Aqua OpenOffice for Mac OS X

Re:I think... by ruiner13 · 2002-10-04 10:26 · Score: 3, Informative

"What is that dock program that looks like a world? Never seen that before..."

That's probably OmniWeb, by the Omni Group.

--

today is spelling optional day.

great, but... by mkoz · 2002-10-04 10:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is great news, but consider what this really means. What we really want & need, a fully native version, is still someway off. The subtext is the more people who can help the faster and better off we will be.
MAK

Red Hat and Apple's Office Suite of choice? by amichalo · 2002-10-04 10:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

With an Aqua version of Open Office soon available, and Open Office shipping as default install on Red Hat 8.0, are we seeing a dominant #2 player in the Office Suite market?

--
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.

re: Red Hat and Apple's Office Suite of choice? by tomdarch · 2002-10-07 06:14 · Score: 2

Believe it or not/sadly enough Word Perfect/Perfect Office is still chugging along. Dell is shipping it instead of M$ Works on low end machines and it has it's fanatical adherents. We even proposed on a project where the final, complicated, should-be-done in Quark or InDesign report has to be in an editable WP file!

Re:I think... by pi+radians · 2002-10-04 10:45 · Score: 2

It is Omniweb, thats what their icon looked like before the most recent 2 (?) updates to it.

--

sin(6cos(r)+5A)

Re:I think... by a_d_white · 2002-10-04 10:46 · Score: 2

Actually, it is the icon for the 4.1 beta versions of OmniWeb. I was kind of disappointed when they changed it to the current blue/green globe, rather than the more Aqua looking globe seen in the screenshot. But both are vast improvements over the pre-4.1 icon.

Only Mac users would argue about icons. ;-)

Re:I think... by Peer · 2002-10-04 10:55 · Score: 2

It _is_ omniweb, however the screendump is not this new release. See http://www.neooffice.org/ for more details.

A Sweet Suite Situation by Big+Sean+O · 2002-10-04 11:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Things are looking up for Mac users. Soon we will have three office productivity suites running in Aqua.

Microsoft Office. Probably not coincidentally, it's being sold for 1/2 price when you buy a new Mac.
AppleWorks. Which is almost as free as in beer, since it comes bundled with your new Mac.
and now OpenOffice.org.

Lots of people would say that having three different suites is a bad thing, but I don't think so anymore:

XML file formats: Both MS Office and Open Office have documented XML-based file specifications. This will make it possible for open source conversion stylesheets. Sure, there will be translation glitches, but the open nature of the file specification will make all types of conversion of content possible.
Variety of Tools. Some people like vi. Some people like emacs. Some people like BBEdit. Same for Office Suites. My wife has AppleWorks and MS Office, but she likes AppleWorks better. Me, I don't care what WP program I use, but I get really fussy when I can't use Excel. Too much finger memory built up.
Evolution. Like the varied Mozilla projects, lots of choices and experimentation is good. The more open code out there, the more new breakthrough projects built on the back of giants.

--
My father is a blogger.

Re:A Sweet Suite Situation by goon+america · 2002-10-04 11:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, AppleWorks is only bundled with i(Book|Mac)s. Power(Book|Mac)s don't, though they come with other neat goodies like GraphicConverter.
Re:A Sweet Suite Situation by weo · 2002-10-04 14:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Aaaah but you forget the OTHER office application.

KOffice run well on OSX using fink or the other linux@OSX distributions. I can't wait for KDE 3.1 to run on OSX.

OSX+OS(kde+gnu+gnome+X....) = ME+:)

on a side note I want linksys to make a a box with exportable X session or VNC session running linux. The only difference from what they sell now and what I'm talking about is a harddrive and a beefier processor. I'ld pay for a linux applience for 100bucks.

weo

--
#=-weo-=#
Re:A Sweet Suite Situation by Thenomain · 2002-10-05 22:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

While it's nice to have a lot of UNIX apps available for the Macintosh, many, especially those requiring the installation of an XWindow-For-Aqua solution, are for the *NIX tinkerer. This describes a demographic that Apple certainly wants to keep happy, but not one the one that will make Apple the market share they want.

For that, they need Aqua apps that "Just Work"(tm). Simple to install (or uninstall), laid out in an expected manner. Possibly expandable through CLI-level tweaking of scripts, but working out of the box.

Though I'm constantly happy to see OS/X offering the more-or-less best of both worlds. Definitely the better-than-anyone-else of both worlds. And I'm downright giddy that OpenOffice is embracing the OS and philosophy.

--
This now concludes our broadcast day.
Re:A Sweet Suite Situation by tupps · 2002-10-06 10:52 · Score: 3, Informative

There is also ThinkFree Office. Haven't used it but it has been getting good reviews: http://www.thinkfree.com/

--
Go out and get sailing!

read the weblog more closely... by soullessbastard · 2002-10-04 11:07 · Score: 4, Informative

X11 is going beta next week, not aqua. the aqua version is still in the planning stages.

