Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Microsoft Linux

OpenOffice 2.0 vs. MS Office Review 525

Posted by Zonk from the we're-normally-so-unbiased dept.
trewornan writes "There's an interesting, if partisan, review of OpenOffice 2.0 in comparison to Microsoft Office over on Real Tech News. Open Office gets a general vote of approval, as you might guess from the title 'Open Office 2.0 Kicks MS Office Around The Block'" From the article: "My primary use for OpenOffice has always been as a word processor and I believe this is an area where it excels (so to speak!). For anyone used to MS Office, the difference in the two interfaces is minimal. In fact, I find it easier to use OpenOffice's interface than MS Office's for various things such as inserting a header and footer. To create or change a header and footer in MS Office XP, you must go to the "view" menu. I'm not sure why something like a header or footer would be placed in the "view" menu before it is actually part of a document."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenOffice 2.0 vs. MS Office Review More

OpenOffice 2.0 vs. MS Office Review

Comments Filter:

  • Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:25PM (#13424566)
    Why would you compare it to the older version? Office XP is almost 5 years old. Why not be fair and compare it to 2003?

    • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is also found under "View" in Microsoft Office 2003. The differences between Office XP and 2003 are also pretty small.
    • What's the real difference between the versions? I mean, M$ doesn't really change too much between versions, nor does any software for that matter. If the guy has XP, why pay $200+ for 2003 or whatever, when the only real improvements are in the GUI's looks! Maybe when XP starts using truely open document format specifications, then I might support them....

      • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:00AM (#13424762) Homepage Journal
        Well, you are definently uninformed.

        See, Office XP is a load of garbage. Unusable, horrible UI, and the load time is horrible.

        Office 2003 is a nice speed up from XP (although still not as fast as Office 2000), has features that actually work, and can do some downright amazing things.

        Are the differences earth shattering? Taken alone, no, but on the other hand, XP is almost unusable, where as 2003 is rather nice to use.

        Speaking of load times, that is the one BIG thing that is keeping Open Office from being widely accepted. Until the load times get under 3 seconds (Pentium 4 3.0GHz+ systems with 1GB+ of RAM should NOT be talking over 3 seconds to load a word processor!), OOo is going to go the same way as Winamp3, sure it may be superior, but does it feel good to use?
        • True enough. I, for one, run AbiWord on my Linux box despite how reletively bad it is (especially when inserting images...) simply because I don't want to wait for OO.org to load, and then still lag for a bit after it seems loaded.

        • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:5, Informative)

          by masklinn ( 823351 ) <<ten.nnilksam> <ta> <gro.todhsals>> on Monday August 29, 2005 @01:06AM (#13425041)
          Speaking of load times, that is the one BIG thing that is keeping Open Office from being widely accepted. Until the load times get under 3 seconds (Pentium 4 3.0GHz+ systems with 1GB+ of RAM should NOT be talking over 3 seconds to load a word processor!)

          You'll probably enjoy knowing that without the preloader (which I never use) OpenOffice Writer from the 1.9m122 does indeed load in under 3 seconds on an A64/3000+ (with 2Gb RAM, but I'm well under 1Gb load right now so that ain't an issue).

          Loading time seems around 2 seconds on this setup without any software hogging the processing ressources, and the processor barely peaks

          You should give it a try again, 2.0 has been a huge step from 1.0.x from the beginning, but with each new beta release it gets stabler AND faster.

    • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by toddhunter ( 659837 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:56PM (#13424742)
      I still use my copy of office 2000 I got with a computer way back when. None of that activation rubbish and it does *everything* that I would ever want it to do.
      Which is why incidently, I don't use open office either.

    • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:43AM (#13424933) Homepage
      Office XP = Office 2002. That makes it 3 years old, not 5.

    • If it makes you feel better... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @01:50AM (#13425229) Journal
      ... I'll create a version of the webpage that changes every instance of "XP" to "2003".

      Because the review would be exactly the same.

    • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Seraphnote ( 655201 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @03:37AM (#13425601)
      That is the question isn't it!

      I mean, naturally, the reason to upgrade to Office 2003 is because it is better... so sure, say my employer has 200 users x $300 per upgrade license, that's $60,000.
      Of course I can explain in my budget how when we upgraded 3 years ago to XP, assume again for the same reason... "it was better..." that it in 2000 it was just a temporary $60,000 expense, leading up to and preparing us for this EVEN better version in 2003.
      OH, but wait, I forgot, just 2 years prior to that we spend maybe $50,000 to upgrade to the 2000 version from the '97 version. And two years prior to that we spent maybe $40,000 upgrading from '95 to '97.

      In case you don't have Excel handy, that's...

