Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aqua OpenOffice for Mac OS X

Posted by pudge on from the aqua-licious dept.

rhetland writes "An article on O'Reilly network discusses the new port of OpenOffice to Mac OS X. The public beta, due out next week, will be posted on the OpenOffice Mac site. I have been waiting for this for months, and can hardly wait."

14 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I think... by ruiner13 · · 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.

  2. great, but... by mkoz · · 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

  3. A Sweet Suite Situation by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 4, Informative
    Things are looking up for Mac users. Soon we will have three office productivity suites running in Aqua.

    1. Microsoft Office. Probably not coincidentally, it's being sold for 1/2 price when you buy a new Mac.
    2. AppleWorks. Which is almost as free as in beer, since it comes bundled with your new Mac.
    3. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    1. Re:A Sweet Suite Situation by goon+america · · 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.

    2. Re:A Sweet Suite Situation by tupps · · 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!
  4. read the weblog more closely... by soullessbastard · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    1. Re:read the weblog more closely... by foobar104 · · 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.

    2. Re:read the weblog more closely... by volsung · · 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.

  5. It's not Aqua yet by l-ascorbic · · 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...

  6. Re:I think... by Xenex · · 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...

  7. Aqua Would be nice. by jellomizer · · 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.
  8. OT, but I'm curious... by interactive_civilian · · 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
    1. Re:OT, but I'm curious... by babbage · · 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
  9. Re:well, i WOULD be excited about this by volsung · · 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!).