Sennadar Forums

Yeah OpenOffice and libreoffice are the only legal free options if you want full MSOffice compatibility. Just be sure to save as .doc or .docx instead of the default odf format.

MS Office XP should still work. I use Office XP Pro because I HATE HATE HATE HATE that "Ribbon" crap they put in the newer versions. I've had it installed on Win Vista, 7 and 8 without a hitch. I also use OpenOffice for some of it's features. Specifically I use it to convert your word doc releases into PDF

ettoren wrote:MS Office XP should still work. I use Office XP Pro because I HATE HATE HATE HATE that "Ribbon" crap they put in the newer versions. I've had it installed on Win Vista, 7 and 8 without a hitch. I also use OpenOffice for some of it's features. Specifically I use it to convert your word doc releases into PDF

lol, this worked. I didn't think my XP office would install on a 64 bit system.

So, I have my MS word back for reading what I write (I don't write on my desktop, but on my laptop...it's more comfortable.)

Fel wrote:I didn't think my XP office would install on a 64 bit system.

You can always run a 32 bit version of a software on a 64 bit OS but not viceversa. (although, technically speaking, you will be compromising on the 'optimal performance' of the software )

You might want to try Scrivener (there is a free trial).

I find it a much better tool for composing long form text. The ability to write scenes in sections that you can move and version independently and hold all your notes and annotations together with the final text is a big leap over Word in the creative process.

I've only used it on OS X though so I can only assume it as stable and mature on Windows.

You could also look at LibreOffice. It is available in 64 bit, it's free, and it does everything MS Office does and works on Office formats transparently. I've been using it since it was StarOffice, which has been a while.

I highly recommend it.

Just as an aside, I think I need to state now for my own consciensce that none of the money you donated to my paypal paid for this computer. I used my credit card for that...and put myself even deeper in debt. But, I'd go insane without my computer, so I had to get a new one.

The money you guys graciously sent me will be paying to remove the damaged tree from my front yard before it falls on my house. Estimates thus far have been...scary. The lowest one was $650USD. Sadly the tree can't just be cut down and allowed to fall, because no matter which way it falls, it'll fall on something and do damage. It has to be top-cut and "disassembled" while still standing. That is labor-intensive, and thus, it's expensive.

When I get paid on Friday, I'll have the combined cash to have it done.

Yeah it certainly seems to be a bad month for you. They say things happen in threes so maybe that's it for you?

MartinK wrote:Weren't there some issues with openoffice due to still being owned by a corporation that wanted to make money with it? I believe its currently owned by oracle, which hasn't all that good a track record with its Java either.

I believe that the "corporation" you are thinking of turned over the code to the Apache foundation.

what about using explosive cord to cut it in sections ?
it doesnt look to big to use this method. at last by the picture.

The Thing wrote:

Fel wrote:I didn't think my XP office would install on a 64 bit system.

You can always run a 32 bit version of a software on a 64 bit OS but not viceversa. (although, technically speaking, you will be compromising on the 'optimal performance' of the software )

For office software, there's not really any noticable difference - the reasons for slow performance in these things is rarely to do with CPU (at least, with the way they currently use CPUs anyhow).
You'll see better performance if you stick everything on a current-generation SSD - that'll at least eliminate IO wait times.

Spec8472 wrote:For office software, there's not really any noticable difference - the reasons for slow performance in these things is rarely to do with CPU (at least, with the way they currently use CPUs anyhow).

I know. I was trying to be sarcastic but I guess I am not good at communicating it online.

Spec8472 wrote:You'll see better performance if you stick everything on a current-generation SSD - that'll at least eliminate IO wait times.

I guess even here its nigh impossible to see the difference unless you are playing a game with good graphics or running/loading a high end heavy usage consumption software.

The Thing wrote:I know. I was trying to be sarcastic

Oh, you missed the sarcasm tags.

The Thing wrote:I guess even here its nigh impossible to see the difference

Actually, you'll see a quite significant improvement in performance by switching to SSDs, pretty much regardless of what your use-case is.
Disk wait times on a machine which has spinning disks for much of it's storage are quite significant. Switching to SSDs not only eliminates wait-time, the throughput (random and sequential) on modern SSDs now saturates the SATA bus.

The difference for most usage isn't hugely noticable at first. But then going back to a spinning disk you wonder why the machine isn't acting right.

Spec8472 wrote:Actually, you'll see a quite significant improvement in performance by switching to SSDs, pretty much regardless of what your use-case is.

Hmmm... I knew about how they worked and why they were different but did not know that you can notice difference in simple programs !! Honestly speaking, I have a pretty new system with a HDD and will not be switching to a SSD any time soon just to check it out. But what about the failure rates and other such problems ? I have read on several tech blogs about their draw backs. Or are the websites exaggerating ?

The Thing wrote:

Fel wrote:I didn't think my XP office would install on a 64 bit system.

You can always run a 32 bit version of a software on a 64 bit OS but not viceversa. (although, technically speaking, you will be compromising on the 'optimal performance' of the software )

Actually, with MS Office, 32-bit is preferred. Never install 64-bit MS Office unless you need to work with incredibly large documents (multi-gigabyte Excel docs, for example). Many applications that interact with Outlook will not work properly with 64-bit versions due to the way registry keys are stored for 64-bit apps vs. 32-bit apps. I ended up removing 64-bit Office from my work machine and installing the 32-bit version in order to get various applications to properly interop with Office.

From a technical standpoint, there are very few applications that actually benefit from being natively 64-bit. I recently read a breakdown of why(http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ricom/archive/2 ... rsion.aspx), but the main of it is that unless the application actually uses more than 3GB of RAM actively, you're actually losing by converting the app to 64-bit; as all memory pointers in a 64-bit app are twice as big as they were in a 32-bit app, thus take up more space in memory.

Having a 64-bit OS is always a benefit(More RAM is better); 64-bit apps, not so much.

alkiera wrote:

The Thing wrote:

Fel wrote:I didn't think my XP office would install on a 64 bit system.

You can always run a 32 bit version of a software on a 64 bit OS but not viceversa. (although, technically speaking, you will be compromising on the 'optimal performance' of the software )

Actually, with MS Office, 32-bit is preferred. Never install 64-bit MS Office unless you need to work with incredibly large documents (multi-gigabyte Excel docs, for example). Many applications that interact with Outlook will not work properly with 64-bit versions due to the way registry keys are stored for 64-bit apps vs. 32-bit apps. I ended up removing 64-bit Office from my work machine and installing the 32-bit version in order to get various applications to properly interop with Office.

From a technical standpoint, there are very few applications that actually benefit from being natively 64-bit. I recently read a breakdown of why(http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ricom/archive/2 ... rsion.aspx), but the main of it is that unless the application actually uses more than 3GB of RAM actively, you're actually losing by converting the app to 64-bit; as all memory pointers in a 64-bit app are twice as big as they were in a 32-bit app, thus take up more space in memory.

Having a 64-bit OS is always a benefit(More RAM is better); 64-bit apps, not so much.

Ditto the above... When I create new Images at work, I always have 32-bit MS office on our 64-bit windows machines because of this issue. A number of specialized (expensive) programs from smaller design houses do not work with office 64-bit. I suggest 64-bit OS because things just run better (most of the time) and you can use more RAM in your PC. Office 32-bit is more than good enough for 95% of all users would be my guess. If your company has 32-bit and 64-bit office... they had to pay for 2 difference licenses. Another issues is optional programs like visio and project must be the same type (32 or 64-bit) as your base office install. Save yourself some trouble and go with 32-bit.