      $40,000 in '97, $50,000 in 2000, $60,000 in 2001/2, $60,000 in 2003 equaling $210,000 in 6 years just on licenses...

      THEN there was the amount of time and labor necessary for my IT department to upgrade each of these 200 computers...

      And the training time, to make the most of each new version, and teach my company's employees how to work together in the "even better" way that Microsoft has so carefully designed for us.

      Plus the memory, and computer upgrades necessary to run the newer versions...

      AND with 2003, to MAKE THE MOST OF IT, we needed to add a new server to run SHAREPOINT Server for our 200 people.

      Yes, that is what Microsoft and Mr. "Who uses Office XP anymore?"' would have you do.

      Fortunately, up until but not including the last sentence, my upgrade story is fiction. We're still using Office 2000. A few are using Office XP. Some of us even use the old Wordperfect and Quattro suite from Corel. And when the Engineering department told us they wanted 2003, I told them NO. (Unless of course they can tell me what features from 2003 it is that they NEED. And I gave them a link to Microsoft's webpage showing the differences between 2003 and XP.)

      Now when time permits, we're going to find out just what features our company REALLY needs, and the suite that provides those features best, will be what we will convert the whole company to.
      If that is Office 2006, (which of course will be EVEN BETTER, so you ought to go get it NOW if you can!), then so be it, but until then this IT Department is trying the OpenOffice 2.0 beta, and thus far, except for "Convert Text To Columns" in Excel, there has been no need for Microsoft Office.
      OpenOffice 2.0 beta works great, has most of the USED features of MS Office, and removes most of the need having Acrobat (full version).

      We've already switched most people from IE to Firefox, which most everyone had no problem with, they hated IE's "many" popups and like Firefox's tabs. AND we have MUCH less Virus/Spyware problems now.
       
      And as Outlook keeps chewing up people's PST files, they are being moved to Thunderbird.
       
      Hmm... before you know it, I may be able to CHOOSE which OS we're going to run too...

      • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by maxume ( 22995 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @08:41AM (#13426778)
        200 people * 6 years * $30,000 = $36,000,000

        $210,000 / $36,000,000 = 0.00583 ~= 0.6%

        6 * 250 * 200 = 300,000 person-days

        $210,000 / 300,000 = $0.6999 ~= $0.70 per day

        $30,000 / (2040 * 60) = $0.245 per minute

        $0.6999 / $0.245 = 2.856 minutes per day

        So, assuming you pay your people shit, office is still a pretty minor expense. If it saves each person an average of 3 minutes a day(who knows!), it is paying for itself in reduced labor costs. Software is cheap, all of it, people are expensive.

    • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Komodowaran ( 863773 ) <komodowaran@gee[you know what]mail.com> on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:35AM (#13425950)
      That's a good question indeed. Of course, there are a zillion systems running Office XP - worldwide. But to call you a troll would be sort of cheap. Lemme answer it in some detail then.

      Users seldom update their systems. It is even more the case with their software. Therefore, I would be all but impressed learning that the most popular office suite be the aforementioned one, or maybe even Office 2000. There are many instances of Word 97 and Office 8 as well.

      OpenOffice positions itself against this base. (Remember the user: those running 2003 will not update. Indeed, they are not in for a change - yet, and might be sticking with their office flavour as long as the hardware goes, much longer than a redmond-based company would favour.) That are those users who run MS-Office 8..10 now, who are targeted by the new release of OOo, because they need to keep running their ageing boxes. Mostly, the want them to run smoothly, and Writer is a smoother ride than Word.

      If those users are willing to try Writer now, they will probably ditch their present office suite altogether, and this before long. The question about Word11 will not even be asked. Moreover, because OOo runs under GNU/Linux there will be no need for, say, a secretary to learn new tricks when her employer decides to migrate operating system this way or another.

      However, from the purely technical point of view, it would definitely be interesting to learn how OOo 2.0 compares to 2003. I see your point: compare newest release to newest release and all is well. Unfortunately, life does not go this way as far as both competitors are concerned. OOo is wise enough to not compete in the field where there is virtually no demand -- they do very well in those markets, where discriminate buyers double chceck their needs and their means before adopting the best solution.

      Frequently, the result is in favour of the Open Office suite, just like the article suggests. Your criteria may be different, but the result will be in many cases the same. If you relay on some proprietary technlology to the point of self-abandonment then it is another cup of tea, but in most cases the bottom line of the article is valid beyond any doubt.

      • Re:Who uses Office XP anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @11:19AM (#13428166)

        In many cases, you'd probably be correct. However, the fact that this article does is coincidental - it has already been exposed by another comment [slashdot.org] that the author of the article couldn't be bothered to get his own copy of office for the review. My guess would be that he grabbed the first pirated version he could find, and officeXP just happened to be it.

