Slashdot Mirror
Why You Should Choose MS Office Over OO.org
sander writes "As noted on linxfr.org, Microsoft has published a competitive guide on OpenOffice.org 1.1 vs Microsoft Office. Some of the weirder things they claim in it is that by choosing MS Office over OpenOffice.org one is protected from the threat of viruses. But the giant seems to be sweating -- and with a good reason."
also, here is a translation of the link to linuxfr.org. Slashdot should have posted another link to the english version- i don't think the majority of
is it just me, or is microsoft the one who we usually hear about leaving bugs unresolved for months?
Actually, besides the already helpful OO.org developers, Novell has recently announced at brainshare that they will be giving full support for OO. From developers, to sales and user support. Not just for the linux part, but full OO support. Not a bad thing to have for those just getting into open source, or companies that need the assurances.
fencepost
just a little off
My emphasis, there. And I couldn't agree more. Handling issues of inaccessable Access databases is incredibly important, and is notorious for chewing up helpdesk hours.
Especially when Office 2000 broke Access compatibility with 98 databases, and forced everyone to upgrade (or to not touch the database with Access2000 so that those who had not yet upgraded could still get to their data).
OfficeXP did the same thing to 2000 databases - all it took was one XP user to touch the database, and all the 2000 users would suddenly be out of the loop. I fully expect Access2k3 to be the same way.
So yes, consider those Access databases as a major component of the cost of data migration. When one version of Access touches the database, be ready to install and deploy that same version to all your other clients, because with Access, you migrate your data whether you're ready to or not. And you pay every year for the privilige! Hooray!
I must be missing something. I just created a doc with a table in OO.o and saved it three times (XP doc/win95 doc/rtf). I then opened it up in word 2000 and it was correctly formatted in all three cases. Of course, I haven't bought a copy of office since office 2k premium, so this may relate to office xp and later revs... DAve
Hmm, is Mozilla still free ?
Yup.
Now, let me know when Mozilla will do calendar, appointment book, task list, and email integration.
And before you flame me as a troll - I use Firefox at home and work and Thunderbird at home. Work requires I use Outlook, and it's because of those features that it has value. I don't find its email capabilities particularly wonderful by themselves, not to mention the slew of virus vulnerabilities (but that's ok, because we paid for, at a considerable expense, a mail server virus scanner). Despite the drawbacks there is very little that is actually competitive with Outlook/Exchange. And most of the alternatives (Notes, for example) suck even more. Yes, there are some OSS solutions out there as well, but they're not up to the same level in functionality as Outlook/Exchange. And that's a pretty sad statement.
You may need to check your work here. I created (yesterday) and 7 page Word doc that included mutiple tables created in in Calc that behaved flawlessly. There are some problems in document conversion, but I have been using OO for more than 2 years and I have had only 2 issues that I had to find work arounds for, one of them being the font translation issue that messes up some bullet points. Btw I produce an average of 6 docs per week, since a large part of my work is technical writing. Also, its worthy of note that most of the people I send these to have never heard of an Office alternative, that idea hasn't even entered their universe, but I have not had one report of a problem.
Sure you can. One of those is mine, in fact: OO.o doesn't have an overbar (opposite of underline) font attribute for text. Really a problem for doing technical documentation, but to date nobody has wanted to bother with it. Including me, as it happens; if it were important enough to $EMPLOYER we'd have added it already.
Of course, MSOffice doesn't have overbar either. Wonder what it would take for $EMPLOYER to enhance MSWord?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Actually the Open Office people inherited it from the original Star Office produced by a german company Star Division. Neither Sun nor the Open Office developers have really dug that deep into it. The first version of Open/Star Office was not that much different than the original Star Office 5.2. That version could be made to look like Star Office 6 just by changing some configuration files inside. They originally removed more than they put in. It used to have a really decent email client and a not so decent web browser.
I love it. They touted Office's lip service to XML as an advantage, forgetting that OO's internal file format is pure XML with an open published DTD. A decent programmer can make software to read and repurpose an OO document with 100% accuracy.
Anyone with knowledge of both can blow away most of these arguments. However, some do have merit in certain circumstances.
I'd really like to use something other than microsoft office, but I am simply chained down because on most college campuses, everything is "powerpoint lecture" or the syllabus is a Word .doc file.
