Why You Should Choose MS Office Over OO.org 1393
sander writes "As noted on linxfr.org, Microsoft has published a competitive guide on OpenOffice.org 1.1 vs Microsoft Office. Some of the weirder things they claim in it is that by choosing MS Office over OpenOffice.org one is protected from the threat of viruses. But the giant seems to be sweating -- and with a good reason."
some stuff (Score:5, Informative)
also, here is a translation of the link to linuxfr.org [google.com]. Slashdot should have posted another link to the english version- i don't think the majority of
is it just me, or is microsoft the one who we usually hear about leaving bugs unresolved for months? [eeye.com]
Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Funny)
But stainless steel is silv... Oh.
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Funny)
I can't decide which is worse:
groping through Knowledge Base documents and being put on hold for hours calling Microsoft
OR
reading outdated man pages then being cussed out by an experience, yet socially inept user, for asking a question on a discussion board
When it all comes down to it (MS or OO), I just end up entering the error message into Google anyway.
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Informative)
What's wrong with OpenOffice? It reads and saves MS Office docs extremely well. (Make sure you have the latest version!) And if you want to show people up and protest MS Office, you can export your documents to PDFs! My wife uses it to exchange letters in Russian with her father. Despite the fact that he's using Word, she can read and save the files without trouble. Works quite well. Oh, and OpenPresenter is almost exactly like PowerPoint.
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately that's not always good enough. After too many times correcting "mistakes" that weren't actually mistakes (e.g. suggesting that a classmate put bullets in his list, even though there already WERE bullets, OpenOffice just wasn't showing them) I ended up switching back to Word.
OpenOffice is good at reading Word documents, but it's definitely not good enough for everyone's needs.
RTF != fine (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever actually LOOKED at a RTF file? It never, ever looks fine.
Also, from the doxygen manual. [stack.nl]:
"Note that the RTF output probably only looks nice with Microsoft's Word 97. If you have success with other programs, please let me know."
RTF is clearly not completely standard, and in my experience most often looks like hell (our co-op office used to make us submit resumes in it).
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, I made no mention of faults. Show me the part of my post where I claimed that it was OpenOffice's fault (whatever that means). Believe me, I would've much rather used OpenOffice than installing VMWare, Windows, and Word.
But it doesn't really matter whose fault it was. I was responding to a guy who claimed that you could use OpenOffice in a school environment without any problems [slashdot.org]. My experience tells me that might be true for some classes, but is absolutely not true for classes where exact reproduction of formatting is important.
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Informative)
Again, not saying OO is bad...you people scare me...don't hurt me.
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Insightful)
One the other hand, I'm not sure if the politically liable EU has the guts to do this.
I have a Chinese customer... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Interesting)
In the labs they have both Word and OO.org.
Y'know... If you want OO.org on the labs computers, maybe you could ask one of the CS assistants around. They usually serve pretty good intermediaries between the students and the Admins. Chances are that if you want it, that the admins would also prefer to have it (especially if there exists any sort of unix-department at your univ.), and unless there is some sort problem the higher ups have with OSS, you're likely to get it.
Just speak up and stop being a pussy.
Re:Unresolved bugs. (Score:5, Interesting)
On my computer, I have OO for all my word processing and spreadsheet needs (and have gotten through two terms without any longing for Word or Excel), but I had to install PowerPoint to do freelance presentation design work. If I can figure out how to actually submit comments to bugs on the OO site, I will feedback Impress religiously in hopes that it becomes as facile an alternative as the others.
With respect to word processing and spreadsheets, I've shared files back and forth with MS Office, whether using it myself at school or having a partner editing the same files. The only problem I ever really noticed with
But, dude, just because you can't replace PowerPoint yet doesn't mean you have to install ALL of MS Office. Get away with what you can!
Chained down (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, that last one is pretty extreme, but it's not like you don't have any choices. The first one is relatively easier, and each successive one makes things easier for more and more other students, too.
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Funny)
From what I've seen round here, the English version would be no more useful than a version in Klingon.
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't to pick on OO.o - writing bug-free software is manageable, but not necessarily easy, especially for something that big. But no, Microsoft isn't the only one who leaves bugs unresolved for months. If you're going to debunk this, I'd start somewhere else.
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly... you can't go and find what unresolved bugs there are for any Microsoft product, can you? No, that's proprietary information, my friend, and you and I are not worthy to view it -- whether we're MS customers or not. What a beautiful example of OSS in action, and a strong alternate point to their argument.