        It's things like this which make me wonder if stories on /. are picked only for their anti-microsoft sentements. You'd never see "MS Office kicks OO around the block" or "Photoshop kicks gimp around the block" as titles for stories. It's also the same reason Apple is always shown in a shining white light here, even though they've been known to employ some of the same tactics as Microsoft. The editors of /. are too biased.

  • When will OO.org be released? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by I_am_Rambi ( 536614 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:27PM (#13424578) Homepage
    I'm sure plenty of people don't want beta software on their system if they can help it. The question comes, when should I expect it?

  • grammar checker (Score:5, Funny)

    by butterbarrel ( 675001 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:27PM (#13424582) Journal
    OOffice need's a gammar checker

  • It figures. Reviewed by a school kid. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Le Marteau ( 206396 ) * on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:27PM (#13424584) Journal
    Reviewer says:

    I generally wouldn't recommend using them in an environment where it was important to maintain compatibility with Microsoft products.

    e.g. in real life. He's a school kid. Yeah, Open Orifice is great for school, where the profs are more open minded than, say a 'client' or a 'boss'.

    Then he goes: My school even offers students copies of MS Office for $25 and I never bothered to get one since, for me, it would just be a waste of $25.

    There goes all his credibility out the window.

    Note: This review was written using OpenOffice.

    Wow. What an age we live in. One can actually write a review in something besides MS Office. Wonders never cease.

    • Re:It figures. Reviewed by a school kid. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Gribflex ( 177733 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:38PM (#13424668) Homepage
      I'm not sure baout 2.0, but 1.1.4 wasn't even worthy to use at school. The document format was completely incompatable with MS Word. Sure, the text would transfer fine, and simple styles would remain if you were lucky (bold, italics... anything HTML 1.0 compatable) but if you tried to do anything even remotely fancy, everything went to pot.

      Styles, tables, tabs, borders, etc. All of these things were not compatable between MS Word and OOo.

      Further, working in a school environment, you frequently need to collaborate with other people. OOo was terrible for that. If I sent a file to a partner (who would be lucky if they could even open the file and get it to render correctly) who edited it and sent it back, I had about an 80% chance of getting garbage back.

      Even if that person used OOo I could get garbage; if they used the linux version, and I used the Windows version, the files got mangled.

      And submitting to a prof... no way. If they can't open the file, I don't get marks.

      OOo is simply unusable until it plays well with others. Unless of course you only need it for editing documents where you are the sole consumer.
      • This is what PDF files are for - it frees the writer from having to use the same document processor as the reader.

        Frankly, I'm surpised your prof won't take a PDF file.
      • I've had more success getting people to us Open Office then any of the other 'Open Alternative' products. Given the design philosophies of the MS products it's amazing when any of the alternatives show some compatibility. I wish Thunderbird, for example, worked with my 1gb .pst file representing 3 years of my life. Open Office 1.x.x had a hard time with MS Office. With Open Office 2.0 I've seen some issues importing MS Office files when they were created by MS Office. However, I have never had a proble

      • Re:It figures. Reviewed by a school kid. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @01:14AM (#13425079) Journal
        Even if that person used OOo I could get garbage; if they used the linux version, and I used the Windows version, the files got mangled.

        You had me until this line, which makes it clear you are somewhere out in left field.

        What do you most appreciate about the view from your Redomd, WA office window?

        The main reaon I've standardized on OpenOffice for my own use is that it works equally well on Windows/Linux. I've had no issues whatsoever copying OO files to/from Windows/Linux machines.

        OO reads office files fairly well, well enough that when I need to read/collaborate on tech specs (my primary need) I've not had an issue using my OO for about 2 years.

        PS: The specs for OO are open and freely available, but those for MSOffice are subject to incredible (all but nonexistent) licensing. It's not an issue of OO "playing nice" with MSOffice, it's an issue of MSOffice "playing nice" with nobody.

      • Re:It figures. Reviewed by a school kid - WRONG (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29, 2005 @01:29AM (#13425129)
        OpenOffice is perfectly usable in a business environment. Just like with any word processor make and model, you want to have your whole company on the exact same software.

        We are a ~50 people company, everyone uses OO.org. We exchange documents with clients -- long, complex technical specs, with version control, the works. Every once in a while, there's a glitch in formatting after the document has been edited by both sides a dozen times. But that happens with different versions of Word too!

        Of course, those formatting glitches are a problem when you are pitching for new business. Easy: we do have 2 licenses for Windows+MSOffice, which we run under VMWare to proof the documents when it's a document tender that requires MSWord format. Even easier: we send PDFs exported with a single-click from OO.org. Sending PDFs makes us look slick, doesn't have formatting issues, and the files aren't editable (at least for mere mortals).

