*
to do it.

It's the how that I am talking about.

there are other links that explain how:
https://support.apple.com/manuals

It should be obvious that information found online is useless, when the
user does not know how to go online.

it should be obvious that isn't actually a problem.

it's not 1985 anymore. just about everyone already *is* online, has
been for years and knows how to search for stuff.

It's also not 2185 where everyone has in implant, and is genetically
modified to know this at birth. Something you are unable to acknowledge.

phones, tablets and computers will normally automatically connect to
wifi without the user needing to do anything, unless disabled.

not only that, but the only way to get the software is online, so if
someone can figure out how to *get* the various apps, they can figure
out how to also find help, assuming it's even needed, which it probably
isn't.



--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


It should be obvious that information found online is useless, when the
user does not know how to go online.

it should be obvious that isn't actually a problem.

it's not 1985 anymore. just about everyone already *is* online, has
been for years and knows how to search for stuff.

It's also not 2185 where everyone has in implant, and is genetically
modified to know this at birth. Something you are unable to acknowledge.

strawman.

the reality is that being online is *not* an obstacle.

you're also ignoring that software distribution is almost entirely
online, so if they can manage to get various apps, they can get help
for it as well, should it even be needed, which is not a given.

On 12/6/19 11:45 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


It should be obvious that information found online is useless, when the
user does not know how to go online.

it should be obvious that isn't actually a problem.

it's not 1985 anymore. just about everyone already *is* online, has
been for years and knows how to search for stuff.

It's also not 2185 where everyone has in implant, and is genetically
modified to know this at birth. Something you are unable to acknowledge.

strawman.

the reality is that being online is *not* an obstacle.

The reality is, not everyone knows how to do this.

you're also ignoring that software distribution is almost entirely
online, so if they can manage to get various apps, they can get help
for it as well, should it even be needed, which is not a given.



--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


It should be obvious that information found online is useless, when the
user does not know how to go online.

it should be obvious that isn't actually a problem.

it's not 1985 anymore. just about everyone already *is* online, has
been for years and knows how to search for stuff.

It's also not 2185 where everyone has in implant, and is genetically
modified to know this at birth. Something you are unable to acknowledge.

strawman.

the reality is that being online is *not* an obstacle.

The reality is, not everyone knows how to do this.

nobody said 'everyone'.

the number who do not and have nobody to help them get online is a
tiny, tiny fraction (as in almost zero), nowhere near enough to justify
a company publishing written manuals that everyone else will never look
at, never mind read, and which would also need to be ordered online.

you're also ignoring that software distribution is almost entirely
online, so if they can manage to get various apps, they can get help
for it as well, should it even be needed, which is not a given.

this.

if someone wants something printed for whatever reason, download the
relevant pdfs and print them, either in its entirety or specific pages.

On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On 12/6/2019 11:01 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/6/19 10:23 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

Besides, your 'multiple desktops' approach isn't better than running an
application full screen. Those are just two different approaches that
get
you the same result - an application with fewer distractions.

I disagree, with all due respect.Â* I'm still not using full screen
windows the vast majority of time.Â* I just have less that full screen
windows on the different desktops.



I agree with you. I also never run anything full-screen. I have two 23"
monitors. I always have at least three programs open on each screen (the
same three by default, but sometimes more than three). Each window is
large and takes up a good part of the screen, but the ones that are not
in the foreground have a corner visible, and that makes it very easy to
switch to it quickly.


Isn't that the reason for the task bar?? (no need to reply). I do the
same thing but I'm on a laptop and now and then one program I like full
screen so I so use the icons on the taskbar.

Mayayana wrote:
"Chris" wrote

| None of the applications listed above can deal with Microsoft VBA so I
| have no choice.
|
| Oh the beauty of lock-in.

To be fair, I wouldn't call that lock-in. They promote lock-in
with their proprietary format, their incompatibility between
versions, and their aggressive pushing of MSO to college
students. Those factors have made MSO one of Microsoft's
very few successes.

They're successful across the board. Azure is their biggest growth area
over the last few years.

Essentially they're in the business of
monopoly, not software or services. But VBA is a brilliant
addition, and no one has to use it. The people who do are
generally people who do much of their job with MSO.

Mayayana wrote:
"Ken Springer" wrote

Are you having trouble with your newsreader? You
just made 3 responses to what I wrote and I can't
decipher any connection between my words and yours.

In the header, what is the MID value on the three messages ?

And how far apart are the time stamps ?

There is one newsreader that will send three times,
with a 30 second delay between tries and a different
MID on each. And yet the body text is the same.

Even providing the MIDs is good enough to use to check
with Howard.

Paul

Mayayana wrote:


It's exactly the same thing people are talking about
with Powerpoint. People use it because it's what they
know, and often it's all they know. They don't realize that
some others use their computer for something other than
Word and Powerpoint. If they distribute class notes, that
could be in the form of plain text, for adaptability and
editability. Why don't they? Because they don't know what
they're doing and PPT looks more official. And why PDF?
snip

PDF serves as a filter. If .pptx files were distributed,
they have "too much info", including the authors private
notes.

When you print or export to PDF, there is a tacit
assumption not all of the original document content
will be in there. The document cannot be "reproduced exactly"
with just the PDF in hand. Yet it does contain images
of what was shown on the overhead projector while
the individual was speaking.