- Leo
undocumented unresolved bugs (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine worked for a rather large company and his users were having problems with excel corrupting files in a wierd, almost viral, way.
His Microsoft account rep kept on telling him that the problem must be with something that he was doing, because nobody else seemed to be having that problem.
Then my friend found out that someone at another company was having the same problem, and my friend had the following conversation with his MS account rep:
One thing that you rarely get in the Open Source world is people lying about the existence of a bug.Re:some stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you just admitted you aren't a programmer.
All software of any reasonable complexity has bugs. Period. Process can help but it will never prevent 100% of bugs.
There are bugs in FOSS. There are bugs in proprietary software.
Now then, what's the difference? Well, with a proprietary vendor you can spend hours/weeks with tech support trying to move up through 1st, 2nd, till you get to 3rd level where you might be able to convince someone there is a bug. And then do you think that engineer is going roll out the red carpet, whip up a build and send it over to my house? No... I'm just another user with just another problem, and he might give me a workaround, but likely I will be waiting for the next release like everyone else. It's my only choice. Now if I'm a megacorp paying real money for lots of licenses I might be able to get that red carpet. But I'm not.
Now with FOSS I have options. I can get onto IRC or I can file a public bug report. For bad bugs, these are likely to be fixed right away. If it is decided its invalid for some reason I will get a response from an actual engineer saying why they closed the bug. If I don't get satisfaction well, I have the source. If I have the ability I can fix it myself. Or else I could contract someone else to do it. And then I'll probably give the patch back to the project if they want it.
There's a huge difference there. It's about power to get done what you need to. FOSS gives that to the user.
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Informative)
They hire people with NO COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE, put them through a two-week "training" course which consists of reiterating "We don't support that", then turn them loose on YOU.
They are judged based on whether they can hold a tech support call to under 12 minutes - PERIOD.
Nothing else matters to them, the outsourcing company they work for, or the computer manufacturer that hired the outsourcing company.
The IT industry does not care a whit about its customers or its employees - just like every other industry.
Forget tech support. Occasionally you will find someone who will actually try to solve your problem - but he's on his way out at that company if he does.
And so should you be.
Bugs from 2002 (Score:5, Informative)
Sure you can. One of those is mine, in fact: OO.o doesn't have an overbar (opposite of underline) font attribute for text. Really a problem for doing technical documentation, but to date nobody has wanted to bother with it. Including me, as it happens; if it were important enough to $EMPLOYER we'd have added it already.
Of course, MSOffice doesn't have overbar either. Wonder what it would take for $EMPLOYER to enhance MSWord?
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Informative)
more than just that! you can:
and when you're done, you can just kick it back to the project and no one will ever have to deal with it again.
all these added features for infinitely less money.
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I haven't used M$ Office since college 5 years ago (it was crap then and still is) but there is nothing like Access in the OSS world. Yet. There are some excellent front ends to e.g. pgsql/mysql/etc. but nothing Ma & Pa Kettle's General Store can fire up w/o being a DB admin. Is there?
BTW, that bit about OO users being more susceptible to viruses is really funny - it made my day.
Re: unresolved bugs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: unresolved bugs? (Score:5, Funny)
It's you humorless types that give
Re: unresolved bugs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Support Team (Score:5, Informative)
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Funny)
Hey MS, If you weren't afraid of formatting losses, why did you choose PDF? And how did you get your nice Office suite to create PDFs? Oh did you have to pay someone else for that feature? *snigger*
MS employs extremely efficient foot-shooters. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but I think everyone will get the point that OO makes PDF files, and Word doesn't. PDF files are MUCH less likely to cause problems, because they can contain the fonts they use. I don't think that is available in Word. In most cases, you don't want the person to whom you send the file to be able to change it, and maybe later forget and think it is his.
I would LOVE to see someone make a similar two-page brochure, formatted exactly the same way, that would provide all the arguments for using OO. Here's one: Word is quirky; it often does things that you don't expect, like put footers at the head of the next page.
It's not a tangent! It's important. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a tangent! It's important. Chen and Chan and Lu and Li (not their real Chinese names) have been completely unable to answer an important question about Windows XP. The reason? They're in China, and if they don't know the answer, they have to lie, since they have no way to contact anyone at MS who will listen.
Whenever I ask for MS technical support, I am calling about a difficult question. If it weren't difficult, I would answer it myself. Those are exactly the kind of questions MS technical support can't answer.
The Psychic Friends Network [karmak.org] is sometimes equally as good as Microsoft technical support at understanding bugs in Microsoft software.