        OO.org is a perfectly viable business tool. Our main clients are government departments and large private companies. The MSWord compatibility is good enough that if you have $0.01 of smarts to negotiate the small glitches _and_ you're good at what you do, you are sorted.

        If you are not good at what you do... there'll be all sorts of excuses. Oh! your logo is RED. I /so/ hate red. And what's that strange office package you use? Sucks too!

    • I generally wouldn't recommend using them in an environment where it was important to maintain compatibility with Microsoft products.

      e.g. in real life. He's a school kid. Yeah, Open Orifice is great for school, where the profs are more open minded than, say a 'client' or a 'boss'.

      "Open Orifice". How brilliant of you to come up with a name that describes the product better than its actual name, just by replacing a few letters. No, wait, you didn't.

      But more to the point: In real life, you're not going to use

  • Biased... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:28PM (#13424586)
    He has been a longtime user of the product
    Hmm. Sounds to me like the review may be biased a little.

  • From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aranth Brainfire ( 905606 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:28PM (#13424587)
    "Another nice thing about OpenOffice is that it is actually a complete office suite."

    You know, unlike MS Office.

    Just seeing a single line like this in an article should immediately tip you off that it's probably not worth the bandwidth you used to download it.

    • Re:From the article... (Score:5, Informative)

      by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:51PM (#13424722)
      OTOH,

      He kept saying how, while word processor is mature, that the other elements of the suite aren't there yet - not because of it's own features as much as 100% compatibility with MS's products (instead of it's own merits).

      While the review had a positive spin - it was hardly glowing as the summary made it out to be - regardless of its title.

  • Title seems wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpaceAdmiral ( 869318 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:30PM (#13424609) Homepage
    The title "Open Office 2.0 Kicks MS Office Around The Block" doesn't seem to match the review. The review seems to give Open Office a better grade for word processor, but for everything else the review seems to favor Microsoft. I mean, look at the summary:
    Overall, I've found OpenOffice to be a fine MS Office replacement for my needs. OpenOffice's word processor is more than ready for prime time. As for the other components, I generally wouldn't recommend using them in an environment where it was important to maintain compatibility with Microsoft products.
    Did they take the title from a different article and put it on this one?
    • Overall, I've found OpenOffice to be a fine MS Office replacement for my needs. OpenOffice's word processor is more than ready for prime time. As for the other components, I generally wouldn't recommend using them in an environment where it was important to maintain compatibility with Microsoft products.

      What reversed logic from the reviewer. It should read:

      Overall, I've found Microsoft Office to be a fine Open Office replacement for my needs. Microsoft's word processor is more than ready for prime time. As

    • Templates. clipart, and artwork in general (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:58PM (#13424754)
      The athor recommends users stick with Powerpoint due to the large amount of templates and artwork included in MS Office.

      Some points:

      - Professionally designed Powerpoint templates work in Impress, and are generally better quality than what MS produces, even more so because your presentation stands out more when you spend some cash on a unique looking template.

      - OpenOffice.org really needs to hold a pre-2.0 design competition. . The best presentation templates created with OOo 2 beta should be included in the final, with links to the designers webpage.

      Eg, under the bit where you select the template:

      ModernFunkyThing v 2.7 by Professional Design Company inc. Visit www.professionaldesign.com for more info.

      ProfessionalDesignCompany get good exposure for their other (paid for) designs, OOo gets templates better than MS Office and hence more users, users get better looking documents, everyone wins.

      • OpenOffice.org really needs to hold a pre-2.0 design competition. . The best presentation templates created with OOo 2 beta should be included in the final, with links to the designers webpage.

        Why don't they do something similar to what the firefox guys did for the NYT ad? Organise it so say, design company X has agreed to do 10 Impress templates, and 200 clipart items for $30k (whatever). And have people donate until it gets up to that amount. Then they can have professionally designed artwork/templates

  • I'd consider it objective (Score:3, Informative)

    by tekiegreg ( 674773 ) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:31PM (#13424615) Homepage Journal
    Considering that they gave the presentation piece to MS Powerpoint.

    In defense of Microsoft they put in a few neat things in MS Office 2003. The group collaboration is probably better than anything in OpenOffice. Though I admit freely I haven't used any revision tracking or group collaboration features, does it even have either one? I'm using OpenOffice 1.1.4 also and newer things might have popped up in 2.0.

    But all the same, for the basics, I'd see no reason to pay the premium for MS Office for basic needs. However for businesses I can see several advantages of MS Office still.

