Codeweavers Releases Crossover Office 296
rleyton writes "Codeweavers have just announced Crossover Office, a Wine derivitive which allows MS-Office 97 & 2000 products as well as Lotus Notes to run without a Windows OS License. If it's as cool as the Crossover plugin product, then it could mean a significant step forward in Wine's progress." NewsForge got hold of a final beta copy a couple of days ago and has a Crossover Office review up already, and DesktopLinux.com has one too. This looks pretty cool, yes.
Now if a PHB tells you can't run Linux, because you need Office - tell him you'll save money by not needing a Windows license, and call still use Office.
I don't need it, but I sure am glad to see it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not likely to buy this one because I don't need MS Office and $55 will buy some things I do want or need...
however...
Boy, do I hope this works as well as the plugin.
Office is a major stumbling block for many people (not that it should be, just is).
More to the point: If they can run Office well enough to be worth the trouble, how much more software is just around the bend?
The reasons to resist are melting, my pretty, melting, melting...
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you see MS start chasing after thousands of customers who will buy this? I hardly think so. Its better for MS since you still need to have Office 97 or 2000...
And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, you're getting rid of the Windows license...a savings of $50 or so in the OEM world. But you're still giving money to Uncle Bill for Office itself...and even in an OEM atmosphere I bet Office is a damned sight more than $50.
Making cute nick-nacks that will run Microsoft's office suite on another OS doesn't reduce Microsoft's grip on the desktop what so ever. Only a native office suite that is not purchased from Microsoft will make that difference on Microsoft's bottom line.
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure they'll lose out on some converts for whom the only block for going to Linux was Office. However, Microsoft does gain a new platform on which their software runs and which they don't have to officially support.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about MS applications is that they have full access to the APIs, even features that may not have been documented for some reason or another. It is hard for a project like wine to create a environment when there might be API calls to functions that aren't documented outside of MS. All this said, I have never tried Office 2000 under wine, (don't have it) but Office 97 seems to work under wine...
I would say wine is an exceptionally successful project considering the scope of the problem they have decided to address.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and FYI, the price of Windows drops as well with large orders. In essence you save no money at all even if you can manage to get PCs without Windows licenses.
Touting "security" and "stability" and then running MS Office on top of a hacked up Wine implementation really smacks of hypocrasy to me. I'd be willing to bet that MS Office + Windows is a lot more stable than MS Office + Codeweavers + Linux.
In the end, I can see the need for maybe one copy of the Codeweavers Office product to be put on a box somewhere that people can run X Servers from and convert any incoming Office documents to whatever native format they are using. The "buy it for each desktop" argument just makes no sense.
I may switch back to a linux desktop full time (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW one thing to keep in mind is that if they can get Office running other apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Autocad etc can't be far behind. Yes native is better, but native is not coming anytime soon from companies like Adobe. So I say full steam ahead for wine.
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other had wine has to emulate the huge bloted windows API. Several orders of magnitude more complex than the pc bios.
I think where open source is better than closed source it is in finding developers that *care*. However if what you need is hundreds of developers to hack on an API - money talks. Hence wine struggles.
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though Office on Wine is likely to be less stable than Office on Windows, Office on Wine will have a much harder time crashing more than the application when it goes down. ie., Office on Wine may crash the application more, but it should crash the OS much less.
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy one.
You're completely missing the boat
by imagining that the whole point of Linux is
to save $50 on a Windows license.
Microsoft's whole empire is built on
forcing people to buy MS by making
their software work poorly with everything else.
This way people can't buy best-of-breed
products or - since MS owns the playing field -
write their own apps to surpass those of MS.
Decoupling MS products from each other and
migrating to an open playing field would
rejuvinate the whole industry.
Counter action (Score:5, Insightful)
And your second point takes the words right out of my mouth as I was reading the article. I think as soon as the monopoly trials are over they will have enough wiggle room to put a requirement into the license for Office that it must run on Windows.
Re:Tough call (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll tell you about it when I try it out...but you shouldn't just assume that it's going to be less stable than running it on Windows (that shows a definite bias). Codeweavers have done a great job with Crossover Plugin - I have yet to have either Quicktime or Windows Media Player crash on me. Not once.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version?