What's wrong with OpenOffice? It reads and saves MS Office docs extremely well. (Make sure you have the latest version!) And if you want to show people up and protest MS Office, you can export your documents to PDFs! My wife uses it to exchange letters in Russian with her father. Despite the fact that he's using Word, she can read and save the files without trouble. Works quite well. Oh, and OpenPresenter is almost exactly like PowerPoint.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Okay, in that case, let's compare:
r eq s.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/office/previous/xp/sys
Windows XP Professional, or Windows XP Home Edition
128 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
Office XP Standard
210 MB of available hard disk space
Office XP Professional and Professional Special Edition
245 MB of available hard disk space
Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6 (SP6) or later, Windows 2000, or Windows XP or later.
Computer with Pentium 133 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended
Okay, so break it down:
A computer (d'uh), 210-245 Megs of RAM PLUS 8 megs for each product run (so Word, Excel, Access, Outlook = 32 Megs) so 242-277 megs. OS: Windows.
Now from the article:
System Requirements
Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) - Pentium-compatible PC,
64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD; or
Linux (x86, PowerPC) - 64 MB RAM and 170 MB HD
Solaris (x66, SPARC) - 64 MB RAM and 240 MB HD; or
MacOSX (beta); or
FreeBSD
Hmmm, so OO uses less RAM, less system resources, any runs on a variety of platforms.
Now here's the clincher:
basic feature functionality that
enables content authoring is only one small aspect of what a
small business needs.
So they are promoting bloating. Neat!
Mod +5 Drunk
I tried to use OpenOffice for an online Technical Writing class last term (just ended last week). It worked fairly well. I was always able to get the information out of the documents. Only formatting was ever broken.
Unfortunately that's not always good enough. After too many times correcting "mistakes" that weren't actually mistakes (e.g. suggesting that a classmate put bullets in his list, even though there already WERE bullets, OpenOffice just wasn't showing them) I ended up switching back to Word.
OpenOffice is good at reading Word documents, but it's definitely not good enough for everyone's needs.
Counter to what the competitive points claim, Sun provides fee based support for the top-tier platforms (Linux-x86, Solaris, Win32) for OpenOffice.org, not just for StarOffice. It's right in the "Commercial Support and Training" portion of the OOo support homepage next to the Sun logo. There are also some other firms and independent consultants listed. Gee, not only can you get paid support from Sun, but price around your support needs as well! You'd think that if MS is trying to sell Office with support as a major bullet point they could at least have given the webpage a look!
:)
While I can't speak for other places, on trinity where I host and answer OOo OS X support forums there's usually a Mac OOo expert answering questions within one day of asking. There are non-programmers who volunteer their time to help new people with installation, deployment, how-tos, etc. It seems unfair to belittle one-on-one expert help just because it's done for free
ed
RTF (which is, by the way, an older standard than Word), it would have looked fine in either word processor.
Have you ever actually LOOKED at a RTF file? It never, ever looks fine.
Also, from the doxygen manual.:
"Note that the RTF output probably only looks nice with Microsoft's Word 97. If you have success with other programs, please let me know."
RTF is clearly not completely standard, and in my experience most often looks like hell (our co-op office used to make us submit resumes in it).
That's not totally openoffice's fault. If your friend would have sent you the file in an open format, then you wouldn't have had a problem.
Uh, I made no mention of faults. Show me the part of my post where I claimed that it was OpenOffice's fault (whatever that means). Believe me, I would've much rather used OpenOffice than installing VMWare, Windows, and Word.
But it doesn't really matter whose fault it was. I was responding to a guy who claimed that you could use OpenOffice in a school environment without any problems. My experience tells me that might be true for some classes, but is absolutely not true for classes where exact reproduction of formatting is important.
There is the question of 'de facto standard' formats, however. I'm not bashing OO here, but the fact is that .doc is an extremely widely used format. Maybe even like gif or jpg, at least a png or bmp. It really should handle .doc's the way they're supposed to be handled, of course. And due to the incredibly wide use of the .doc format, it could be considered a 'fault,' as you say. The burden isn't on Word to provide interoperability with a so-rare-it's-almost-obscure format, but on OO to fit in with the mainstream.
Again, not saying OO is bad...you people scare me...don't hurt me.
I think the effect you're after is demonstrated by this one-page presentation (also in MS format). All I did was right-click the text objects (on their borders so the object itself is being referred to, not the text in the object), choose effects, and pick an effect for them. You can do this en bloc as well.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing