Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Linux

OpenOffice.org 2.3 Review 227

Posted by Zonk
from the penguins-look-good-in-text dept.
Peace Frog writes passed us a link to an in-depth review of the newest version of OpenOffice. Instead of just the normal bug fixes, 2.3 has added several new features. Examples include: "A bunch of new and enhanced features like restoring the user-defined movement path in Impress and applying better default print settings in Calc. Check the release notes for complete information from OpenOffice.org. A significantly different chart tool. New extensions provided by Sun and other vendors. You will need to run 2.3 for the extensions to work. Read more about the new extensions on the OpenOffice.org web site." The general impression from the review is that the OO team is doing an excellent job of responding to feedback from previous releases.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenOffice.org 2.3 Review

Comments Filter:
  • I've always wondered (Score:4, Interesting)

    by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @10:44AM (#20911429) Homepage Journal

    restoring the user-defined movement path in Impress
    Why the heck did they take it out in the first place? It was something I used quite a bit and it was something I could point to and say "that's not in Microsoft Office".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @10:49AM (#20911489)
    OO 2.3 is now powered by energy harvested from Cory Doctorow's ego. Current benchmark's indicate a 50% increase in load-time. Sweet!
  • by arivanov (12034) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @10:51AM (#20911515) Homepage
    The thing that made Microshaft Word the market winner was the integration. Regardless how much developers hate OLE, it did the job. You could take a data object from any other app and throw it in and it kind'a worked. It was not anywhere good enough from the perspective of a professional, but it was enough as far as Joe Average was concerned.
    What continues to make OO on non-windows platforms a losing proposition is the lack of such APIs. Even if the GUI and underlying libraries supports them OO continues to do things of its own (not surprising considering Sun's involvement). KDE embedding and full integration, gnome integration, etc. There are present in a very rudimentary fashion. As a result OO continues to be limited to a universe of its own. This hinders both its development and the development of third party aps like Dia. It also at the end of the day puts it firmly into the niche proposition area. Until this is resolved this is exactly where it will belong. Sad...
    • Mod parent up. Ive had the same issues with a company-wide rollout of Thunderbird replacing outlook. While 99% of the people have switched (its been a couple of years now), the #2 question (right behind "where's my calendar?") has been "how do I drag and drop this embedded mpeg movie that I stuck into a powerpoint slide onto my email? nono, in with the words not an attachment." ... as much as that "tight integration" turns the stomache of any IT guy worth half his paycheck, the users expect it even if it do
    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:26AM (#20912081)
      OOo provides an API for programming Java OLE objects. The problem is not OOo, it is a lack of third party developers actually using this feature. A lot of applications suffer from this problem, actually. Hopefully, with the opening of Java, somebody will write OOo KDE and OOo GNOME wrappers for OLE objects.

      Personally, I hold out more hope for KOffice, which is built on KParts. If KOffice 2.0 is as good as the developers say it will be, I will be switching.

      • by zooblethorpe (686757) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @12:46PM (#20913393)

        OOo provides an API for programming Java OLE objects. The problem is not OOo, it is a lack of third party developers actually using this feature.

        Incidentally, OOo also allows for the use of Python and other programming languages as well. However, while it might be my lack of Java-ness, it looks to me like the underlying problem is that the OOo API docs are mindbogglingly poorly organized. Say for instance you have an object of type TextCursor, and want to find out quickly what properties and methods such an object has. So you go into OOo's online API documentation and find the entry for TextCursor [openoffice.org] -- only to discover that you cannot tell what properties and methods this object provides. The docs show what *interfaces* it has, but while this might be exciting in terms of software architecting and discovering how OOo reuses its own code base, it doesn't offer a lot to anyone simply trying to make use of OOo objects. To actually find the methods and properties for any object, you'd have to click through each and every interface listing, which is hardly convenient or easy to use.

        I strongly suspect that a reworking of the API documentation would give OOo a big leg up in terms of third party development.

        Cheers,

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          No kidding! I recently tried a quick hack to automate some simple document processing with OpenOffice using python. How hard could it be? It turned into several days of hacking to get it working at all. It really is a documentation nightmare.
      • by Kjella (173770)
        Personally, I hold out more hope for KOffice, which is built on KParts. If KOffice 2.0 is as good as the developers say it will be, I will be switching.

        And make that KDE4/Windows as well... cygwin is a pain, it'd be a lot better if I can use KOffice on all the platforms I use. That goes for KDE apps in general - I doubt many people will make a "clean cut", they'll use Firefox, GIMP, OOo etc. only to finally figure out "hmm all my apps are there, I can just run Linux underneath" and end up with Gnome, not Ko
    • The thing that made Microshaft Word the market winner was the integration. ... What continues to make OO on non-windows platforms a losing proposition is the lack of such APIs.

      Nonsense. Most people don't embed anything except perhaps some images in their Word documents. And if they embed something it's an Excel spreadsheet or graph, and OOo allows embedding of OOo spreadsheets and graphs just fine, so they'd still be able to do that. In fact, it works a lot better. In OOo you can have a table with data an

  • OOXML Support (Score:5, Informative)

    by SpiritGod21 (884402) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @10:53AM (#20911555) Homepage

    I think this is unrelated to 2.3, but I was excited to see yesterday that Novell now has an OOXML Translator [novell.com] for OO.o. I was going to have to buy Office 2007 for my fiance soon because she needs to open .docx files that are emailed to her regularly. Now I don't have to bother.

    Whatever you say about Novell, I appreciate their work.

    • Hey that's great news, thanks for the heads up. A shame it isn't licensed under the GPL as far as I could tell as they say it only works under openSUSE (I'm not sure if that's true or simply trying to save themselves hassles of using it under other Distros where it may or may not work) and an open license could allow others to tweak it to work in other distros.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by kjkeefe (581605)
        As near as I can tell, this not only requires you to be running either Windows or SUSE distros, it also requires you to run OpenOffice.org Novell Edition. "What the hell is that," you ask? That's a good question...

        I have OO.o 2.3 installed and I tried using their extension anyway. Didn't seem to work...

        Novell is losing browny points for this one...
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by SpiritGod21 (884402)
        It looks like Ubuntu has one available in .deb [blogspot.com], but I haven't had time to look at the licensing. Was going to install the .rpm using Alien, but I guess I don't need to.
      • by Walles (99143)
        License looks good enough to me, from share/doc/packages/odf-converter/LICENSE.TXT in http://ubuntu.org.ua/getdeb/or/oregano_0.69.0.orig.tar.gz [ubuntu.org.ua]:

        Copyright (c) 2006, Clever Age
        All rights reserved.

        Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

        * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
        • That's the ubuntu one, whereas we were talking about the Novell one (I don't know if the ubuntu one is based off the Novell one). Although its good to see someone created a converter and released it under an open license.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Koohoolinn (721622)
      M$ has has a compatibility pack that allows you to open MSOOXML on earlier Office versions. No need to upgrade yet.

      Link [microsoft.com] to read some more info.
    • there's also the free compatibility pack available here [microsoft.com] for earlier versions of word.
    • There is the new Word 2007 Viewer : here [microsoft.com]. they also have them for Excel, and PowerPoint.
  • Thank You (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:04AM (#20911705)
    I for one appreciate the fact that Open Office is there as an option. It is being run on every system in my home with no complaints. Thanks to all of the people working on it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:11AM (#20911807)
    OO has a weight problem.

    I've always thought that a fork at OO 1.x would be good, as 2.x was where it got really fat.

    Well IBM forked at 1.x. It's called Symphony.

    But I cannot find any source of any part of Symphony.
    This is an apparent violation of the LGPL.

    Perhaps they are sending patches to open office, but that does not really satisfy the LGPL. The source of changed LGPL Symphony code must be publicly available.

    • by soullessbastard (596494) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:36AM (#20912245) Homepage Journal

      Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of NeoOffice [neooffice.org].

      Being based on OOo 1.x, IBM does not need to release the source code for Symphony. OOo was originally dual licensed both under LGPL and the SISSL [openoffice.org] license. SISSL allows companies to make completely closed source forks, only providing notice of the original vendor and SISSL license. This license was one of the primary motivating factors for why we forked and created NeoOffice, to prevent companies from making a commercial product whose improvements couldn't be shared back with all the volunteers that had worked to create it.

