Paying a nominal amount for a software program that produces better results in less time is a good reason.
Sure. My point is that MSO doesn't do that. It produces worse results in longer time. For my 4th semester project we decided to use MSO for documentation. Which caused no end of productivity loss.For starters, although everyone used Office 2003 (the school has a bulk license agreement with Microsoft) some people used the Danish version, and some people used the English version - on our 6 man team, the split was 50-50. Every time a document was saved in one and loaded and saved in the other then the document formatting and style information would get screwed up. Completely and utterly. Regardless of which language you subsequently loaded the document into. This meant that since we where 6 people all working on different documents. The result was an unparalleled mess.
Another thing that OO does better than MSO is it uses the same font style for the automatic index, and not a smaller version of whatever style is used in the heading. Having an index which switches between bold/italics and serif/non-serif fonts more or less arbitrarily looks ugly and disorganized.
MSO is better than OO
By what metric? The only aspect that I can see that makes MSO marginally better is that it's probably the application you where trained to use. If you had to start over, I'd say OO was the best choice, because it's much more intuitive.