    • Re:I'd consider it objective (Score:4, Interesting)

      by shanen ( 462549 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:41PM (#13424680) Homepage Journal
      Boy, you touched a nerve there. Actually, the revision tracking and collaborative editing features of Word 2000 are significantly better than in Word XP. This is a area where Microsoft took a downgrade, labeled it an upgrade, and rammed it down our throats. I spent months trying to find workarounds. I'm quite convinced there aren't any. I think Microsoft's real plan is to reintroduce those features of Word 2000 as "new" in the next version.

      Yes, there are some improvements in Word XP, but collaborative editing is not one of them.

      I haven't used OO enough to assess whether or not there are any comparable features there. I'm basically constrained to use what my customers use, and so far none of my customers has sent me any OO files. I'd be delighted, but...

  • Difference between OO and Word - Minimal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zoogies ( 879569 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:31PM (#13424617)
    I disagree. I tried hard to migrate to OO, and found it okay for a while, but whenever I had to do anything more complex - even changing colors was a learning curve - I found that it wasn't worth it, that Word would do for now.

    I mean, props to Open Office, they have a really good product, and their Powerpoint equivalent saved my life when I found out I didn't have powerpoint and needed a PPT presentation. I learned that program on my own quick enough and well enough for the project I needed to get done.

    But switching from Word to OpenOffice? No. It's not that easy. It's like...I guess you could compare it to, Photoshop -> Gimp. Perhaps not that bad, but still it's something that will take time to get used to. At least it did for me.
    • For instance...

      The quality of the track changes (edit -> changes -> record, which to me doesn't make much sense, though how much is due to it being in a poor location "objectively" and how much is it not being tools -> track changes I don't know; I do think that the latter makes more sense though) is around that of, oh, Word 2000. At the latest. XP adds a substantial (IMO) improvement.

      The header/footer being in View makes sense if you look at the perspective of using it in the Normal view mode. The
    • I use OOo exclusively when I need a word processor. I rarely need anything else in the "office" department, so Writer pretty much settles me down.

      IMO, the main difficulty from "migrating" from one to the other is getting used to all the default behaviors and context menu stylings.

      I don't use a word processor much these days. However, I used to use one profusely - back in 1996 - 1999. For the most part I was using Windows, and I started off with Office '95. I liked its default actions. I stuck with it for as

  • Terminal Services? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How well does Open Office 2.0 work in Terminal Services?

    If it doesn't work flawlessly in Terminal Services it will limit its adoption in the Windows world.

  • Is it just me... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PrivateDonut ( 802017 ) <chris5377@mailc a n . com> on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:33PM (#13424633)
    or has the bias of heaps of these "reviews" been shifted from pro-microsoft to anti-microsoft? This is just as bad! We need un-biased "reviews"!

  • Made me look (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shanen ( 462549 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:34PM (#13424638) Homepage Journal
    But no, OpenOffice 2 is NOT released yet.

    Anyway, I have used the beta 2, though I was basically constrained to do so. The company has a corporate license for Microsoft's garbage, but it's restrictive. Not having Powerpoint on a particular machine, and not wanting to risk any attempt to tiptoe past Microsoft's lawyers (or our own lawyers), I went ahead and installed OO. Unfortunately, I must report that Microsoft is (predictably) still succeeding in protecting their incompatibilities, at least as regards PPT files.

    I really dislike having Microsoft products rammed down my throat, and I really would like to switch. Won't happen, however. My employer would have be make a major commitment to support OO. Basically, they'd have to insist on and guarantee that I not be penalized for any impact on my work that came from using OO instead of the Microsoft Office "standard" files.

    As it actually worked out in this recent case, the post-OO PPT files were hopelessly mangled, and I wound up working late on several evenings to redo that work on a different machine that has Microsoft Powerpoint on it.

  • From What Follows Behind (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:35PM (#13424641) Homepage Journal
    "...'Open Office 2.0 Kicks MS Office Around The Block'"

    Given how long Open Office has been chasing after MS Office, it's about time it got close enough to give MS Office a kick; but, in my experience, Open Office comes off like Charlie Brown kicking that damn football.

    I'm not a Windows apologist. I run a wintel box as a multimedia web box because too many formats are locked into MS apps and I'm not enough of a zealot to forgo information.

    I've had MS pro copies of Office for many years and I've had years of experience with Linux. My opion is Open Office doesn't yet touch MS pro office, especially Power Point.

    I'll keep MS Office Pro because it's not a big expense in terms of the extended latitude it offers.

  • Does it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sedyn ( 880034 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:38PM (#13424663)
    I've found that people want things that "just work" and as an extention to that, programs have to "just work" in the way that they are used to.

    So, like most programs, people don't care about quality, security, or amazingly even cost. In the end, all they care about is doing some task in using the fastest assembly line that they know.