      Closed source forking is also our reason for using full GPL since it guarantees everyone's freedom to access the code. Not even LGPL provides that ability since commercial closed source proprietary code can still be incorporated provided it's in a shared library. Only the full GPL provides enough protections to ensure that everyone must cooperate and that no one can make key parts of the project rely on closed source solutions.

      ed

    • by ianare (1132971)
      IBM® Lotus®Symphony(TM) is propriatery, not open source. I'm not sure on this, but it could be that Sun sold the code to IBM. They are, after all, the only copyright holder of OOo.
    • I'm being very kind to IBM when I say steer clear of Symphony.

      Your personal information is fair game for whatever IBM sees fit to do with it.
      "Such information will be processed and used in connection with our business relationship, and may be provided to contractors, Business Partners, and assignees of IBM for uses consistent with their collective business activities, including communicating with You"

      The software is not Free.
      * Read all about the "Proof of Entitlement" in the license.
      * You may not redistribu
  • by tom17 (659054) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:13AM (#20911847) Homepage
    So I love OO and have started using it as my primary office suite at home. But it still falls short when it comes to rendering and printing docs and having them look the same as in MS Office.

    It's not a huge issue I guess, but it's certainly the reason that I still need to have MS Office installed in a VM. Highly over the top but a necessary step until OO can render stuff faithfully. My wife, for one, will not switch until it displays word docs correctly.

    Is this just me having this problem as I never see other people complaining about it.
    • by SEMW (967629) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:22AM (#20911989)

      But it still falls short when it comes to rendering and printing docs and having them look the same as in MS Office.
      If it is essential that a document be rendered identically on different machines, a word processor -- any word processor -- is the wrong tool for the job. If something needs to be viewed only, export to pdf; if it needs to be edited as well, use DTP software.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by teh kurisu (701097)

        What is it about word processors that makes it inherently impossible to render documents properly on different machines? I mean, it seems to me that if the document format/specification is not capable of ensuring consistent rendering, then it is flawed and needs to be fixed. Otherwise, what's the point? You might as well use plain text.

        Of course, I realise that most modern word processors probably don't live up to this ;)

        • by DougWebb (178910) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @12:08PM (#20912763) Homepage

          Generally, I imagine that it has to do with the fact that word processing files don't carry fonts with them. Even if the file specification were 100% open and implementable, most fonts are licensed in a way that doesn't allow them to be redistributed. As a result, you can only print the document and send paper around, or export to PDF which renders the characters as lines and fills but doesn't include the font information itself.

          A desktop publishing package would have the same limitation, I would imagine, except the file formats might enable embedding the fonts (putting the license-compliance burden on the user), or a particular package might come with a standard set of fonts you can count on being available.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by DragonWriter (970822)

            Generally, I imagine that it has to do with the fact that word processing files don't carry fonts with them. Even if the file specification were 100% open and implementable, most fonts are licensed in a way that doesn't allow them to be redistributed. As a result, you can only print the document and send paper around, or export to PDF which renders the characters as lines and fills but doesn't include the font information itself.

            While licensing restrictions may make it illegal to redistribute fonts, both wo

      • Right. But - the problem is that, like it or not, 'Word' has become a de facto standard for exchanging editable text. Same for PPT and XL. I get PPT files containing 100s of slides from my clients to use in training. Look at 'em in OO - oops, not the same as in PPT. Not on the screen, not printed. Game over, right there.

        Who's going to learn how to use proper DTP software, (which, sorry, is traditionally a real bitch for non-experts), when they can use a tool they are familiar with? The marketplace ha
    • But it still falls short when it comes to rendering and printing docs and having them look the same as in MS Office.

      The .doc file is not meant to be used to communicate freely. It is meant to be used to communicate with other Microsoft product users exclusively and to the detriment of all other users. The point of the OO.org proprietary file importing is to get it imported. You can leave the formatting errors alone, do your part and return the document.

      I'm surprised you haven't discovered how inconsisten
      • by jabuzz (182671) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @01:42PM (#20914307) Homepage
        Where it breaks down is easy, it depends on the default printer. Try switching between a laser which is 300dpi based and an inkjet that is 360dpi based, and watch your document formatting go to pot :-)

        The problem comes from the way the TrueType font render works. When you ask for say 12pt Times New Roman what you actually get back depends on the device you are rendering to. The hinter fiddles with the font so that it looks good and in the process changes the metrics...
    • by caseih (160668)
      MS Word on different machines has this problem too! Trying to get a large document paginated correctly across different versions of Word, or even the same version of word on different computers is a nightmare. Of course on Windows I'd expect OO.org to have similar pagination problems between machines because it has to do with different printers and printer drivers causing different font metrics to be given to the word processor.

