's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Is MS office programs compatible with Lotus?"(12 posts)

Is MS office programs compatible with Lotus?"Sintesi
Sep 16, 2002 11:23 AM
I posted this on another forum but they are slow to respond. Mybe some of you techies could lend a little advice.

My girlfriend wants to buy a certain computer from the NBC shopping network (hers broke) but it has Lotus instead of MS office. Can she use her documents from work (MS Office) with the Lotus office software? neither of us are very computer savvy.
Also, would you trust a computer from NBC? It's fromt the "Computer Store" called a V2 Premier.
don't know notes well BUTColnagoFE
Sep 16, 2002 12:39 PM
Notes is probably not compatible--at least for later versions of MS Office--though older versions of Word may be compatible. All computers are pretty much the same these days (at least PCs). You can't go by brand'd need to list out all the specs and brand names of the components. The only problem you might have is that you might have gotten ripped off pricewise for what you got.
re: Is MS office programs compatible with Lotus?"terry b
Sep 16, 2002 12:56 PM
most of the Office programs have import/export capability for other products. Excel can still deal with Lotus 1-2-3 and Microsoft Outlook has instructions on how to import/export from Lotus Notes. Have not done it myself, but I'm betting it will work.
Find out what specific applications are installed on the PC.Kristin
Sep 16, 2002 1:40 PM
The ad doesn't specify what software is on it at all. I don't believe that Lotus provides a full office suite any more. Basically, any major Word Processing and Spread Sheet apps will offer the option to save their work under other application formats. Just keep in mind that sometimes complex formatting gets lost in the transfer. (For instance, complex tables historically don't transfer well.)

If this PC offers the Lotus Notes client as its database application and your girlfriend thinks she will ever need to build databases, just walk away. If you thought Access was hard use, wait till you see Notes! Unless she can write code, she'll hate it.

Lastly, from a practicle stand point, consider what software products will still be available and supported in 2-5 years? If Lotus goes under, or if they discontinue Lotus 123, then you'll be forced to purchase another product later at full price and you'll have the work of converting/tweaking all your old 123 files. Not fun. Of course no one knows the future; but Bill Gates has proven he knows how to play the Monopoly game--and plays it well. Lotus is his competitor. Just something to think about.

I don't personally care for Bill Gates the businessman; but unless you want to stick it to him, I'd go with Microsoft products. They have the best bet of being around the longest, and they are fairly well integrated--better than other suites.
Lotus. Ugh.mr_spin
Sep 16, 2002 1:52 PM
Personally, I can't stand Lotus products. I didn't even use them when I worked there! I would pay twice as much for Microsoft over Lotus any day, because the Lotus products are vastly inferior, especially the word processor. Nothing Lotus makes compares to anything Microsoft makes. And no, I don't work for Microsoft, although I once did and hated it.
Lotus 123 for DOSColnagoFE
Sep 16, 2002 2:28 PM
Back way back when in the golden age of computing it was a lot better than Excel. Didn't take Gates long to kill it off though. Also Word Perfect for DOS was actually pretty fast and ran on any 286. Only downside was inserting any complex formatting or graphics, but for standard letter writing it was fast.
What's DOS?mr_spin
Sep 16, 2002 2:53 PM
Ha ha. I remember whenever I would go to lunch at a certain Mexican place with a bunch of programmers, they'd always get a big kick out of ordering the "dos," (spanish for two) which they'd pronouce "dahse." Ha ha funny the first time, not so funny the seventeenth time.
Com'on now, admit it. You still use the cmd prompt interfaceKristin
Sep 16, 2002 3:53 PM
For those of us who have been around since 1985, its in our blood. I still choose the keyboard method over the mouse every day. I used to teach Lotus 123 and WordPerfect 4.2; but the first word processor I learned was WordStar 2.0. It ran on my IBM 8086 Personal Computer with DOS v2.1 booting on drive A. At that time, WordStar was the best of the best.

I must admit that I HATED Windows 2.0 when it was put onto my desktop. Switching from monochrome command prompt format to full GUI was stressful to say the least. Its funny how much things can change. It used to be, back in 1985, that a BS in Computer Science (then only offered at ivy league schools) could teach you everything there was to know about computers. Today, I could pursue a Masters and only understand one small peice of this puzzle.
I sure domr_spin
Sep 17, 2002 6:14 AM
Not for much anymore, though. You can't beat del *.* for cleaning up stuff quickly. It's much faster on it's own but it also eliminates the hassle of going to the recycling bin and emptying it.

Wow, you sure brought back some memories! Remember the days when apps came on a single 360K floppy disk? As a programmer who came out of that area, I see all these "kids" these days who never had to write small code, and they don't know how. "Smaller, faster" was our mantra, and it's one of the great lost arts. Now a full install of Microsoft Word can take 40 MB without anyone caring. I can still remember when a 40 MB drive was huge!!!
or no hard drive at allColnagoFE
Sep 17, 2002 8:12 AM
i began programming on the green screen apple 2e that you used the BIG 5 1/4 floppys or--horrors! cassette tape drive to boot from and store to. peek, poke, goto. funny it was less than 20 years ago and it seems like the middle ages.
Ever seen 8 1/2" floppies?Kristin
Sep 17, 2002 8:28 AM
They were huge and stored 32 K worth of data--which was amazing in its day. IBM DisplayWrite used this technology. The workstation took up my entire cubicle.
Who is better than this RBR crew? Who?? Thanks folks. nmSintesi
Sep 17, 2002 5:05 AM