Onedrive is shrinking
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
No, I'm implying (or intending to) that sharing an editable file with Walmart is the user error. Not the formatting problems themselves. I think that those are an artifact of a different mistake.
We get it all the time.
The client wants the presentation or reports to edit themselves after the fact.
This is the main reason we switched to PowerPoint way back when, which is a horrible program.
Wait ... let me guess you response ....
WHY would you give the CLIENT the editable files?
That's what I've said a few times now
Don't give them editable files. There are exceptions, of course. We work with companies with whom we do shared marketing and they sometimes hand us templates or something. But it is extremely rarely and nearly useless. And could be resolved easily in other ways in nearly all cases.I think it is just a case of extreme laziness in most cases. Think of this in "real life" before computers. When were you exchanging documents with the intent of your customers or partners modifying them. That would be weird. It was always that you gave them finished document. There are exceptions, the "books" going to your accountant, for example. But by and large, you don't have a workflow that requires multiple companies editing a single document.
I think with Office including Save As PDF we are starting to see a shift away from sending editable documents to each other, even when there is no need.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Sure, But I'd like to hear that conversation - you're dealing with Walmart, let's assume they use Office. You need to send editable files to them....
This is where I feel that it breaks down. When has anyone, ever, needed to work on a shared, editable document with Walmart? What is causing this to come up?
Really, I'm guessing you're right. It's probably that companies don't want to worry about what it takes to view/edit/update/access their old files created in the previous solution.
Ah, had not thought of that. Legacy files inside the same company. That could be an issue. Although I think that LO handles that a lot better than MSO. But that might be my limited experience. But I've never seen a versioning issue with LO, have seen lots of MSO.
You're probably right. And had they started there 18 years ago instead of Office 97, that might make sense. But assuming the need to share with outside vendors is real, the incompatibilities of OpenOffice back there where horrible. So it just wasn't a choice. @BRRABill even said as much, that's why they moved to Office away from other big names at the time.
OO had some rock solid compatibility back then for most things. Better than most MS Office versions had to each other.
-
@Dashrender said:
I think with Office including Save As PDF we are starting to see a shift away from sending editable documents to each other, even when there is no need.
Hopefully, it exposes the use of a collaboration format for publication. Office was never meant for collaboration and sharing like it was used for. It was designed to make something that would print out well. That's why the "Print as PDF" was used originally, it is what matched existing workflows.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I really do feel, though, as an additional aside not yet mentioned, that there is this weird social construct where we have all agreed that it is okay to force other people to buy and install MS Office and to do so in a compatible version with our own installation but it is not socially acceptable to expect people to install something for free to do the same things. How weird is that?
If we need to jointly edit files together, why not expect other people to install LibreOffice? They expected so much more from you.
This boils down to timing and social acceptance.
MS has owned this space since the lat 90's. Open Source and/or Free software for the general public is still new. It's further skewed by the number of scams out there trying to take advantage of people with their free things online.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Sure, But I'd like to hear that conversation - you're dealing with Walmart, let's assume they use Office. You need to send editable files to them....
This is where I feel that it breaks down. When has anyone, ever, needed to work on a shared, editable document with Walmart? What is causing this to come up?
Really, I'm guessing you're right. It's probably that companies don't want to worry about what it takes to view/edit/update/access their old files created in the previous solution.
Ah, had not thought of that. Legacy files inside the same company. That could be an issue. Although I think that LO handles that a lot better than MSO. But that might be my limited experience. But I've never seen a versioning issue with LO, have seen lots of MSO.
You're probably right. And had they started there 18 years ago instead of Office 97, that might make sense. But assuming the need to share with outside vendors is real, the incompatibilities of OpenOffice back there where horrible. So it just wasn't a choice. @BRRABill even said as much, that's why they moved to Office away from other big names at the time.
OO had some rock solid compatibility back then for most things. Better than most MS Office versions had to each other.
I can only say our experiences differed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I think with Office including Save As PDF we are starting to see a shift away from sending editable documents to each other, even when there is no need.
Hopefully, it exposes the use of a collaboration format for publication. Office was never meant for collaboration and sharing like it was used for. It was designed to make something that would print out well. That's why the "Print as PDF" was used originally, it is what matched existing workflows.