Re:some stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Title: competitive OpenOffice.qxd
Author: Gravity
Application: QuarkXPress(tm) 4.11
PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 4.05 for Macintosh
How about eating your own dogfood before complaining against other brands Microsoft?
Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's a great argument. No, it isn't. The opening line was, "Open Office is good enough. I only need basic functionality." And Microsoft's response is, "No, you don't! You need more than that!" Well, thanks. I'm glad you know what we need more than we do.
Another argument they make is "User support such as training (OpenOffice UI, although similar in many ways to Office, is not the same and users may require 'retraining')."
Well, that's also swell! I'm glad Microsoft has assumed that we'd need retraining, because obviously everyone was originally trained using MS Office. I'm glad they assume that. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. So what about everyone who hasn't had training in either?
I'll leave the rest of the fallacies to more experienced users than myself.
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, Microsoft is feeling the heat the free software community is lighting under their asses.
Got any of that "Ronson Fast Lite" left?
Forgot to include... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people require retraining to use a word processor they aren't familiar with, but it's not like you have to send them off to boot camp for nine weeks.
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that the truth isn't it? For every slashdot headline about some school, college or course teaching some 'other' Office suite, there's hundreds teaching MS Office. Even if they had no training at all, Microsoft Office is what most people have had prior expeirence of, so some readjustment will be required.
I agree that for computer literate users the move would go unnoticed, and so MS' argument is a bit weak, but so much of Office (Word in particular) is learnt parrot fashion. For the person who thinks Word is the computer, retraining would be required.... but not too much! :)
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
ARGUMENT: License cost is only a small part of the total cost of ownership.
FACT: License cost is a significant part of the cost at $369-479 per PC (per CDW.com) for MS-Office 2003 Standard/Professional.
ARGUMENT: Installation and deployment costs
FACT: Many of the same methods used to deploy MS-Office work equally well, or better with Open Office. There are no software keys or other serial numbers to deal with in Open Office. You do not need to invest time and money into administering software licenses, audit trails and license compliance reports with Open Office. You do not need to worry about entering 25-digit CDKey codes on each PC or performing Microsoft Product Activation. You do not need a Microsoft Passport or the risk of associated unintentional information disclosure to use Open Office.
ARGUMENT: Existing MS-Office users will need retraining to use Open Office.
FACT: Like the retraining necessary when MS-Office 95 users were forced to move to MS-Office 97? And again to MS-Office 2000? And again to XP/2002? And, though to a lesser extent, again to 2003?
What happens when students, either due to school policy or an individual effort to save money, grow up using Open Office instead of Microsoft office? Won't this argument then get turned on its head?
ARGUMENT: Open Office does not have an email client, so customers may incur cost to get one.
FACT: Netscape? Mozilla? Pheonix? Eudora? Pegasus Mail? Outlook Express? Need I go on?
ARGUMENT: Businesses need to exchange documents with other businesses.
FACT: HTML and PDF are the two most widely used formats for sharing documents with other businesses, and both are natively written and read in Open Office, without the need to spend $200 more on Acrobat Writer. Microsoft's argument exposes their belief that they should and do monopolize the office productivity marketplace, or else how could they argue that MS-Office format files are more portable than PDF or HTML?
ARGUMENT: Ensure their mission-critical data is protected from virus attack.
FACT: Like those pesky office macro viruses? Or the dozens of exploits for Outlook? Or the fact that VBScript does not properly implement sandbox security? And since when is Microsoft so concerned about viruses? Hell, they used to include antivirus software at no additional charge with Windows 3.x. We now pay 4x more for Windows and Microsoft REMOVED the antivirus features from the OS!
ARGUMENT: Microsoft ... providing [support] resources where, when and how you need them. OpenOffice users have to search the web for answers.
FACT: I see no difference between searching Microsoft's website and newsgroups for answers than searching OpenOffice.org's, except that in Microsoft's case I get anectdotal answers (this worked for me) or (I learned this trick at work), whereas with OpenOffice, there's a chance I can talk to someone who KNOWS THE SOURCE CODE.
Of course, I can pay Microsoft for support if I really need it. After spending $125 I usually have to wait on hold for over an hour to speak with someone with an accent so bad that I have to get everything spelled to understand the answer.
ARGUMENT: MS-Office documents may not open properly in Open Office and visa-versa.
FACT: Isn't this Microsoft's fault? After all, they are the ones that keep changing their applications to make interoperability more and more difficult with each release.
