Jump to content

Downloading windows powerpoint 2007?


Acky
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know that open source seems kind of scary at first, but I can recommend OpenOffice.org a lot. I've been using it on Windows for many years and found that it was actually easier to work with than MS Office (though admittedly, the last MS Office I saw was 2000; it might have gotten better).

 

It can open and save all MS Office extensions like ppt and pptx, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can download PowerPoint Viewer, which lets you display but not create or modify PowerPoint presentations.

 

If you want to create or modify PowerPoint presentations for free, I second Arancaytar's OpenOffice suggestion. I've only used OpenOffice Writer extensively, however. I found it about as easy to use and about as powerful as Microsoft Word 2000 was (I'm lost with Word 2007 and its infernal Ribbon). My only gripe with OpenOffice Writer is that its grammar checking is far inferior to Microsoft Word's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My girlfriend has tried to make PowerPoint presentations in OOo, but when she saves them as PPT files and tries to use them on a copy of Microsoft Office, it gives her an error and doesn't open. This has caused problems because normally when she does this she's giving a presentation in class. What might be going wrong?

 

Other than that, I also recommend OOo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
I know that open source seems kind of scary at first, but I can recommend OpenOffice.org a lot. I've been using it on Windows for many years and found that it was actually easier to work with than MS Office (though admittedly, the last MS Office I saw was 2000; it might have gotten better).

Sweet.

Now I have no excuse to keep procrastinating tongue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NeoOffice and Open Office also have vector editors. The problem I've encountered with most vector editors is that they have too many features and too much power with instant user-friendliness left as a definite second priority.

 

—Alorael, who should check in on the open source drawing programs again. It's been a few years, and they may have improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
(I'm lost with Word 2007 and its infernal Ribbon).


Yeah.

Originally Posted By: Twitter
<arancaytar> Have had to help my mother deal with Office 2007 UI and saw 'ribbons' the first time. What the HELL were the MS designers smoking? #msfail



Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
My only gripe with OpenOffice Writer is that its grammar checking is far inferior to Microsoft Word's.

How is that even possible?

No, wait, don't tell Dikiyoba. Dikiyoba doesn't want to know.


Seconded. Does anyone actually use the grammar check for something other than entertainment? About all it ever catches me out on are obscure points of style like split infinitives or gratuitously passive voice. Other than that, it's pretty much always wrong. tongue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, the Ribbon is simpler to use if you've never used Office before the Ribbon. Think about repeated actions - would you rather navigate through the menu each time, or click a button on the Ribbon.

 

Of course, the Ribbon is horrible for people who've used Office before - unless you remember the hotkey, you're lost. And it's ugly and takes too much screen space.

 

Upon close inspection, I discovered the reason why OpenOffice's grammar check sucks so much - it doesn't have one. There's this one recommended extension, but it gave me an error when I tried to install it.

 

I find Word's grammar check very useful - I for one find myself very prone to the passive voice. It catches a lot of grammar errors, like mixing 'that' and 'which' (it doesn't seem to catch 'fewer' versus 'less', though). Even simple things like subject-verb agreement and detecting sentence fragments is useful. I rarely make those mistakes when I'm writing my first draft, but I certainly do when I'm revising at three in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Arancaytrus
Seconded. Does anyone actually use the grammar check for something other than entertainment? About all it ever catches me out on are obscure points of style like split infinitives or gratuitously passive voice. Other than that, it's pretty much always wrong. tongue
I use it for actually checking. Yes, it's not always right, but that's why it lets you verify each change instead of just changing it. One of the most useful things is probably its ability to sometimes catch spelling errors in which the misspelling is also a word.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
I find Word's grammar check very useful - I for one find myself very prone to the passive voice. It catches a lot of grammar errors, like mixing 'that' and 'which'
I don't really see a problem with using passive voice. And somehow, Word's idea of when to use "that" and when to use "which" is pretty much exactly opposite to my idea... smirk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no problem with using passive voice, unless you overuse it or use it awkwardly. Like all speech forms, it exists to be used!

 

The difference between that and which is essentially semantic -- most people use that for important or limiting descriptions, while which is used for incidentals. Word's grammar check has no real semantic component, so I'm surprised it attempts to judge that at all. Grammar checkers are difficult to develop for English, but Word's attempt seems to be atrocious by any standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What grammar checking can do is ensure that you have commas before which and no commas before that. That's not absolutely always true, but enough people make that mistake that it helps to have extra proofreading eyes even if they are very stupid.

 

—Alorael, who knows that that which is grammatically correct might involve some interesting word sequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Slartucker
There is no problem with using passive voice, unless you overuse it or use it awkwardly. Like all speech forms, it exists to be used!
I know it's useful - sometimes it's just more tactful to leave out the subject. Thing is, I'm taking this follow up course this semester that requires me to write a report on my internship placement. The department sees it as remedial English for us poor illiterate programmers. The prof is using Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" as the text for the course, and he has a pretty literal interpretation. I get this one draft back - sections are circled and annotated with a number corresponding to what Strunk & White rule I broke. With a prof who has a prescriptivist take on an already prescriptivist grammar book, I'm not going to be taking any chances.

Quote:
The difference between that and which is essentially semantic -- most people use that for important or limiting descriptions, while which is used for incidentals. Word's grammar check has no real semantic component, so I'm surprised it attempts to judge that at all. Grammar checkers are difficult to develop for English, but Word's attempt seems to be atrocious by any standard.
What Alorael said; as far as I can tell, it just checks for a comma.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

 

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
With a prof who has a prescriptivist take on an already prescriptivist grammar book, I'm not going to be taking any chances.

 

kids, this is why you should never confuse a grammar book with a style guide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
I find Word's grammar check very useful
Then I weep for you. Based on all my experience with all versions of MS Office I've ever used, I firmly believe with all my heart that Word's grammar check utility is much like a very high-quality vacuum cleaner: At the end of the day, no matter what you do with it or to it, it'll still suck.

Originally Posted By: Master1
English grammar is stupid.
How so? Is it because there exceptions to every rule, with exceptions to every exception? Or due to the fact that it's highly idiomatic? Or that there are countless possibilities for plays on words? Or that you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? Or... tongue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Word's grammar checker is very stupid. It also requires very little time to look through the errors it thinks it sees. Yes, many of them won't actually be wrong, and many of its suggestions will be terrible, but a couple of errors caught in a minute or two are a couple of errors caught. That's useful enough.

 

—Alorael, who would love a better checker. Still, he'll admit that the one that exists is better than nothing at all as long as you put some thought into using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconded.

 

Many people read what they think they wrote, not what they actually wrote. It's not as good as having another person read it, but it is much faster. I tend to ignore sentence structure ones, and double check other ones with references when I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...