Do OpenOffice Users Save In Microsoft Format?

superglaze writes "Looking through an article on the smartphone office suite Quickoffice, I noted a claim by a company executive that OpenOffice users usually save their documents in a Microsoft format, e.g. .doc. Hence the company has no plans to support .odf. I guess I can see the rationale for this — it helps if you're sending a document to an MS-using company — but what's this community's general experience of saving in .odf vs. .doc format?"

Count at least ONE who doesnt.

[DaedalusHKX]

Been saving in ODT, PDF and TXT for ages... add HTML to that.

And they are the reason

[John Jamieson]

It is software companies like this that force us to save in MS formats!

.DOC

[GWLlosa]

I have and use OpenOffice, but frequently wind up writing stuff that I'm going to want to send to a friend or allow him to grab off my share or whatnot. Rather than dick around with the whole format thing, its easier to just use .doc. Saves time and hassle.

Re:Neither....PDF!

[Marcion]

I also do PDF quite bit, it also makes you look a bit more professional, as PDFs have a nice snobby image.

However, my main format, especially when collaborating is .txt. The best supported open format in the history of computing. Plain Text forever!

ODF-only here

[rbanffy]

Finished documents are sent in PDF format. Internal documents are strictly ODF.

I only send a .doc when I absolutely need some MS vict^H^H^H^Huser to contribute to the document.

And, even then, only when I can't make him/her install OpenOffice.

I always save documents in openoffice format.

[mark-t]

If I am sending the document to someone who has explicitly requested the document be the document in Office format, only then will I save in that format (and even then, I still have it saved in openoffice format also, since that will always be my working copy). For all other cases where I am sending, I export to PDF.

Don't give in!

[epiphani]

Interchangeability is important. The .doc and other formats replaced WordPerfect and .rtf standards as de facto interchange formats.

I save in .odf, and when I need to distribute documents, I export the docs to PDF. They're clean and easy to read, and the export is very accurate. PDF is also basically universally supported.

The MS formats are so particular that the given version of office that people are using will maul my document. OO exports to PDF well, I dont need to check on it.

Re:Neither....PDF!

[s.bots]

.txt is superb for collaborating, and once all the work is finally done, then you can apply the formatting. All too often you can find yourself dicking around with format because you had to save an unfinished document with formatting.

Re:Count at least ONE who doesnt.

[seanellis]

I save ODF locally, PDF if someone else needs to print it, RTF if I need to send it to someone to edit, DOC if I need hell to freeze over.

(OT: Has everyone seen the new Open Rights Group T-shirts?)

We used to.

[Lumpy]

Internally we used to default all OO.o installs to save as MSFT formats. we changed that recently.

We changed all internal to OO.o formats and all documents that exit the company must be sent as pdf. we did this for 3 reasons. compatability, security, and simplicity.

compatable. even a solaris machine can display a pdf. simplicity. PDF is actually the most universal document format no matter what Microsoft says.

Security. We had a problem with a salesperson that sent a contract to a client. the client sent it back and accepted it. The salesperson used the file sent back by the customer as the legal document and did not check it for changes. we got SCREWED because the asshole client changed several things silently in their favor.

If we sent them a PDF, they cant play that game as all contracts have to be sent to legal for acceptance as the oridional document format. this solved this problem.

Re:Yes

[Falstius]

What makes this even worse is the abominable equation editors that are used with word. At school here they've made it even worse by installing MathType for equations in word, which is even worse to use and not even compatible with the built in equation editor so I can't edit the equations at home even using MS Office.

I don't use OpenOffice because it is free, I use it because it is better.

Re:Count Two

[G Fab]

pretty sure you're full of it, man. IF you already had office paid for, why would you want openoffice? I think openoffice is excellent, but when I gave up on Office 2007, I installed Office 2003.

If some moron told me to install an entire office program (A sluggish one that cloned the one I already have, at that), I would email his boss and ask for the correct file format. It's common sense. IF you abuse your position to have people install redundant software, you probably won't be in that position for very long. It's like sending your files in Spanish. .doc is the format of business.