    (I like the assembly line comparison because it illustrates the desire for speed, but one can still make the point that if an assembly line produces a terrible product, the job is still accomplished)

    A semi-offtopic question here. Does anyone think that the "It comes from brandname X, therefore it must be good." mentality of previous decades still exists? Or are cases like OpenOffice/linux/etc. ones where people are worried about compatibility and such concepts?

  • FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nighty5 ( 615965 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:39PM (#13424670)
    This is a complete hands-on review from someone who has used the product religiously for years. And I think you'll see why OpenOffice 2.0 truly Kicks MS Office around the block.

    It was a one page review with some luke-warm analysis of some of the functions of either product. Nothing really in-depth here. Rambles a whole paragraph about PDF exports which is kind of irrelevent. I have a PDF phaser that I use to export to PDF, let the processor do the real word processing.

    I have been using Word as a power user writing on average documents up to 300 pages a shot. Sure, Word has some shortfalls - I have seen times when a doc has shit itself in a few rare occasions. I have tried Oo, its quite good but I think it has a few more years to catch up to anything remote to Word. And I love Linux! Its unfortunate that I am stuck with Office in some respects, although no religious war will win me over when you have no choice but to be 100% collaborative with other Word users on very large documents, the slightest change to the formats can screw you big time, no Word importer will do.

    I recently moved to a mac with Office 2004 which isnt bad although I'm still trying to get use to less use of shortcuts that arent consistant with the Windows version. I only moved to the platform for the *nix backend and to ability to contine my c++/dev hobbies outside of working hours on a platform built for development.

    Saying that I think Oo has a real chance, especially in areas of the free market, small business, students and home users.

  • My OpenOffice Experience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wavicle ( 181176 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:39PM (#13424674)
    This summer I interned at a national lab and part of the requirements of the internship was creation of a scientific research style poster highlighting what I did. The people in charge of the posters were of the belief that there were only two correct tools for creating a poster: MS Powerpoint and Adobe Acrobat.

    Unfortunately the poster people didn't mention such requirements to the IT people who had the interns all set up with Fedora Core 2 systems. Fortunately OpenOffice was installed on these systems. I could only hope Impress was on par with Powerpoint.

    I was a little skeptical going in, I knew that the OOo guys had worked fairly hard to make their tools as good or better than the commercial products, but this was a fairly unusual niche requirement. I was creating a single 48x30 inch slide with all graphics being very high quality so they don't look like crap when blown up.

    The results were superb! I used Calc to do graphs, and cut-n-paste between Calc and Impress worked flawlessly. I used Draw to do line art graphics, and once again cut-n-paste worked perfectly. Throw in a touch of gimp to clean up some of the graphics being used and the whole thing had a professional look to it on par with any of the Powerpoint posters from years past.

    The only thing that didn't work was exporting as .ppt. Exporting as pdf worked perfectly though.
    • This summer I interned at a national lab and part of the requirements of the internship was creation of a scientific research style poster highlighting what I did. The people in charge of the posters were of the belief that there were only two correct tools for creating a poster: MS Powerpoint and Adobe Acrobat.

      I suggest you try to deal with posters created with other tools. It's less fun than it sounds like it. PDFs have their share of problems [at least on hp designjets], and PowerPoint is even worse [

    • Just this weekend, I needed to plot some coffee roasting profiles that I had taken data on, so I thought I would use OO Calc to enter/plot them.

      What a disaster. I ended up fucking around quite a while trying to get the chart I wanted, and when I started trying to copy/paste charts, the whole thing froze up. Repeatably.

      I ended up switching to Gnumeric, which has its own quirks, but at least didn't crash. It also has a nice object tree kind of interface for working on chart options.

      Based on my attempt t

  • Microsoft Falling From Power (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cash202 ( 854642 ) <cash202@gmail.com> on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:40PM (#13424676)
    Ever since the big court case, Microsoft has been losing their power and control over general computer software and this is just one of those steps.

    This process will continue until Microsoft will just be one company, amongs many, who have major holds and controls over various aspects of computer science. Thought this will probably still take quite some time.

  • This report is a waste of time... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spagetti_code ( 773137 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:42PM (#13424686)
    From TFA:

    This is a complete hands-on review
    Which is then followed by 4 paragraphs, which can be summed up as: "tried one. tried the other. liked it". Then a paragraph each on calc and impress.

    This is a complete waste of time and does not merit the front page of slashdot. C'mon - did Zonk even look at TFA?

    Just off the top of my head, there is no:

    • comparison of file sizes
    • analysis version tracking
    • comparison of printing/preview capability
    • review of scripting capabilities and availability of scripts
    • review of the style system
    • interoperability of: templates, objects etc
    I am underwhelmed.