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Once done, save into Word 97 format. Now get OpenOffice to open that and make it look like it did in Word. It's just about impossible.
When a document is created in a sane way (by a person who has experience with Word), OpenOffice works like a charm. Unfortunately, most people aren't experienced with Word (and most "training" doesn't tell them what they need to know, like why it keeps changing the font if you move to the last line), and they create crappy documents. As soon as the document looks different in OO, they *hate* the new software, and it often never gets a second chance.
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Interesting)
OO.o doesn't provide basic functionality.
It fails to write Word-compatible .doc format documents.
You are correct -- in a heterogenous environment, MS Office is better then Open Office.
However, how many environments are running the same word processor, nevermind the same version?
This is more anecdotal then hard evidence, but have you tried to read a complex document written in an older version of word into a newer version? OO.o seems to get it more correct then the latest release of MS Office.
Have you ever tried to import a non-word format into word?
Now, consider this rebuttle:
By using Open Office.org, you have several benefits to promote a heterogenous environment. Due to the fact that its free, everyone can run the latest version. Since it runs on a variety of platforms, you are not locked into a single vendor of OS or hardware. Your employees can run the same version at home without additional cost, and transfer those files to the office without any compatibility issues.
Also, being a large commercial open source project backed by several large businesses, you recieve the quick bug and security fixes of OS, yet have the security of a fortune-500 company.
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Not trying to be a grammar Nazi, but the words mean totally opposite things.
I disagree that a homogeneous environment is better, because it's not practical. Do you never exchange documents with other organizations? Unless you can force the whole world (or at least the bits you communicate with) to use the exact same versions, you need to be able to support diversity. If you want everyone in your organization to use the same version, you can't upgrade anyone until you can upgrade everyone. Upgrades will be few and far between; painful, feared and hated.
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fallacies (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, since the table isn't being displayed properly in Word, it sounds like there's something very wrong with what MSO is doing. Something like:
editor=check_editor()
case editor in
OO) display_tables_wrong();;
MSO) work_properly();;
esac
Not that Microsoft has ever been shown to use such underhanded tactics, I know.
good logic (Score:5, Interesting)
yes because i get all sort of virus alerts about new security threats for open office.
Note the URL path (Score:5, Funny)
Disc stands for "disinformation campaign"
Hmm, very little is said about features... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things I find most interesting about this guide is how much it focuses not on how MS-Office is better but on the many inconveniences you will suffer by switching away from it. They focus on the pains of data migration, macros, and training. And to the question "What if OpenOffice has all the features I need" they don't attempt to refute the claim, they point to all the pain you will feel when MS-Office users start sending their "full-featured" documents to people who only have OpenOffice. MS-Office was feature-complete as of Office 95, everything else is not simply window dressing, it's down-right irritating
They're admitting to anti-competitive behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, why can't OO.org open those documents? It's not because OO.org doesn't want to, or isn't up to date; the reason is because Microsoft keeps the method of opening those documents secret! They drive out the competition by not letting them know how to open the files. This justifies the EU's recent actions even more.
Re:They're admitting to anti-competitive behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
First, they didn't say that. They just said that you can't read the documents. This is a well-known fact, so I don't see how stating it is "admitting to anti-competitive behavior".
But anyway, the main point is that if I were running a business, I would not want to use a product that can't read documentst that others send to me. I wouldn't be interested in why I can't read them, so this still sounds like a compelling reason to use MS Office. Whether the software has the features they need (which might include reading Word
Re:Hmm, very little is said about features... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the trials of a monopoly. Once you've attained complete market saturatation, your only option to is to keep locking in your current users more and more tightly. It's a bitch moving an Access database to another version of Access, let alone another suite entirely.
The Dalai LLama
A watched comment never gets modded...
Re:Hmm, very little is said about features... (Score:5, Funny)
They did add that wonderful feature that refuses to believe that you actually do want bullet points numbered 1,2,3,7, and 9.
-B
Re:Hmm, very little is said about features... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm, very little is said about features... (Score:5, Funny)
The only office features I've ever used that oo doesn't have, are some of the useful security holes... eh, I mean collaboration features.
Its a beautiful thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
And M$ says they won't release a new version for (what was it?) three years? Five?
Meanwhile the opensource coders and fans continue whittling away in the trenches, refining their dreams and ever more gradually making MS look pretty damned bad and ugly.
I think of where Linux distros are today compared to 5 years ago -- and I think about where they will be 5 years ahead!!
It's a beautiful thing!