That's an interesting question, though. Why do businesses need to buy new versions of Office? Do their needs change that much? What about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" The problem is that such an approach isn't ideal for keeping Microsoft's revenue stream at a regular level, so MS has developed an elaborate swindle: they put out new version of Office that are almost compatible with preceding ones, but add new features that aren't essential. They could very well implement these new features as plugins, but they don't, therefore forcing people to get the new version. Now, if other people want to be 100% compatible, they'll have to upgrade too, and so on. To me, Office 2000 is more than enough for a company. The Linux/Crossover/Office solution seems like a good way for a business to get out of the Microsoft trap...Anyway, I'll try it tonight and see.
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Office is _THE_KILLER_APP_ for Windows. Email, surfing, and most everything else has options on multiple platforms. I would dare say Office for the Mac is a huge reason Apple is growing outside the multimedia developers.
People can try to guess the word formats, but they never seem to be quite right (same goes for any other word processor importing and exporting formats for that matter). If the app runs well under Linux or Mac, that knocks over a huge wall.
Really opening the office formats would really hit Bill hard - Office tends to carry much of the company's revinue. This just makes the OS not matter (as much). You think companies get to pay the OEM price? Bah ha ha ha.... They usually pay that, then again when they image it, and then again (yearly) with a "enterprise agreement". The imaging "tax" changed some time last year, but it does add up - more than $50..
So what IS the cost of Windows.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mention the $50 an OEM might pay but there is much more. Keeping MS Windows running isn't cheap and being forced to upgrade the OS and MS apps every 1.5 years doesn't help either. Let's not forget those wonderful security features Microsoft has built into MS Windows for you. That's right, you should include the cost for that virus software too. And that only catches the virus after you've been infected since MS Windows gets infected so quickly. I think it was estimated that over $10 billion dollars were lost do to MS Windows virus infections over the last couple of years. Keeping that registry fixed up isn't cheap either.
Keeping a business running on MS Windows is like keeping your car running by giving a crocked neighborhood mechanic your checkbook. You start it up and it's gonna cost ya....
LoB
Now What we need is... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be more than useful also, for them to quickly address the problem of font control under Linux; this means creating an Adobe Type Manager® clone. Then, we will be able to gleefully work uninterupted for days on end.
It's called: Small changes (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't change to Linux because it brings too many changes. You have to adapt everything starting from e-mail, documents and ending at any special apps you may run on Windows.
If this product lets you still use Office and even run all those special apps, a change to Linux becomes a set of small changes. Change the OS first. Then gradually change more during months or years.
Re:Photoshop (Score:2, Insightful)
License Change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not anti-Microsoft, I'm anti proprietary. I'm especially anti-proprietary file formats and network protocols. If the MS anti-trust proceedings don't diminish MS's control over file formats and protocols that we all need to use in order to do our work, then the states are prosecuting this case in vain. Microsoft will continue to monopolize the computing industry until such time as competing products are able to read and write Word, Excel, SMB, etc. A little proprietary hook here or there is all MS needs to forever erase the threat of competition.
This is why we should beware so-called "compromise" settlements in which MS promises to open their API's. All that accomplishes is a further dependance on MS product. As this product indicates, apparently their API's are already open enough to produce an emulation layer for Linux. This is not good, this is terrible. It's terrible because the operating system is not the threat! The applications are the threat! They are a threat, because they further entrench our dependance on proprietary data and protocols. And because MS controls the protocols, and because we must all use them in order to communicate with our collegues, peers, friends and family, MS will forever dominate the computer industry.
Again, I am not anti-Microsoft. I am pro-competition. I want choices. I want desktop applications to compete on the merits. This will never happen, until MS file formats and network protocols are made completely public.
Come on Microsoft - show us you can win an application showdown fairly. What are you afraid of? You have a pretty good shot, you know. Stop playing dirty tricks, and get back to basics. Make applications that people want to buy because they work better, not because they are the only choice.
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not mind living in a world where Office is proprietary if MS was an APPLICATION company producing Office for many platforms.