      In any case, if you need a document to always look the same, then you really o
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        In any case, if you need a document to always look the same, then you really only have one choice. LaTeX.
        Not true. You also have troff, Framemaker, and a host of other DTP tools. Granted, LaTeX is the one I would choose, and the one I used for my book, but it is not the only one.
        • LaTeX is the one I would choose ...

          There was a thread recently on the FreeBSD mailing list concerning Open Office. The discussion, as expected, devolved from "It's too big and bloated" to "Nothing else will work for me but program X". The reason most cited for "not working" was "it's too hard" to learn, which invited this amusing observation [freebsd.org].

          Personally, I find Office packages fairly horrible to use or to maintain, and wordprocessors in general are inadequate by nearly every measure. It's a shame they've
  • by filesiteguy (695431) <kai@perfectreign.com> on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:17AM (#20911909) Homepage
    I don't see anything in the Wiki or the Review yet about them fixing the problem of only supporting 65,536 rows in Calc. Anybody have an idea about that?

    Yes, I do use more than 65,500 rows in Excel on a weekly basis to manage reports for people.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Have you ever considered using a database... Right tool for the job, etc, you know...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Calc is an excellent flatfile database program. Sometimes the simplest tools are the best tools.
  • Peace Frog? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:18AM (#20911929) Journal
    Is he the hero that will finally liberate us from HypnoToad? My prayers have been ...~~@@~~

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!
  • Mail Merge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nursegirl (914509) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:25AM (#20912069) Journal

    They seem to have done some work on Mailmerge. Here's to hoping that it's usable, now. I wonder if they've also improved printing labels from a database. There are a number [openoffice.org] of closed [openoffice.org] issues [openoffice.org] in the OOo [openoffice.org] issue tracker [openoffice.org] where people have said "this doesn't work right" and the OOo team says, "Just do it this other, less-intuitive way."

    The last it seems to be mentioned in the issue tracker, the target fix was changed from OOo 2.0 to OOo Later [openoffice.org]. That was in 2004, so I'm not hopeful.

  • by Masa (74401) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:31AM (#20912149) Journal
    I don't know, what they did to OOo, but when I upgraded from the 2.0.2 to 2.3.0, the performance of the Writer dropped dramatically. I have a document, which contains 20 500x500 pixel images distributed over 30 pages. The scrolling from one page to another is awful. It takes from 5 to 20 seconds to switch from one page to another. This delay seems to be pretty random but consistent at the same time, because it doesn't matter if I already have visited both pages and I'm working between these two pages, the delay still varies between the 5-20 seconds each time. I didn't have this problem with the 2.0.2 version. Now I'm considering downgrading back to 2.0.2.
  • by xeno (2667) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @11:40AM (#20912291)
    Every release -- even a small point release like this one -- I hope that the OOo developers will add an outline mode to Writer. And every release I'm disappointed. I really like OOo, but this one missing feature keeps me from using it for serious work becuase it makes large document planning and writing production in Writer sloooooow.

    And before some n00b who's never written a 200-page document jumps all over me: No, the OOo "Navigator" does not provide an outline mode. It provides something akin to a re-organizable TOC in a floating window, but it doesn't provide the productivity enhancements afforded by inline hierarchical control within the editing window. This is one function that MS Word got right. For example, in Word I can start typing and make a list in normal text, click into "outline mode" and either use a key shortcut or a single click-drag to promote/demote some text to headings (while leaving other items as content), or re-order paragraphs of text or headings. To do the same thing in OOo's Navigator, I need to switch to a different window to reorganize headings, but switch back to the editing window to resume editing content. I also need to switch between two windows to split a heading into two sections, switch back to move it, and switch again to resume composing content -- something I can do with a CR and single mouse-drag in Word.

    Word: type, type, drag, type, type, [enter], key-combo, type.
    OOo: type, type, switch-window, drag, switch-window, type, type, re-style, switch-window, drag, switch-window, type.

    Come on guys, suck up the Not-Invented-Here pride and adopt this one feature that MS got right! Or do it one-better and improve on the similar inline hierarchical editing from FrameMaker+SGML. Or innovate some collapsible tag interface from something like the old HotMeTaL from SoftQuad. (But don't trash the Navigator; it *is* useful for final proofing, just not composition)

    -J
    • by simong (32944)
      That's a pretty good feature - have you actually requested it? As ODF is XML based it seems like it should be easy to implement. I've never really used it in Word but I have fond memories of the tag interface in HoTMetaL, which remains quite a common in good text editors.
      • by xeno (2667)
        Yes, it's been requested of the OOo team quite a few times over the past 4-5 years. ODF intuitively matches this concept, but implementing it apparently requires some nontrivial change to the Writer codebase. And a little more enthusiasm by those who could code it (wish I could). If I could direct my OOo donation to this one feature, I'd give $XXX instead of my paltry $XX donation. There's some background available here: http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/category/writing [ruwenzori.net]

        J
      • That's a pretty good feature - have you actually requested it?

        It's been requested numerous times, and has been on OOo's issue list since at least April 2002 -- see here [openoffice.org] for reference.

        Cheers,

    • Do you regularly create and manipulate 200+ page documents in MS Word?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by xra (1021817)
      For a 200 pages document, nothing comes near LaTeX.
    • by BigJim.fr (40893)

      > Every release -- even a small point release like this one -- I hope that the
      > OOo developers will add an outline mode to Writer. And every release I'm
      > disappointed. I really like OOo, but this one missing feature keeps me from
      > using it for serious work becuase it makes large document planning and writing
      > production in Writer sloooooow.

      I ranted about a year ago [ruwenzori.net] and found that I was not the only one. In spite of a five year old wishlist bug [openoffice.org], the recriminations have not fallen on deaf ears, and last February I heard some encouraging noises from the dev team [ruwenzori.net]. Outline mode is not coming soon, but some day maybe... I'm keeping the faith but meanwhile I hate to say that for now Ms Word is my outliner of choice.

      If you don't think you need outline mode, then it is just that you have no idea what efficiently working with big documents is like.

    • And before some n00b who's never written a 200-page document jumps all over me:
      Speaking as a n00b who has just finished a 300-page book and a 200-page thesis, I think your problem is that you are using a word processor. If you want WYSIWYG, you want something like Framemaker, if you want semantic markup you want something like LaTeX. My choice for both was LaTeX, but it's a question of personal taste.
    • Come on guys, suck up the Not-Invented-Here pride and adopt this one feature that MS got right!

      Well, I guess this might make it two features that MS got right -- OOo's word/char count is appallingly inadequate [openoffice.org], and effectively keeps the software from being adopted by many academic and professional writers. Proper and comprehensive word/char counts are absolutely vital in any truly usable word processor, and such functionality is glaringly absent from OOo -- despite users having pointed [openoffice.org] this [openoffice.org] out [openoffice.org] numerous

  • ... I still can't add a word to the dictionary with just one click. Try it for yourself, you'll see. Make a typo, right-click on the word once the squiggly red underline appears. It gives suggestions, and not an "Add" menu -- but a submenu. So me, the uncaring user, just wants to add this to the dictionary. I pick "Add" submenu, then I am faced with a choice. "soffice.dic", "standard.dic" and "sun.dic". Um... what? Why should I care? What happens if I pick the wrong one? Is there a wrong one? Why do I have to make this decision? Screw this, I'm going back to MS Office! (Okay, slight hyperbole with that last.)

    Unfortunately, this is a classic example of why open source software designed for mass use needs more contributors familiar with basic usability concepts. This way, end users could spend less time playing with their dics, and more time accomplishing their goals.

    • That one bugs be too, especially since the correct answer is none of them. It shouldn't be saving user-added works in the main dictionary, it should be saving them in a separate dictionary. That way they can add words to the main dictionary, without it conflicting with my changes when I upgrade.
    • by Sax Maniac (88550)
      Hm, this sounds familiar. While I agree with you, you can't blame this particular one just on open source [smartcomputing.com].
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not in dictionary: playing with their dics
      Suggestions: dices, dicks, disc, discs, dikes, dice, dices.
  • OO needs to spend less time on new features and more time fixing the ones they've got, IMO. Especially when it comes to compatibility with MS Office. ODF's great, don't get me wrong, but the only way OO will see anything close to widespread adoption is when people can effectively and easily transition off of MS Office.
    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      OO needs to spend less time on new features and more time fixing the ones they've got, IMO. Especially when it comes to compatibility with MS Office. ODF's great, don't get me wrong, but the only way OO will see anything close to widespread adoption is when people can effectively and easily transition off of MS Office.