PDF (Score:5, Funny)
Amusing...
Re:PDF (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PDF (Score:5, Funny)
No, really, it was created on a Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to check out Open Office (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to check out Open Office (Score:5, Interesting)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine anyone seriously basing their purchasing decisions off of such a document, although I'm sure someone here has an acquaintance who can disappoint my small amount of faith in humanity.
hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris
Naturally they EYODF (Score:5, Funny)
So why then when I click on Document Properties on this PDF do I see?
Creator: QuarkXpress 4.11
Producer: Acrobat Distiller 4.05 for Macintosh
Bill: while you're transferring this over to Microsoft Publisher perhaps you'd like to fix the typo on page 1: "rteam".
John.
Clippy! (Score:5, Funny)
Step 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
then, they laugh at you
then, they fight you <-- you are here
then you win
Will step 4 happen? Stay tuned.
Rule one of marketing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a company names their competitors in marketing literature, you know the company is losing ground. Or so the marketers say. I'm not sure if I believe it though
Re:Rule one of marketing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a software company, when a customer questions a competitor product or asks "Which is really better" kind of question, we always tell them:
"Install both and you can make a better decision".
I bet Microsoft would _never_ use that line!
Wow, Sales people get it REALLY wrong sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didn't they put the "System Requirements" of Office? I mean, if it's a comparison shouldn't you put some sort of "comparison" information somewhere? That alone would show that OO is multi-platform, a HUGE benefit for most business..
The open-source community should be using this paper to hype OO, IMHO it does a great job!
Re:Wow, Sales people get it REALLY wrong sometimes (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/office/previous/xp/sys
Windows XP Professional, or Windows XP Home Edition
128 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
Office XP Standard
210 MB of available hard disk space
Office XP Professional and Professional Special Edition
245 MB of available hard disk space
Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6 (SP6) or later, Windows 2000, or Windows XP or later.
Computer with Pentium 133 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended
Okay, so break it down:
A computer (d'uh), 210-245 Megs of RAM PLUS 8 megs for each product run (so Word, Excel, Access, Outlook = 32 Megs) so 242-277 megs. OS: Windows.
Now from the article:
System Requirements
Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) - Pentium-compatible PC,
64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD; or
Linux (x86, PowerPC) - 64 MB RAM and 170 MB HD
Solaris (x66, SPARC) - 64 MB RAM and 240 MB HD; or
MacOSX (beta); or
FreeBSD
Hmmm, so OO uses less RAM, less system resources, any runs on a variety of platforms.
Now here's the clincher:
basic feature functionality that
enables content authoring is only one small aspect of what a
small business needs.
So they are promoting bloating. Neat!
Open Office is "good enough" (Score:5, Interesting)
I only need basic features. OpenOffice is good enough."
In today's networked, highly collaborative world, businesses do not operate in a vacuum; basic feature functionality that enables content authoring is only one small aspect of what a small business needs.
It reminded me of an incident that happened several years ago. I was working at a company with close ties to Microsoft when the "I Love You" virus struck. Both Microsoft and our company were hit hard by it. A couple days after the messy cleanup, I sent a Word doc to a Microsoft employee. It was a form we used often and it had a macro that allowed the recipient to fill in some check boxes.
I got a nasty reply from the microsoft employee about how it was irresponsible to send word docs with macros in this time of virus vulnerability. Since then, I have used as few of the gimmicky features that MS Office supplies. They don't add much to your documents, and they set you up for virus and incompatibility problems. Only using basic features isn't something you should settle for, it is a good rule to follow to avoid lots of nasty problems.
Migration cost is the biggest (Score:5, Funny)
Having an option is bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
This apparently contrasts with MS Office, where if bugs go unresolved, users do not have any options.
Ok. I knew that, but I'm surprised that MS raised it as a point.
Same old FUD as before (Score:5, Insightful)
3. "OpenOffice 1.1 is an open source alternative." OpenOffice does not have a dedicated development or support team. Consequently, if bugs go unresolved, users have the option to resolve problems by scouring through numerous community sites and chat rooms.
MS has been saying things like this about OSS for years. Of course they don't mention what your options are if a bug in MS Office goes unresolved.
The number one reason NOT to use MS Office... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still using Office 97 on my Windows computer. It cost me about $70 when I got it, and it's functionally identical to the Office 2000 and Office XP that my university and workplace use. The additions in the last several iterations of Office have been of only niche usefullness, and you can usually get something to do that with 97 anyway.
