Onedrive is shrinking
-
@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.
-
@Dashrender said:
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill I just meant that it is a matter of fully explaining it, making a full sales pitch and sticking to your guns and not just letting people pull the "it's social acceptable to be foolish and not smart" that is so often seen as a social acceptable excuse - especially in the US. A culture of glorifying stupidity is pervasive and while I don't mean to make social commentary, it trickles down to simple things like people not wanting to make a hard decision or just "wanting" something without a reason or just being generally illogical. And if we let people do that, they will, over and over again to their own detriment. We have to hold them accountable because we care about them - treat them like we would want to be treat, show some tough love and make sure that they understand that while it is their decisions, we don't just "respect" any foolhardy decision that they make.
This same idea is in all the threads.
It's nice like using O365 is bad. Yes, they could save $120 a year. But if they like it, and are used to it, and it works...It's not the end of the world.
Is some of it reluctance to switch? Sure.
Well, there's a whole lot more to it than that. Scott's additional point is that if you don't need to spend that $120/user, then as a public company it's borderline criminal because you're not going what's best for your investors (saving them money).
Based on the big picture, not on the individual action, of course.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
I have found if you are doing a lot of work, the non-Office programs mess up formatting when going between programs. At least it used to. Shoot, we even have issues between Office versions, but they are usually pretty good.
In this case, and I'm sure that this is worth of its own thread, while I am fully aware that there are use cases for this and reasons that you need compatibility...
How often are users sharing files for editing with outside entities and why?
I've asked this in a lot of companies and the answer, while not always, has nearly always been that people were using the programs and file formats inappropriately, did not understand how to use the tools correctly and were doing weird things causing high cost and unnecessary problems.
What's creating this issue?
Well, when did Office add in the Save AS PDF option? Only after that timeframe did it start not mattering, assuming that both sides weren't editing the file.
Well, even before it was built into it as a "Save As PDF" option, they had "Save as XPS" and you were able to "Print to PDF."
I've been able to go to PDF for free since 2000, I'd guess.
Sure with a third party add-on.
Is that bad? It was done through the printer feature and was very simple and standard. It's unfortunate that MS Office lacked the power and features of OpenOffice but you "get what you pay for" I guess
LOL - bad, no. More work, absolutely. Worthwhile - probably! Gods know how many times I installed a PDF printer for myself and countless others.
Heck I can't figure out why we maintain a copy of everything that we finalize into PDF, we still keep the Word version too.
I think that we do that too. There is something to be said for having the working copy that you can use to make something new and keeping the final to show what you gave to someone. It's a bit like a snapshot, in that way.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