Microsoft has a stranglehold, but it's on a dinosaur. Software like this should not be locally installed, it should be online so you can easily collaborate. Beating Microsoft by copying them is silly because they will always be a step ahead.

Re:Don't give in!

[VGPowerlord]

PDF is basically universally supported... for reading.

If you need to exchange documents with someone that needs to edit them, PDF is not an option.

MOD PARENT UP!

[businessnerd]

Please mod parent up. The GP needs to stop smelling his own farts.

As for me, when I was in college, I always saved as ODF unless I knew the document was going to leave my hard drive. If a professor asked for something submitted through e-mail, or if I was collaborating with a peer, I'd convert it. Now that I'm in the working world, I do most work on my work supplied laptop running XP, and most of what I do is very collaborative anyway. At home, for personal use, it's ODF all the way. My fiance, who is now a linux and OO.o user, always saves as ODF, unless the circumstances demand an alternate format.

Re:I save in ODF

[Hassman]

Translation:

I'm a dick that likes to slow down the business process and make others install redundant software (if they are even allowed to) that both costs time and money, but I don't care because it makes me feel important.

Re:Count at least ONE who doesnt.

[rwven]

I'm pretty close to the same. I only use ODF stuff locally, but if someone else needs it that I know is using MSO, i save the document as a .doc. I don't see the .doc format as somehow evil, i just like ODF much better for obvious reasons. At the end of the day, .doc still gets the job done.

Re:Only for sharing documents

[MickLinux]

It seems to me that your library should install open office on those computers, as well. It goes against the spirit of anti-trust legislation to have public utilities (such as a university library) forcing people into a specific company's product in order to get full print capability. That is typically going to be the case, as well, because since .doc is a closed format, not everything transfers over correctly.

Now, on the other side of the coin may be the fact that Microsoft has provided the library with computers for free, under the contract that no openoffice gets installed on them. Fine, and well -- then set up one computer which the library has purchased free and clear, that sends the .odfs to the print server.

If the contract specifies no open-office anywhere, at all, then I'd say that the users should be informed of that fact, and be given the opportunity to sign up on a list of complainants, for the purpose of a university-wide lawsuit against Microsoft.

Re:I save in ODF

[jforest1]

I'm a dick because I save in .doc assuming that everyone is like me, slowing down business processes for other folks. or how about this one: I'm a dick because I make it practice to write software that doesn't enable clients to interact with all others, but rather limit them to the "ecosystem" that my company has engineered. I like to make claims that by using my "ecosystem" of software, their business processes are sped up. Rather, the truth is that I've not sped up anything, I've only slowed down business processes for those not using my software, and I get to call those people dicks because they aren't part of the bandwagon. --josh

Re:.DOC

[CoolCat23]

.doc ?
Do you mean, Office 95's .doc, Office 97's .doc, Office 2000's .doc, Office XP's .doc, or Office 12's .doc ?

Sending a random .doc to a random company means you have 99% chances that the company won't be able to properly display anything more complex than plain text, with perhaps some header styles. Tables will be broken, images will be floated randomly across text, complex styles will look weird...
I wouldn't take that risk when sending a resume...

I usually send plain .odt, and upon reply that "we can't read it", I send a PDF. No .doc. Ever.

Re:my experiences

[Anonymous Coward]

Lesson #1 bring laptop with presentation on it and verify beforehand that it works. (You appear much more professional)
Lesson #2 Lesson #1 works whether you use openoffice, msoffice, wordperfect suite, etc.

Re:I save in ODF

[a.d.trick]

Translation:

I'm a professional who ought to about the dangers of proprietary data format. However, supporting open formats takes work and it might hurt my oh-so-dear reputation. So instead of that, I'm just going to sit around and leach of the reputation of those who really do care about the software industry. Besides, what users don't know won't hurt them, right?

Re:Count at least ONE who doesnt.

[smartr]

Funny, I always thought it was rude when someone sent me a .doc file. If only they were so kind as to send me a link to download MS Office for free.

Re:We used to.

[mungewell]

err... it's still possible to alter a PDF document.

You'd need to put in place a proceedure that checks and confirms the MD5Sum or imposes digital signatures.
Munge.