At least with OO, I'm not asked to pay another $150 every year or two just to get a new font, or a new text overlay effect that I could do with the old one anyway.
Support? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess they've never tried to resolve an MS issue as a lowly home user, slogging through the MS "knowledge base". I usually end up Googling for answers to my MS Office questions.
My experience with OO.o (Score:5, Interesting)
My results so far: in general, I prefer MS Office. Perhaps it's just because I'm more familiar with its eccentricities, but I find many things about OO annoying.
I can't map functions to ALT keys, and the relatively simply "switch to style X" involves setting up a macro before I can bind it to a key.
It took me a long time to get section numbering right. Eventually it did work, but the vast array of options confused me and tweaking them introduced subtle problems of their own.
OO doesn't have book-style figure layout. (Neither does MSO.) Drawing is not easy, and not well integrated.
This is not an evaluation; this is just the list of things I wanted to do on day one that pissed me off. MS Office has its own problems, and many of those persist for version after version. But the devil I know is better than the devil I don't when all I want to do is get some work done.
I assume OO.o will get better, and I'm going to keep using OO.o to see what happens as I get more familiar with it. I sure can't beat the price.
Re:My experience with OO.o (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, I made my wife compare the two office suites and then asked her which ones is better. And she said flat out that MS Office is better and more convenient to her as well since she used to use it at work.
Then I told her that she can either pay $500 and I will install MS Office for her or she can have OpenOffice for free. Guess what? She opted for OpenOffice and bunch of shoes and dresses :)
I'd say, the OpenOffice is definitely ready for market.
buying e-mail client ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:buying e-mail client ??? (Score:5, Informative)
Yup.
Now, let me know when Mozilla will do calendar, appointment book, task list, and email integration.
And before you flame me as a troll - I use Firefox at home and work and Thunderbird at home. Work requires I use Outlook, and it's because of those features that it has value. I don't find its email capabilities particularly wonderful by themselves, not to mention the slew of virus vulnerabilities (but that's ok, because we paid for, at a considerable expense, a mail server virus scanner). Despite the drawbacks there is very little that is actually competitive with Outlook/Exchange. And most of the alternatives (Notes, for example) suck even more. Yes, there are some OSS solutions out there as well, but they're not up to the same level in functionality as Outlook/Exchange. And that's a pretty sad statement.
There's only one really good reason to use Office- (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is giving you money (employer or client) and they demand that you give them Office files (.doc,
-B
Re:There's only one really good reason to use Offi (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way I haven't seen anyone mention Sun Microsystems here, we owe a lot of our Open Office success to their team. Cheers.
Re:There's only one really good reason to use Offi (Score:5, Interesting)
- Save as
.RTF from your favorite libre word processor - Rename the file from
.RTF to .DOC
Microsoft Word will see that theLittle anecdote... (Score:5, Interesting)
A rather nice lady reported a problem with an Excel document that contained Japanese fonts. The characters in the spreadsheet were appearing as squares rather than the proper Japanese characters. Naturally, this appeared to be a fonts problem, so my first attempt at a fix was to install the Japanese language set. Unfortunately, this didn't work, as the document STILL had nothing but squares where the Japanese characters should have been.
It looked as though it was a versioning issue. It looked like a document created with Japanese character with Excel 95 (the document seemed to have been created with that) could NOT display the characters properly in Excel 2000. I couldn't find any method of getting the document to show up properly in Excel 2000, and the solution seemed to be to install Excel 95, because that was the only application that would show the characters properly.
Then I remembered OpenOffice.
I didn't know if it would work, but I downloaded and installed OO 1.1. I opened the Japanese document, and to my surprise, I was greeted with the spreadsheet just as it should have appeared, complete with the Japanese characters. Not content to leave it at just that, I re-saved the document from within OpenOffice, then I opened it with Excel 2000. Lo and behold, the document appeared correctly! The only way that I could get a document created in Excel 95 to show up properly in Excel 2000 was with Open Office.
Needless to say, I related the solution to the network admin who had assigned me the task, recommending that OpenOffice be considered as an alternative or replacement to MS Office.
Microsoft Office has no threat of viral infection (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft Office has no threat of viral infection. That's because viral infection is very real. Hell, they ought to remove all doubt and just ship Microsoft Office pre-infected.
Halloween XVCXXIXXCVIX (Score:5, Funny)
Have to Laugh (Score:5, Informative)
My emphasis, there. And I couldn't agree more. Handling issues of inaccessable Access databases is incredibly important, and is notorious for chewing up helpdesk hours.