      I disagree, I think OOo needs to make a superior interface to Microsoft Office's, a superior way of dealing with things all centeralized around the odf documentation. Being able to use the off

      • by Cleon (471197)
        I don't disagree with the need (or desire, for that matter) to have a superior interface. Far from it.

        However, I stand by my statement that Microsoft compatibility is key for widespread adoption of OO. For an organization to consider switching from MS Office to OO, they have to consider more than a side-by-side product comparison, user training, and license cost; they have to consider the fact that they already have a huge number of documents in MS Office formats. If OO cannot read or write to these files e
        • by Ash-Fox (726320)

          For an organization to consider switching from MS Office to OO, they have to consider more than a side-by-side product comparison, user training, and license cost; they have to consider the fact that they already have a huge number of documents in MS Office formats. If OO cannot read or write to these files effectively and accurately, then they either have to give these documents up for lost, or manually re-format them.

          Companies I've worked at have had todo this when migrating to new versions of Microsoft O

  • by enmane (805543) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @12:02PM (#20912633)
    Are you kidding me? I've used SO since 5.0 - when it was actually quick and nimble. In a nutshell,

    1) It's much slower now - even though they told us they were breaking into components to make it faster - the joke is on you.
    2) listening to feedback - yeah - look at their response on basic statistical analysis. Search their bugs for statistics, error bars and regression and you'll see that it's been 5-6 yrs and STILL no ability to put the equation on the chart.
    3) They are SO far behind MS it's ridiculous.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm not an MS lover by any stretch but I use OO day-to-day and I recently sat down in front of Word 2007 and thought,
    1) this will really make it easy for newbies to create nice documents
    2) creating nice documents is really easy
    3) too bad they won't adopt ODF as they'd clean house with Office '07.

    Seriously, I've lost faith/hope in OO. Just look into GO-OO and you'll understand that things move glacially slow with OO development. Maybe IBM's 35 person addition will help but I forsee more pissing contests than actual work getting done.

    Vista is a joke but Office '07 is a really nice product because it DOES make it REALLY easy to create nice looking documents. I added a picture to a test.doc that I was working on and was blown away with all the cool things that I could do with the image. In short, really easy to create nice looking documents - Isn't THAT what a good word processor should do???

    Anyhow, I've lost faith that Sun will actually listen to the users of their software and, if they do, it'll be after the user has left out of frustration due to waiting.
  • ...and took 2 hours of work with it. I was this close to crying.
  • I am a student (MEMS) and so I need to handle formulas and export in PDF.

    OOo 2.3 Writer:

    + handles complex mathematical formulas
    + produces a very nice .pdf file
    + allows for complex text formatting and precise placement of diagrams
    + It has macros!
    + It will open documents written in many formats.
    + It saves your document in many, many formats.

    but

    - Quite often the display is not refreshed and you have no idea anymore, what the page looks like. It reminds me a bit of the olde versions of Finale, but there you had
  • Have been trying to migrate to OO for a while now BUT... how can you make a "contains" filter in Calc? No, regular expression don't work...
  • That is something that really needed to be fixed.
  • Put Cut-Copy-Paste at the top of the right-click menu, so I don't have to move the mouse down half-a-screen to use these common options.

    It's these kind of usability tweaks that Microsoft is so much better at, I'm afraid, and it's the kind of thing they need to put a lot of work into if they really want to take on Office.
  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:38PM (#20917887)
    You know that 'feature' whereby the page jumps up about four inches as your cursor nears the bottom of the word processor screen?

    I think Open Office is a wonderful gift to computing, but that one element makes my eyes bug out. I cannot stand having the page react with tectonic adjustment whenever I scroll down beyond a certain point. Maybe some people don't mind this, but it drives me bonkers. I spent a long time looking through an older version of OO, but was unable to find a toggle switch to turn off this feature. --Does the new version of OO allow one to type like a civilized human being who doesn't like his marbles rattled half a dozen times every page?


    -FL

One picture is worth 128K words.

Working...