  • No grammar check is NOT a feature (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darth Cow ( 533706 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:43PM (#13424688)
    OpenOffice also supports all of the major features of MS Office (and a few of its own) except for the grammar check. I'm personally fine with not having a grammar checker since it has given me the opportunity to actually learn the English language instead of relying on my word processor to make my sentences coherent. Erm... and I trust he's also personally fine without having a spell checker for exactly the same reason? And pocket calculators weaken my mind because I should be able to do it in my head or on paper? What world is this guy living in? I like my computer programs to be smart and do things for me by noticing, say, subtle flaws in the document that my proof reading might not pick up. Word's grammar check can indeed be useful at times, especially with some of the few slightly more obscure grammatical checks it has that we may not pick up from everyday usage but are still good to know.
    • I think his point was we should learn the grammar of our language. Not depend upon a computer to catch "errors". Am I the only one that just gets annoyed when word thinks my sentence is wrong when it cannot determine the context?

      Spell check is more of a grey area, but less of a crutch in my opinion. Almost all of the things it catches are errors in typing since I typed too fast.

      As always, proof it before you send it. Read it aloud if you need to. Or at the worst have a co-worker/classmate look your writing
      • Grammar checkers are also there to catch spelling errors/typos that a spelling checker would not.
        for example "its" when you mean "it's" .. now that could be caused by a lack of understanding or a simple typo .
        Proof reading important documents is always a good plan .Though when you have a something that is 30,000 words or so to check then any help is gladly accepted.
      • think his point was we should learn the grammar of our language.

        I very much agree with you - when I'm writing in my native language, Swedish, the grammar checker is more or less a PITA - it only objects to stuff that I know is correct (I know my grammar). Same thing, more or less, in English.

        Where it really shines though, is when I'm writing in German or Spanish. Yeah, I should learn the grammar of those languages properly too, I know, but it takes loads of work to really do it and especially in German,

  • A Better review, quicker. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Puchku ( 615680 ) <Email@adityanag. c o m> on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:46PM (#13424704) Homepage
    I have used OOo for ages too.. In fact i used star office before OOo was launched. Here's a quick review.

    First few versions sucked in terms of compatibility, ugly UI, and general bugs. Most MsOffice users, including me, played around with it and went back to Office.

    The first really usuable version was 1.1. This really rocked in terms of compatibility, and though it still had some bugs, was infinitely better with word docs and general usability.

    Upcoming version 2 is slated to be real good. the beta I'm using is nice, with much improved UI, better word compatibility, Database tool etc.

    Writer is the best. Calc follows. Impress and Database app need some work, though impress has improved a lot in the recent version.

    Office has MUCH better version tracking, sharing and collaborative features. OOo can't touch it here. Writer is catching up with Word in terms of pure Word processor features, in fact has some features that are better than word. (predictive typing)

    OOo is suitable for SOHO operations where word processing is major app. Larger corporate users need to stick with Office for many reasons. You know what they are.

    The article is more like a comparision of Writer with word, and it totally ignores the advanced features of word..

    I love OOo, and use it every day, but that doesn't mean that I can't see where Office kicks OOo's ass...

    Here's a longer review I did a while back. [adityanag.org]

  • Shallow Author? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The author of this article seemed to judge on very easy to solve problems. He chose Powerpoint because it came with included clipart and backgrounds? He also seemed to like Open Office because of easily accessible buttons? Not a very useful article.

  • Qualified? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Barnoid ( 263111 )
    The author admits "In fact, I felt so comfortable using it [the Lotus suite] that it quickly became my first choice of office applications. I never bought MS Office after Office XP ,and I rarely ever used that."

    and goes on to write a comparison between OO and MS Office...

    Guess we can wait for better reviews.

  • Better Alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gooman ( 709147 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:57PM (#13424748) Journal
    Over the years, I've used different versions of MS Office at work and tried several different office suites at home. If all you need is a word processor, even OpenOffice is overkill.

    I always recommend http://www.abiword.com/ [abiword.com]. It handles MS formats fine, it loads faster, the interface feels more polished and like OpenOffice it's available for about every OS. OpenOffice has a great set of features, but it feels slow and bloated, of course that's just my opinion.

    A long time ago, before the office suite concept, companies believed in "best of breed" software. You have to hand it to the marketing goons at Microsoft who convinced the corporate world that besides a word processor, every employee needs a spreadsheet and a copy of PowerPoint on their desktop.

