Deploying Open Office?

scubacuda asks: "I've mass deployed OpenOffice at work. Of the 40 computers running, ALL are running OpenOffice (only about 5 are running Microsoft Office in addition). I'm quite surprised at how well-received the deployment has been thus far: secretaries seem to be pleased with how well it integrates with Avery labels, it converts to/from Microsoft Office DOC/XLS files, etc. Have any other slashdotters implemented OpenOffice in an enterprise environment? If so, what have been the reactions from users and management?"

Comments

I'm using it now

[Gruturo]

I am manager of a project with 5 staff. Before shoving it down the throat of my people, I wanted to use it myself and see if it's really usable/stable/reliable/compatible....

(I have quite a bit of unix/linux background, detonating kernels and X servers for some 10 years, not your average newbie)

It's Ugly and Slow.
I'm still using because I don't want to shell $$$ to Micro$oft which is rich enough already, but it's unpleasant when it takes 14 seconds to start on a P3-850 w/ 256MB. I more often end up moving the document to a PC with Office, working there, then taking it back, using OO only as an emergency.

Only recently I discovered AbiWord and it was instant love: 3MB installer, small memory footprint, starts in a flash, and it's NICE!!!!

OO is soooo unsexy (and memory-hungry) that I avoid using it whenever possible. Its UI definitely needs some work, not even the scroller on my touchpad works in it (it does in AbiWord and in everything else).

If only there was some usable Excel replacement for the Win32 platform (Yes I'm running Win2K on all office PCs. No Linux, sorry, it's not really ready yet for the desktop.) a la gnumeric, I think OO would disappear rather quickly from my PC.

msoffice is only faster to start because...

[ignorant_newbie]

it's already half loaded. C'mon guys, why do you measure how fast something is based on how fast it starts? do your useage habits consist of launching it, looking at a document for 30 seconds, and then closing it again, or do you use some of it's features? are these features slow? so maybe it's slow to start because it's too polite to use your system resources _all_ the time just in case you want to launch it in 5 seconds.

Re:msoffice is only faster to start because...

[WIAKywbfatw]

This is a good point, and you can't compare Microsoft programs on Microsoft OSs with non-Microsoft programs on the same OS.

This is a valid point but what alternative is there for an IT manager catering for Windows users?

In the real world, if the options are Microsoft Office running on Windows 98/2000/XP or Open Office running on Windows 98/2000/XP then nothing's going to change the fact that, to the end user, Microsoft's suite launches faster and thus appears to run quicker.

I really respect IT managers who are making the transition from Micosoft's suite to the open source alternative. We're all naturally suspicious of change - it's a basic instinct - and your average PC user is no exception. Users who bend over backwards to avoid "learning" how to use a new piece of software are all too common and two or three of these can really eat up a helpdesk's time.

Let's face it, transitioning difficult users from one revision of Microsoft Office to another is often hard enough - transitioning them from Microsoft Office to Open Office must be like trying to push water uphill.

I'm not saying that such transitioning shouldn't be done - of course it should, and not just because of the cost implications - but what I am saying is that it isn't always an easy task.

But focusing on how Microsoft's OS architecture is favoured towards their own applications isn't going to help sell end users on the merits of Open Office; it's just a big red herring. Better that you just acknowledge that Open Office does take a few seconds longer to load but affirm that it's just as fast (if not faster) and just as reliable (if not more reliable) in operation.

That last point alone will sell most of the doubters - after all, we've all lost a document or two to a crashing application and anything that will reduce the frequency of such crashes is officially A Good Thing.

In summary if you play down the startup speed and just focus on the application and it's benefits to the end user then you'll do just fine.

Tried and abandoned

[Anonymous Coward]

Before even attempting this in our office of about 60 workers we took a sample of around 50 word documents and tested each for template compatibility, macro safety, embedded object handling, printed output, faxed output, HTML conversion, spelling, preservation of tables, lists, you name it... It passed that OK and we moved on to the next phase, which was testing about 10 **HUGE** excel files for problems between formulas, macros, printed output, charts, etc. etc... the results were acceptable. PowerPoint was not as important but it passed those acceptably as well. In addition to all of these internal tests we had to mail some files to frequent clients and suppliers to make sure we weren't breaking anything with our partners, and apart from one or two glitches everything was a go (not like there are never glitches with "real" office anyway).

So finally we rolled everything out one weekend, uninstalling MS Office in the process.

After three days we were back to re-installing Office 97 everywhere, because we found to our surprise that *nobody* could work without the paper clip.

OOo 1.0.1 has Quickstart anyway

[AFreeman]

I just installed OOo 1.0.1 on windows having being impressed with it on Linux, and it has a Quickstart feauter - so this should help with startup times...