Especially when Office 2000 broke Access compatibility with 98 databases, and forced everyone to upgrade (or to not touch the database with Access2000 so that those who had not yet upgraded could still get to their data).
OfficeXP did the same thing to 2000 databases - all it took was one XP user to touch the database, and all the 2000 users would suddenly be out of the loop. I fully expect Access2k3 to be the same way.
So yes, consider those Access databases as a major component of the cost of data migration. When one version of Access touches the database, be ready to install and deploy that same version to all your other clients, because with Access, you migrate your data whether you're ready to or not. And you pay every year for the privilige! Hooray!
Oh? (Score:5, Funny)
Bill, give Darl his crack pipe back...
So sick of the TCO argument (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
License cost makes up only a small portion of the total cost of ownership
We all remember Microsoft's skewed Windows .NET Server/Linux comparison and how they creatively invented numbers to show how expensive Linux was in TCO. Funny that they never factored in the billions of dollars companies lose due to security flaws that enable breakins and data theft, macro viruses and exploits of other features they think you can't live without, and lost time/effort/work from programs/OSes that crash. That will raise your TCO, won't it?
So Microsoft, QUIT IT with the TCO argument. None of us are buying it, and subsequently, none of us are buying your stuff.
XML (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone with knowledge of both can blow away most of these arguments. However, some do have merit in certain circumstances.
Sun does offer paid support for OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Informative)
While I can't speak for other places, on trinity [neooffice.org] where I host and answer OOo OS X support forums there's usually a Mac OOo expert answering questions within one day of asking. There are non-programmers who volunteer their time to help new people with installation, deployment, how-tos, etc. It seems unfair to belittle one-on-one expert help just because it's done for free
ed
Gems... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are over 300 million users of Office worldwide who can seamlessly exchange documents without concerns for loss of data or formatting errors.
As anyone who has tried to open an Office 2000 document in Office 97, this is blatantly untrue.
License cost makes up only a small portion of the total cost of ownership.
Indeed. For MS products, the cost of constant forced upgrades, security problems, antivirus tools, e-mail scanners, etc. represent a serious additional cost.
OpenOffice UI, although similar in many ways to Office, is not the same and users may require "retraining"
Indeed, this is true. But at least they had the decency to put "retraining" in quotes. The vast majority of commonly used functions will be at a user's fingertips within minutes of loading OpenOffice. The rest are no more different than from one version of Office to the next. My wife is not at all technical, was trained on MS Office, and hardly noticed the difference when switching to Open Office.
OpenOffice does not have a dedicated development or support rteam. Consequently, if bugs go unresolved, users have the option to resolve problems by scouring through numerous community sites and chat rooms.
Note the "if" in that sentence. Note also the number of defects open in MS Office. Note also the excellent reputation of MS support.
businesses do not operate in a vacuum; basic feature functionality that enables content authoring is only one small aspect of what a small business needs.
Businesses indeed do not operate in a vacuum. I presume that this is why the document is in PDF format - so everyone can read it. Compare and contrast the ease of creating PDF documents in MS Word and in Open Office.
I could go on, but my righteous indignation circuits are all burned out. EUR500M? Should have been the full EUR5G.
Point by Point, Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course Microsoft's response would be that you will never have to migrate from Microsoft Office. Permit me to express a little skepticism: every few years we go through another forced upgrade and conversion as a new version of Microsoft Office comes on the scene. Not only is this a cost of Office, it's a regularly recurring one.
1 1/2. Open office doesn't have a mail client. This is an advantage: the mail client Microsoft provides is inherently insecure. By merging Internet Explorer with Windows Explorer they imposed on every application in the system the responsibility of parsing and evaluating the names associated with objects to try and guess whether they're trusted (and can be allowed to do things like read and write files) or not. Any application that uses the MSHTML control and related APIs, anyway. Like outlook...
2. There's actually a cost to features: the more features in your software, the more complex it is, and the more dependent the data you produce with that software is on the particular version. See point 1.
2 1/2. If you're not running Outlook, you've done more to prevent yourself from getting infected with a virus than anything you can do with Microsoft's help. Then you can go on and turn off the RPC service, the personal web publishing services, and with each step leave viruses further behind...
3. When we were installing our first Windows NT domain, I was unsure some of the setup. I called Microsoft three times before I got someone who was willing to provide an answer to one question, and it turned out to be the wrong one. Our network was basically down, and when i called Microsoft for help they told me I had used up our free support calls and could I provide a credit card number so I could pat them to fix the problem they'd caused. I went ballistic, my boss went ballistic, and a week later we got an apologetic call from someone at microsoft and some kind of free support contract... but in the meantime "numerous community sites and chat rooms" had fixed things for me.