Re:read the weblog more closely... by foobar104 · 2002-10-04 11:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not to be pedantic, but Aqua is a user interface appearance. What you're talking about is Quartz/AppKit, which is the user interface code that implements the Aqua appearance.

And from a read of the article, it sounds like there are no plans to create a Quartz/AppKit version of OpenOffice. They're talking about removing dependencies on X11 so it'll run on OS X without an X server, but they're not talking about replacing their homegrown and decidedly un-Mac-like UI code with true OS X UI code.

It's a shame. If that's the path they choose, the best they'll be able to do is a poor imitation of a true OS X application.
Re:read the weblog more closely... by volsung · 2002-10-05 03:58 · Score: 5, Informative

If you go to the OpenOffice porting site, you find they ARE going to port to Quartz/Appkit:
http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/
They are doing the port incrementally.
Re:read the weblog more closely... by SiMac · 2002-10-12 07:16 · Score: 2

Bzzt...

There are three versions of OpenOffice for Mac OS X in development. The first is Darwin/X11. This is what's going into beta. Then there's Quartz. This is the first version that will not require XFree86, but will have a Windows look and feel. Finally, there's Aqua, which will actually look like a standard Aqua app. Quartz is scheduled for beta in Q2 2003, Aqua is scheduled for beta in Q1 2004.

See the roadmap here.

It's not Aqua yet by l-ascorbic · 2002-10-04 11:36 · Score: 4, Informative

The article says:

Next week, public beta of the X11 release for Darwin 6, Mac OS X 10.2.

This is still the X11 version. Sure, it'll be nice to try it, but it won't have Mac look and feel, and certainly won't obey the Human Interface Guidelines yet. It seems that the Aqua demo was of NeoOffice, which is just a proof of concept for developers, not a real distribution.

NeoOffice is a mildly functional prototype office suite used for exploring technologies for use in OpenOffice.org. It is not a distribution and not in active development. It is a sandbox for testing out potentially unstable and ugly technologies that are not appropriate for a maintainable source base.

Looks like there's a lot more work to be done...

Re:well, i WOULD be excited about this by SensitiveMale · 2002-10-04 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh no, MS isn't a monopoly. Good thing other competing companies can afford to give any their products.

Oh wait, what other competing companies are left?

dead link! by soullessbastard · 2002-10-04 12:10 · Score: 2, Informative

The link above should be http://www.neooffice.org.

Re:I think... by Xenex · 2002-10-04 12:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, you're right; the attractive aqua globe was the OmniWeb icon though the entire 4.1 beta/sneaky peak period, and The Omni Group then changed it to the blue-green globe on the release of the 4.1 final.

But why? I have yet to hear anyway say the preferred the blue-green icon to the aqua one.

Well, apparently the reason they changed the icon is due to Apple. Apple asked for the change, because they felt the icon was too similar to the iTools icon. Now personally, I think that was a bit heavy-handed on Apple's part. Besides, most people never see the the iTools/.Mac icon now, since it started to cost money...

Aqua Would be nice. by jellomizer · 2002-10-04 12:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Although I have open office for OS X in X11. It makes it a real hassle to run. I usually end up running Appleworks except for open office. Although I would prefer to use Open Office then Apple Works but it takes a while for XDarwin to start up which in most cases gets in the way. And the fact the interface is differnt from the rest of the application on the Mac so it effect my productivity because I have to adjust my way of thinking to switch to apps.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:well, i WOULD be excited about this by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-04 12:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are you sure it was such a kickass licensing deal, or did your school get blackmailed by MS and as a student you now how to spend a large portion of your student technology fees on these products.

If its anything like my school, MS blackmailed the school out of Five Million Dollars a year that would have gone to upgrading computer labs and paying technology consultants fair and equitable raises, forcing a maximium numb of non-Windows Servers on campus as well as placing a cap on the funny hardware systems faculty might buy such as Macs.

Don't kid yourself, MS came to your school and threatened to sue it for piracy and otherwise if it didn't agree to the terms as it has with all the other schools.

Re:I think... by Channing · 2002-10-04 20:32 · Score: 2, Informative

There are some nice replacement icons sets for Omniweb over at xicons:
Omniweb Icon
Omniweb Replacement

Chang

Re:I think... by Christopher+McCarthy · 2002-10-05 03:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, it was my understanding that the previous OmniWeb icon looked too much like the icon for the 'Internet' pane under System Preferences, not the 'Network' icon. And, comparing them, they do look pretty similar, especially at the small size at which the 'Internet' icon is usually viewed in the System Preferences window. Too bad, though: I really preferred the old OmniWeb icon to the current blue-and-green one.

This case doesn't seem to be the classic one of Apple getting tough on third parties over UI issues. I could be wrong, but it looks like Apple simply asked the Omni Group to change their icon, and the Omni people granted their request. It would make sense that these two companies would want to remain on good terms, as the Omni Group, as far as I'm concerned, is setting the standards for how OS X applications should look and behave--in some cases, even more so than Apple is.