  • Compatibility

    > As far as compatibility goes otherwise, I haven't noticed any difference in the look of my slides as I switch between PowerPoint and Impress. The only thing that is keeping the new 2.0 version of Impress from matching PowerPoint is the lack of slide backgrounds and clip art that really are essential to making a good presentation. Background designs and clip art used to make a PowerPoint slideshow do, however, open in Impress without problems. That said, I still prefer PowerPoint for maki

  • grammar hints, and it is a major piece in terms of development time. Also, anyone cares to bring Word Perfect. Dell bundles it free with its PCs I used it to write a 5 page article couple of years ago and found it to very smooth and pleasant to use, unlike OO, which felt clumsy and bulky at that time.

  • OO.o Express (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:37AM (#13424901) Homepage Journal
    I just got a MS PowerPoint in the email, and apt-get install'ed OO.o to view it (with Impress). It totally worked. Which was interesting, not because the PowerPoint was that complicated. To the contrary, it was 10 slides of simple bullet-point lists, no more than 3 levels deep, with no transitions or other fancy stuff - it could have been just as easily "presented" inline in the email to which it was attached. Which means the only role MS Office could have played in the process was to get in the way, locking me into the MS monopoly the way it's got the sender locked in. Which means the role Impress played there was to unlock me, without the sender even needing to know how much more free am I than are they. Which of course I told them - right in the reply email text :).

  • Here's a review I'd like to see (Score:4, Funny)

    by slickwillie ( 34689 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:38AM (#13424907)
    OpenOffice 2.0 vs MS Office Anything on Linux.

    Under Linux OO2.0 can do .

    MSOffice ... well, we are still waiting.

    There you have it folks.

  • OOo in enterprise? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @04:36AM (#13425787) Journal
    Same as with GIMP vs Photoshop. It's a decent substitute. Given choice: Have a raise and use free OOo or have MS Office purchased for your workplace, what would you choose? In my work position an office package is not essential. Write a request to another dept, report something to the boss, open a .doc file sent in by a clueless customer. It's all good for it, and fulfills its task perfectly. Maybe there are tasks where OOo is not sufficient and you need MS Office - I didn't find them yet.
    OTOH, the customer support dept uses MS Office exclusively. In most cases they get emails from the customers as common emails. Sometimes some dumbass customer sends the content of the email as attachment with Word .doc file. But once in 1000 emails, attachment of OpenOffice happens (usually from high-paying international customers, so can't be neglected). And then they come to me to have the file opened and printed with OOo, because they can't open it. Open Office's support for .doc files may be poor and buggy, but sorry, MS Office's support for .sxw is nonexistent. So, to whoever claiming you HAVE TO have MS Office instead of OOo if you don't want to lose your customers, you're wrong. You need BOTH.

  • Intuitive or RTFM - please stick with one (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gosand ( 234100 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @09:20AM (#13427108)
    I am by no means a fan of MS Office. But some of the big selling points with OO are because it does things a little more intuitively than MS Office. Yet, whenever "intuitiveness" is brought up with nearly every other app in Linux, people are told to RTFM, and "learn how it works, n00b".


    Hmm, so which is it? If I ever bring up usability when it comes to Linux apss, I get lambasted (probably by people that weren't even born when I got into the computer game). So next time you tell someone to RTFM, ask yourself if there is a way to make that app a little better so they don't have to RTFM.

  • One thing I HATE about OOo... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @11:01AM (#13428029)
    Note that I use OOo almost exclusively. I use Linux mostly, and I don't want to spend the money for MSOffice for my one Windows machine. But I use OOo for the same reason so many others use MSOffice: I am a captive audience. If I want to use a word processor and not spend money on both MSOffice and Crossover Office, OOo is what I have to use.

    When I started using Excel back in, what, 1992, I used it to make a LOT of presentations. They were financial with lots of numbers and computations that the customer would like to tweak, so Excel was appropriate. Nevertheless, despite being for a spreasheet, I was required to make the documents look VERY ATTRACTIVE. (Not to say that my lowly artistic skill accomplished the goal, but the boss thought I did okay.) I would do things like color-code cells, add borders, fiddle with fonts, etc. And one FREQUENT thing I would do was ctrl-click to select a disjoint set of cells and then apply formats to all of them at once.

    OOo cannot do this.

    This very basic feature that I and the people I learned from have been using for a VERY LONG TIME is something that OOo cannot do. When I first started using OOo at version 1.0.0, I immediately noticed this oversight and reported it in their bug database. The bug report disappeared. I've since posted it a couple more times, and this bug report seems to consistently disappear.

    Sure, it's possible that that (a) I'm a niche user who is unusual in his need for this feature, and (b) I don't know how to use their bug database to retrieve old bug reports. But the fact of the matter is, they have consistently left out this feature. I don't know if they've added it to 2.0, but I doubt it.

    Why does such a relatively small oversight bother me so much? Because I need it, and I cannot imagine that it could be THAT hard to fix. (But I wouldn't know, because the size of the OOo source is a bit overwhelming for me.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close