4. Microsoft offers limited compatibility with Open Office is what I think they meant to say. As for macros and dynamic links and the like, well, see point 1 and point 2 1/2, remember when macro viruses were the worst problem out there? They haven't gone away, they've just been overshadowed by the flood of "cross zone exploits".
CLO (Chief Licensing Officer) sinks TCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, the real killer feature of OOo is lack of concerns over license compliance (for users, I mean, not developers; but that's an interesting distinction to need to make considering that license compliance with MS Office unambiguously refers to end-users). In a reasonably sizeable corporate office software license compliance is enough of a concern to have created a burgeoning market for compliance tracking and auditing tools.
In fact, I believe you'll soon have a new executive level CxO designation: CLO -- Chief Licensing Officer. This person's job is to oversee the department in charge not of installation, acquisition, maintenance, training, selection of software but merely of adhering to license terms. The impetus will be to avoid draconian (or has it progressed to Machevellian yet?) BSA audits carried out by warrant-holding sherrifs. Think I'm kidding?
With Open Source there are many benefits. One that cannot be denied is the total elimination of license management and compliance. This is true on both sides of the software equation -- producers and users. Imagine how much better MS Office would be if MSFT didn't have its brightest minds inventing ways to stop the software from working (XP Activation being only the latest incarnation; now you know the great advantage OOo has over MS Office -- it doesn't have to delay waiting for the Activation team to finish its work.) Anyone who's had to track licenses for a large installation knows the headache on the user side.
Remember, one violation per the BSA's standard (i.e., not just the "license" but the original invoice is also required to establish that you are not a THIEVING PIRATE!) can cost you not only a year's worth of milk money (up to $150,000 or more) but also your freedom (up to 5 years in the federal pokey with Bubba, the federal poker) [constructionweblinks.com]. That's a big price to pay for making an "extra" copy of MS Office for Mr. Jones' take-home laptop, isn't it? With proprietary software it doesn't take much to ruin your day.
Don't forget to add the potential for fines and/or prison as well as the overhead needed to maintain license compliance records to avoid them into the TCO equation.
I'm Convinced (Score:5, Funny)
So. Tell me - where do I buy MS Office for FreeBSD?
No?
Linux?
Solaris?
Oh.
Advantages and Disadvantages (Score:5, Insightful)
It was *almost* truthful for the most part... not entirely, but *almost*...
In the #OpenOffice.org channel on IRC, I was asked what I thought about the article, and the impact it has on OpenOffice.org as a whole. All in all, I thought its great for OOo. As long as we don't get into a petty pissing fight with MS Office, that is. Then someone was throwing around the idea that we should have a pointer article tossed back as a response to Microsofts little publication. I only replied "Why bother?" No matter what route we took with a reply, I think it would do more harm than good. The only thing I could think of as a reply would be a nice polite response to some of the false comments in the article.
There are a few ways where this advertising could hurt OpenOffice.org, but that would realistically only effect the crowds that would never switch even if their existances depended on it. I know a few people like that that live and breath the harddrive space Microsoft uses.
In cases like that, OpenOffice.org just might not be the better alternative, as they would be very stuck in their ways. I would like to think we would rather have 10 very satisifed users than 20... 10 of which would do nothing but complain about this problem or that problem, and do little if anything to help resolve the issue.
But, OO.o still has quite a ways to go. While I love it and use it for all of my writing, there are still a few things that need fixed and improved upon. But, I've decided to join the project and help make it happen when I have a little more time.. which should be in about a month when my current projects settle down. But, that is what I find so beautiful about the OO.o project. If I don't like something, I can dig on in and help fix it.
If MS Office offered that flexibility, I would have been enticed in joining the team. But, as it did not and never will, I'll be stuck in my ways and keep supporting OO.o
Trademark issues (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Macro compatibility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This document should not even exist... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but when Japanese manufacturers started producing more reliable vehicles Ford, GM, and Chrysler all had to resort to intensive marketing strategies until they could develop something that was more competitive. It worked pretty good too.
They thought they were in control of the automobile world and were proved wrong; the same *might* be happening to Microsoft. For quite a while they had little to no competition; now they are seeing some real threats on the horizon, and they're only doing what anyone else would do in the same position. They simply became too comfortable with having a large piece of the pie, and now are having to fight to keep as much of it as they can.