Slashdot Mirror
OpenOffice 2.0 Preview Release
gmuslera writes "A preview release of
OpenOffice.org 2.0 was released, which has new
features like better MS-Office compatibility, an Access-like program and a more. Here is a review
of it with screenshots and how it performs. It's work in progress, maybe not recomended for production sites, but it is a good sample of what is coming."
But when will they ever have native OS X support?
Or does that crossed out '1.1' and scribbled in '2.0' look REALLY cheap?
Make sure you have java installed. Looks good, although the new database tool crashed a lot for me.
Microsoft needs the help to keep their prices down :)
roamingfeet
an Access-like program
I remember when those were called "databases."
A look at the new features page doesn't mention it. This is my major criticism of OO. It's frustratingly slow to open documents. With email attachments, it's a major PITA. I'll stick with abiword and gnumeric.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Site's a bit slow right now. Does anyone know if the new release is trimmed down at all? Initial startup times for me can range from 10 to 30 seconds, and perhaps I'm just spoiled, but even celestia (a program that plots the locations of millions of stars, galaxies and other celestial bodies and displays them using OpenGL) starts up faster than that!
:-(
I like the feature-set of OOo, but I keep using Gnumeric and AbiWord for performance reasons.
It looks like they took the screenshots in Windows, so maybe in Linux they will look different.
Frankly, at least if they change it for Linux, I think a more Windowsish theme will help it's acceptance; it's closer to what people know and use now.
The work being done with OpenOffice is very much appreciated. However, there is still a great deal to be done. For example, the article reports of a load time of 10 seconds for Writer. On my laptop with a slow 4200 rpm hard drive AbiWord takes about 2 seconds and MS Word takes about the same.
The bundling of all the Office components into one mega-app appears to make for a sluggish suite and that is going to take time to fix.
I would say its more important that My resume created in OO renders exactly that same in word.
Since you as the the resume author are the one with OO and your potential employer is the one most likely running MS office.
I haven't grabbed the latest version of OO but I do know that all older versions do not render my resume the same way that MS Word does.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
[i]Microsoft already makes a good office suite that doesn't cost much and runs on PCs and Apples.[/i]
Wait, did I just hear you say that?
Let's see...
Office 2003 Standard Edition: $399 ($239 if you're upgrading from another version) for Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook.
If you would also like to get programs like Access (included in the Professional edition: $499 ($339 if you're upgrading from another version).
Now, let's see... OpenOffice...
Oh, look. It's free!
[i]The upside is you "save" a little on price. The downside is you lose on maintenance costs and you'll probably get fired for not going the safe route. Just stick with Microsoft.[/i]
Maintenance cost... You mean like in maintenance when fixing your computer because Outlook let a virus slip through?
Or like with macro's in word?
Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
Also curious....because the OpenOffice team said OS X support was "never going to happen" in 1.x, not worth their time, wasted effort since 2.0 is around the corner, blah blah..."wait until 2.0".
MacOS X has been the most prevalent Unix desktop for a while now, and Apple's developer documentation is first class. Can we please get support for OS X? Pretty please?
Please help metamoderate.
Hypothetically...
if the OOo-made document opens in Office 97, 2000, and 2002, but breaks in 2003, then it *IS* MS's deliberate attempt to break compatability.
PLEASE!!!
My wife and our church both used WordPerfect for years, and have thousands of documents in that format. Existing conversion utilities, particularly free ones, really don't work well at all.
At this point we'd be happy just preserving the text and the basic formatting. Having images and complex formatting import properly would be nice, but at this point we're really just looking for a way out of WP-land.
It's kind of hard to believe that it's that hard to read a file format.
I read from the article that they intend to have an application that mimics MS Access.
I hope they do a really bad job at this. A full featured mimic of MS Access would introduce a variety of really bizarre errors, instabilities and WTfs into their feature set.
Actually, I'm surprised they didn't just roll off something that ran on a database plug-in. And that plug-in would support MySQL or Postgresql. By supporting both you avoid the flame wars and by supporting a real database you get some real capabilities.
Microsoft Office will get OO support when OO converts enough end-users that OO has more users than MS-Office. They will gain OO support at that point because OO will be more powerful and then it will become the "standard." In order for OO to become that powerful, they need to support MS-Office so that people will be able to switch easily.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
Okay, now one that doesn't suck in a Gimp-like "let's have have 27,000 different windows that aren't connected so if you change to another program you have to activate all of them in order to keep working again" way?
Or a way to fix the above problem?
No, it doesn't open an mdb natively with all the forms & reports. But you can ODBC in, and CRUD all the tables, data, and queries.
useless to companies that already have bunch of access stuff already.
Those wishing to move their inhouse apps off Access can use this to create new OOo front ends, using their current data, in its current location in the MDB.
Then, later, move the data out of Access, and retain the new, OOo based, frontend.