I save in ODF, export in whatever

[Jon.Burgin]

My main reason for exporting in whatever (mainly pdf), is to enforce the removal of change/collaboration type changes. I have known to many embarrassing situations because people have left the changes embedded in documents. By exporting to pdf I avoid this situation. Also, I like having the concept of a release version on all products, whether they are software or documentation or even plain old correspondence. Just my 2 cents.

Need viewer application + plugin

[HalAtWork]

What we need is a small portable efficient ODF viewer that can be used as a stand-alone app, as well as a browser plugin, just to render and view + print ODF files. That way people won't have to have large applications just to print these files.

Also, it seems to me though that (when sharing) OpenOffice users might not save in .odf or .doc format as much as they would PDF format, actually.

Re:Save in ODF

[the_womble]

I do the same. In practice I usually send stuff as PDFs because they look better, and there is no real need for anyone to edit anything I send them these days.

There is one document that I have needed to send someone in a format they could edit in the last few weeks, and he requested that I share it through Google Documents.

I was pretty impressed with Google docs (first time I used it btw), and that might be the real threat to MS office as an interchange format.

Re:Count at least ONE who doesnt.

[pthisis]

That's frickin' rude, man. Seriously, if I was doing business with you, especially where I was paying you, and you sent me some link to a new office suite because you sent me documents I couldn't read, I would cease to do business with your company.

Businesses tend to be more pragmatic than that. If someone sends us a .doc file that I can't open, we'll go find OpenOffice or the free Word viewer or something rather than ceasing to do business with them. If it's a regular business partner, we'll try to get them to send text as text rather than a huge .doc with no formatting and 1-2 paragraphs of text in it (which seems to be what almost all .doc files I receive are), and csv rather than xls. If it's a one-off, it's easier just to scrounge for a workaround.

OTOH, it's never worth the risk of sending an odd format when something standard will do. I don't think I've needed to send anything other than text, HTML, jpg/gif, or csv for years. If I did, I'd go with whatever seemed easiest on all sides (probably PDF).

On the main topic, I'd guess that most openoffice users do save in Microsoft format. The only reason I ever see anyone install it is to read and respond to those crappy .doc attachments people sling around, and I'd guess that's the most common reason for having it.

Re:We used to.

[downhole]

Not too surprisingly, everyone's complaining that PDFs can be edited, and you need more stuff (passwords, digital signatures, etc) to make it really secure. I think they're all missing the point. The point is: Why is the salesman using the file that the client sent back to him if he doesn't think that there were any changes? Why should the client even be sending back a file at all if they haven't made changes? The salesman should only be using locally-stored copies as the legal documents. If the client wants to change something, the salesman can make the actual changes in his saved copy, and then use that.

If they add passwords and encryption, they'll still need new procedures to make sure that gets done right. Why not just make a procedure that files sent back from the client aren't used for anything anyways, and avoid the problem without adding new technology that could go wrong?

Re:Count at least TWO who don't.

[Risen888]

Yes, I do know what FUD means. Blatent lying about a point to scare people from a product. Such has a high cost.

Although it must be nice to live in a world where the numbers we've discussed don't qualify as "high cost," a lot of people would disagree with you.

My argument is that its not nearly as expensive as the OP was claiming just to use Word.

I concede that I pulled $3xx from the Super-Duper Mega Ultra Office Edition, but it just happened to be the first thing a search turned up. OTOH, I wasn't including the cost of Windows in that, which, if we're talking about the cost of "using Word," should be in there.

I'd rather pay $124, get something that will work properly...

I don't know what you're talking about here, but I've never seen the "works properly" version of Office. I can't get the damn thing to get out of my way and let me work. It's all in what you're used to, I guess. ...is compatabile with what most others use...

Oh, like Office '97? Nope. '95? Uh, no. It's not even compatible with earlier versions of their own product! OOo, on the other hand, is compatible with damn near whatever format you can think to throw at it. ...and I can actually get support for.

Oh, that's right. Because so many people get Office support from Microsoft. When was the last time you called them?

Just because something is free doesn't mean its worthwhile.

And just because you got suckered into paying through the nose for a half-assed version of what should by 2007 be commodity software, don't take your bitterness out on the rest of us.