Normal practice is to distribute paper copies, and
then people can annotate the paper as they see fit.
While there are plenty of ways to annotate documents
on a computer, you don't want the distraction in a
computer setting, of the user "running his computer center"
while listening to a lecture or speech out of half-an-ear.
Being able to use a low tech pencil for the job,
gives a higher degree of attention to the speaker.

If you drop your PDF into LO Draw, you might
see text strings in there. There are also things
like pstotext (more than one version, one does a
pretty good job on text which is purely horizontal
or vertical). Nothing handles spline or angular
text all that well.

We could be using OCR for this, except for the
artificial restrictions those tools apply to
source files ("can't use this, can't use that,
resolution provided is over 200dpi...).

Paul

On 12/6/2019 1:39 PM, Big Al wrote:
On 12/6/19 1:18 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On 12/6/2019 11:01 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/6/19 10:23 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

Besides, your 'multiple desktops' approach isn't better than running an
application full screen. Those are just two different approaches that
get
you the same result - an application with fewer distractions.

I disagree, with all due respect.Â* I'm still not using full screen
windows the vast majority of time.Â* I just have less that full screen
windows on the different desktops.



I agree with you. I also never run anything full-screen. I have two 23"
monitors. I always have at least three programs open on each screen (the
same three by default, but sometimes more than three). Each window is
large and takes up a good part of the screen, but the ones that are not
in the foreground have a corner visible, and that makes it very easy to
switch to it quickly.


Isn't that the reason for the task bar?? (no need to reply).


Yes. But the exposed corner is much closer to wherever my mouse is at
the moment, and as far as I'm concerned, it's therefore much faster to
do it my way.

I also have many more icons on the task bar that I have exposed corners,
and if I were to use the task bar, it would take some time to find what
I want.

Are the differences I'm talking about enormous? No, of course not. But
to me they are significant. I'm sure there are others who wouldn't find
it significant, so they should continue to do it whatever way they like
best. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do it my way.


I do the
same thing but I'm on a laptop and now and then one program I like full
screen so I so use the icons on the taskbar.




--
Ken

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 11:01:57 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/6/19 10:23 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:17:01 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/5/19 9:50 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 21:07:22 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/5/19 6:54 AM, Mayayana wrote:
So if you think MS and Adobe are going to collapse then
you'll have to start by telling millions of people who work
in offices and graphics shops what Microsoft and Adobe are.
They really don't know. Most don't even know they're using
Windows. (They do know if they're using Mac but that's only
because they paid twice what it's worth to show off the logo.)

Having the active spread across the entire widescreen monitor also dries
me up the wall.

Then why do it? I assume you're speaking of your own behavior, since
other's behavior wouldn't be up to you. If you don't like it, don't do it
that way.

I rarely do things full screen. Google Maps, or any mapping type
program, would be an exception,

Sometimes, I get close to that with a program that has various control
panels on one side or the other. Such as a styles and formatting display.

I wasn't clear, but I was referring to things like writing a document,
and that's the only thing on the screen.

As for me, almost everything gets run full screen. I find it very
distracting to have multiple windows partially overlaid atop one another,
but I wouldn't tell anyone to do it one way or another. It's an individual
decision.

Regarding multiple windows on the screen, for me it depends on the
contents of the various windows. If those windows have different tools
that come with a particular program, it doesn't bother me.

But I don't have a browser window, email window, instant messenger
window, etc. all on the same desktop. For those situations, I use
alternate/multiple desktops. Each program is assigned to run in a
specific desktop. I've not found a way to do that with W10's Task Views.

It is an individual's choice. I get frustrated with people who choose
to do it one way, without knowing what their options are.

That last part is what gets you into trouble. I don't know how you can look
at someone and determine whether they know what their options are. It seems
much more likely that they're doing something exactly how they want to do
it. If *they* speak up and express frustration, that's different, but
until/unless they do so, you have no reason to be frustrated.

You can't look at them and know whether they know their options. You
actually have to ask and/or show them the options.

Right, that was exactly my point. So I don't understand why you allow
yourself to become frustrated. That's not making sense to me.

If the individual doesn't know what their options are, you can't assume
they are using what they want. If an individual only knows one options,
that's the one they are going to use. :-) Once you know they know
their options, and they choose to continue with the way they are doing
it, perfectly fine with me. :-)

Besides, your 'multiple desktops' approach isn't better than running an
application full screen. Those are just two different approaches that get
you the same result - an application with fewer distractions.

I disagree, with all due respect. I'm still not using full screen
windows the vast majority of time. I just have less that full screen
windows on the different desktops.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. What I said is accurate.

"Ken Springer" wrote \

| Are you having trouble with your newsreader? You
| just made 3 responses to what I wrote and I can't
| decipher any connection between my words and yours.
|
| Well... That's interesting...
|
| No problems that I know of. And I didn't do anything different at this
end.
|
| I've no clue what happened.
|

Woops. Everyone seems to think I meant that I
saw 3 posts. I saw 3 separate responses in one post.
But none seemed to connect to what I'd written, so
I wondered if there was a mixup.

"Chris" wrote


| They're successful across the board. Azure is their biggest growth area
| over the last few years.
|

Yes, Azure has been a success. But for many years only
Windows and MSO made money. Everything else lost
money. I think XBox may be in the black now. I haven't
checked recently.