Print to PDF was included in an Office version? Do you recall which one?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I really do feel, though, as an additional aside not yet mentioned, that there is this weird social construct where we have all agreed that it is okay to force other people to buy and install MS Office and to do so in a compatible version with our own installation but it is not socially acceptable to expect people to install something for free to do the same things. How weird is that?
If we need to jointly edit files together, why not expect other people to install LibreOffice? They expected so much more from you.
This boils down to timing and social acceptance.
MS has owned this space since the lat 90's. Open Source and/or Free software for the general public is still new. It's further skewed by the number of scams out there trying to take advantage of people with their free things online.
OpenOffice has been a major player since 1985. MS Office gained that "ownership" of the market only through the very thing I'm stating - that it was somehow socially acceptable to force people to buy that product and not others.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I think with Office including Save As PDF we are starting to see a shift away from sending editable documents to each other, even when there is no need.
Hopefully, it exposes the use of a collaboration format for publication. Office was never meant for collaboration and sharing like it was used for. It was designed to make something that would print out well. That's why the "Print as PDF" was used originally, it is what matched existing workflows.
Print to PDF was included in an Office version? Do you recall which one?
Wasn't included as far as I know, just readily available and standard. In the UNIX world, it was just part of the OS!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I think with Office including Save As PDF we are starting to see a shift away from sending editable documents to each other, even when there is no need.
Hopefully, it exposes the use of a collaboration format for publication. Office was never meant for collaboration and sharing like it was used for. It was designed to make something that would print out well. That's why the "Print as PDF" was used originally, it is what matched existing workflows.
Print to PDF was included in an Office version? Do you recall which one?
Wasn't included as far as I know, just readily available and standard. In the UNIX world, it was just part of the OS!
Yeah it's still not part of the Windows OS, that crazy XPS thing is - is that a standard or is it a Microsoft standard?
-
Save As PDF has been in since at least Office 2013, maybe even 2010.
-
I think 2010. I'm on 2013 and it did not feel new.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yeah it's still not part of the Windows OS, that crazy XPS thing is - is that a standard or is it a Microsoft standard?
PDF is the standard. XPS isn't even a Microsoft standard, just a Microsoft option.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Yeah it's still not part of the Windows OS, that crazy XPS thing is - is that a standard or is it a Microsoft standard?
PDF is the standard. XPS isn't even a Microsoft standard, just a Microsoft option.
I've never known anyone to use it on purpose.
Heck - years ago I used to delete it. I just got tired of doing so.
I suppose it's time to learn how to kill it either by GP or script. lol
-
We used XPS for a while, actually. It was fine for MS shops.
-
You act like anyone can just tell their clients "yeah you have to install openoffice" or "no, you can't have the deliverables".
They do what they want, and we have to adapt, or we find new clients.
-
@BRRABill said:
You act like anyone can just tell their clients "yeah you have to install openoffice" or "no, you can't have the deliverables".
They do what they want, and we have to adapt, or we find new clients.
Not my clients. Or they cease being my clients. Catering to "what they want" is your problem.
-
I am talking on the non-IT side of our business.
We've been in business for almost 50 years, and didn't get there by firing clients.
Not saying it's not the right thing to do. Just not for everyone. And certainly not for big clients.
-
@BRRABill said:
I am talking on the non-IT side of our business.
We've been in business for almost 50 years, and didn't get there by firing clients.
Not saying it's not the right thing to do. Just not for everyone. And certainly not for big clients.
You should not have a big client that does not have a concept of what you say is the best thing for their business and that they better take it seriously.
-
@JaredBusch said:
You should not have a big client that does not have a concept of what you say is the best thing for their business and that they better take it seriously.
Our big clients are really big. The people we deal with have no say with IT, and can barely even reach out to them.
It's always all we can do to work through issues to get them what they need and keep everyone happy.
-
@BRRABill said:
@JaredBusch said:
You should not have a big client that does not have a concept of what you say is the best thing for their business and that they better take it seriously.
Our big clients are really big. The people we deal with have no say with IT, and can barely even reach out to them.
It's always all we can do to work through issues to get them what they need and keep everyone happy.
If you are not dealing with IT decision makers, I have to ask WTF are you doing with them? Or are you meaning these are non-IT clients?