And how could you not love a software company who states that their mission is to "make software that is useful and fun?"

OT, but I'm curious... by interactive_civilian · 2002-10-05 05:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

IANADeveloper but...

This is still the X11 version. Sure, it'll be nice to try it, but it won't have Mac look and feel, and certainly won't obey the Human Interface Guidelines yet.

I know the Apple HIG are meant to guide people developing Macintosh software, but why don't more developer's use them to help when designing GUI based software regardless of the platform?

IMHO, Apple knows what they are talking about when it comes designing an interface, so the HIG seem to be a great resource for anyone to use.So, any of you programmers for windows and *nix pay any attention to them?

A lot of people talk about trying to get linux on the desktop and how to do it...call me crazy but perhaps if developers kept the HIG in mind it would push things forward quite a bit as far as linux usability goes...

note: I am not saying the HIG must be followed to the letter but it seems like it would be a great starting point for developers of any GUI based software...

Any thoughts on this? Can the HIG be a valuable resource for anyone?

--
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks

Re:OT, but I'm curious... by babbage · 2002-10-05 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

The principle that you're getting at is a sound one, and I don't object to it. That said though, I don't agree that the Aqua HIG document should be taken as the canonical reference for development on any platform. Rather, the Aqua HIG is a pretty good implementation of a more abstract general idea, but in other contexts different implementations of the idea can make more sense. For example, why should Windows developers try to adhere to the Mac user interface guidelines when Microsoft already publishers The Windows Interface Guidelines for Software Design: An Application Design Guide, which would be far more appropriate for Windows developers.
The thing is, user interface standards are, I think everyone would agree, generally a good thing. But different platforms have different ideas about what the standards should be. Any particular standard isn't necessarily better or worse than any of the others as long as it's consistent, logical, and easily learned. And as long as one standard is consistent & logical & so on, it's more of a problem to try to impose another systems consistent, logical framework. So for example the Aqua guidelines suggest how to arrange menus, what functionality should be in each one, how to arrange dialog windows, keystrokes to adhere to, etc. The Windows guidelines make different recommendations in each of these areas. The goal should be to adapt to the local system, so that users don't have to adapt to whatever platform the software was developed on.
The shambling train wreck here is Linux and X11, where the best you can hope for is some particular toolkits suggested but generally half thought out HIG standard. The best you can hope for is what Gnome or KDE offers, but still you as a user can't assume that all applications you use are going to adhere to one, the other, or even any standard. Everyone just makes up their own damn standard and the user has no choice but to wrestle them all down. Here, maybe it *would* make some sense to bring in ideas from the Aqua guidelines, or for that matter the Windows guidelines, the classic Mac guidelines, or hell anything else -- just pick *anything* and implement it *consistently*. But of course this has never happened and at this point I don't expect it to ever come together, short of a miracle in say RedHat's effort to merge KDE & Gnome. More power to 'em I say.
Anyway, I think what you really want is for someone to approach this as a true & complete discipline, just as programming & QA & administration are all disciplines. We need system designers that understand general UI theory (including general design principles, user testing & feedback schemes, etc) as well as specific implementations of the general theory as seen in e.g. Aqua, Windows, web design [Jakob Nielsen type stuff], etc. But in the end this all just has to be source material, and short of adopting someone else's standards full out -- that'll never happen -- in the end a cohesive Linux/X11 UI standard needs to emerge. Gnome & KDE & similar projects will play into this of course, but even those aren't fleshed out enough and the pointless rift between the two projects doesn't help things anyway. As long as there continues not to be a well thought out Linux/X11 HIG document that is widely referred to & implemented, using Linux will continue to be a painful experience for average [read: non-geek] users.
But then we all know that already, don't we?

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

Re:hope it works... by analog_line · 2002-10-05 08:43 · Score: 2

Forget TextEdit, I use BBEdit for all my word processing. I have no need in the least for the fancy formatting crap that you get in most office applications. It'd be nice to get some free regular office software (I don't use AppleWorks, you think only MS Office uses proprietary formats?) for those rare occasions when I need something more than BBEdit, but not having it is more a nuisance than a problem.

Re:well, i WOULD be excited about this by volsung · 2002-10-05 12:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

(I'm also a UT student and cashed in on this deal last week. Still waiting for VMWare to arrive so I can keep XP in an emulator.)

Yes it is way cheap, but you have some really wonderful clauses in the licensing:

If UT decides not to renew their site license with Microsoft, you license is immediately revoked.
If you quit the university, your license is revoked.

At least the license converts to a permanent license if you graduate (your parting gift!).

OOo for Darwin, no OS X by nedron · 2002-10-10 09:45 · Score: 2

Note that the beta release is for Darwin, which means you need an X server running on OS X to use it. This really isn't worth much to OS X users until the Aqua part comes along.

--

* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.

29 of 61 comments (clear)