Talk:OpenOffice Writer

message: Most of the article focuses on supposed criticisms of the program with almost no consideration of the features. Is this an organized campaign to write this article from a specific point of view, i.e. from a competitor? Like every program, it has its drawbacks, but it certainly isn't as horrific as this article makes it appear to be.
123home123 (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to disagree. After typing my 30 page reseach paper for my history class, I attempted to export to a microsoft document (to allow everyone else to view it) It deleted ("reformated") over 100 end notes allong with thier markers. It didn't save them in another format and leave the text, it completely deleted them. Not that i'm angry or anything (though at the time I was was on the verge of cardiac arrest), i'm just demostrating some of the serious flaws in the program. The only bonus to it is how it is focused around formating - but as the article states, it isn't able to transfer that to any other format without loss. This wouldn't be a problem if most people used OOS, but most people don't, so being able to export and maintain formating is vital. OOS fails in thie respect. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only flaw I see here is that few people have OpenOffice installed, so they couldn't see your document. Should have exported to PDF maybe. Eeyore22 (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  Agreed, I have removed the criticism section for now. It creates an unbalanced view of the subject. 203.97.255.148 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a section with criticism in Microsoft Word, why not here? Instead of removing content, the article could have been balanced by adding content to the features list and comparing it to other programs, the same way it was done in the criticism section. Anyway, your edit has left the article without a reference. Joshua Issac (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I've restored the criticism section and removed some unreferenced parts from it. The article looks balanced to me. Joshua Issac (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I am removing the  template. If you object, please state why. Joshua Issac (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: Most of these criticisms are quite pedantic. I read them and say...so? Even as a Word user. It reads as if it was written mostly as "if you convert from Word, you will have these problems (really minor differences)". Perhaps if their were a convertion fatigue category, or something, to be more blatant about it, instead of the "Criticisms" from a Word users perspective.-Kain Nihil (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's titled "Features and flaws" rather than Criticism.  What, do you suppose Wikipedians are secret Microsoft loyalists?  --Fletcher (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are, you are wrong Malpass93 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: A screenshot of OpenOffice Writer 3 running on Mac has been used in the article. I feel that this is replaceable by a screenshot of the program running on GNU/Linux. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfree image 

message: once apache relases aoo 3.4 i think we should change the openoffice screenshots from apache-open-office (aoo) running in ubuntu to aoo running in windows.
my rationale is that aoo is soon to become primarily a windows app. all linux distros have abandoned it and moved to libreoffice, therfore the article should not show aoo running ubuntu because this is misleading and not the most repsentative example of the aoo interface.
what do you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: screenshot os