Remodeling/rebuilding a database is only a nightmare if the first one was built shoddily. Neither OOo, Access, Oracle, MySQL, or any other db tool can prevent that.
It's not really the same as the Firefox situation. Firefox is simply a better browser than IE, in almost all ways. Basically, the only reasonably acceptable reason for not using Firefox over IE is that you haven't heard of Firefox. Thus, the NYT ad makes sense.
OpenOffice, on the other hand, while getting very good, is still not as good as Microsoft Office in many ways. If you are on a platform that can run either, and you aren't picking based on philosophy (e.g., you simply hate Microsoft, or insist on open source software) or price, then MS Office is still the better choice.
So, any money that could be spent on an ad would be better spent on development and documentation, to try to close the gap with MS Office.
I fail to understand how any part of that response lies "on the other hand"--if anyone doesn't like what they get with free software, they have options. Two of those options are to learn to program and do the work themselves, or purchase the time and expertise of a programmer.
The "on the other hand" part is that they have valid issues to complain about, even if it is a free program. One of the reasons OS X is more popular on the desktop than Linux is that no one in Mac OS X forums ever tells you to learn how to program or RTFM. Learning to program for a non-programmer, or hiring a programmer are both pretty unreasonable solutions for most people. It is much cheaper and easier to just buy MS office (which is what most people do). There is nothing wrong with making polite feature requests. In fact it is very useful as it help the creators understand what people would like their software to do. On a very related topic, I'd just like to mention that I know a number of writers and artists who have expressed interest in helping out on open source projects. (Have you ever noticed how crappy the docs, help systems, and graphics are for many projects?) The response from the open source community has been profoundly negative. Polite offers of help and requests for information on what needs to be done have mostly been ignored and occasionally been flamed. The hostile and elitist attitudes of many open source zealots are really hurting the community. Perhaps you should be a little more understanding of non-programmers and you will find that they do have useful things to contribute, if you will let them. I know one open source game that lost the potential free services of one of the most talented graphic artists I know, simply because when he offered up a few sample textures and models for the game, he was flamed off the boards for offering them in the wrong format (something that could have been converted in about a minute if someone would have politely told him what format was used.) Comment like, "thats a windows only format MS-bitch" are not exactly going to win any friends. Now I'm not saying that you have been impolite, or that you are specifically causing a problem, but your attitude that non-programers have no right to make comments is just the sort of attitude that pushes talent away.
the BSA is the friend of disgruntled employees... just like OSHA.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes Im sure you need all that extra access to memory for a word processor
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
First of all, I'm sure the OOo developers would LOVE to follow the Word format correctly. That is, if it were a standard format, which it isn't, or if it were documented at all, which it isn't.
...
Secondly, let's assume just for the sake of argument that you had full access to all required documentation, had direct access to the internal MS code that reads/writes the files, and access to the developers who designed the file spec in the first place. Given that, you should be able to create a pretty good import/export tool, no?
So Microsoft shouldn't have any problems with their own format, right? After all, it can't be that tricky, and they DO have all of the advantages listed above.
Ah, but have you ever tried to import older Word documents into the most recent version of Word? Or even worse, to try to save a newer Word file in an older file format? It doesn't usually crash, but the translation makes OOo's Word export look pretty good.
Now, I realize that I haven't directly answered your question. All that the above is trying to do is convey the underlying complexity of the problem, and the fact that MS itself can't even get it right.
To address the specific issue of broken compatability: Given that MS makes a great deal (most?) of its money from lock-in to its proprietary formats, I would say that they have a vested interest in protecting their monopoly, no?
Of course it isn't proveable (think anti-trust ramifications here), but would it not be convenient, given this vast complexity of code, if some change just so happened to break compatability with a competitor?
Especially when you realize that when MS-Word imports older documents (even from previous versions of MS-Word), they get run through an intermediate converter that changes them to RTF, and then the RTF is imported.
You wouldn't expect the Word 97 -> RTF converter to need to change with each new release of Office, would you?
No, of course not. Not unless they were fixing a bug. And for a company where interoperability itself is a bug
It seems like the Java dependencies are becoming increasingly important. But if you have an open source office suite and it depends on a large, proprietary software product like Sun Java to function, then the freedoms you are supposed to get from using FOSS are not guaranteed anymore. Effectively, only the parts of OpenOffice that are usable without Sun Java are FOSS.
Let's hope that FOSS Java-like implementations (Kaffe, RVM, etc.) will become a drop-in replacement for Sun Java for OpenOffice so that all of OpenOffice functionality will be FOSS.
It's annoying to have to install lots of compatibility libraries because just one application is stuck in 32-bit-land. Also, 64-bit applications are faster on x86_64 than 32-bit applications, contrary to just about all other architectures.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Not necessarily. It's quite possible that the OpenOffice developers have reverse-engineered them incorrectly in a way that is only noticed by later versions of MS Word.
An easy comparison would be that many web browsers display malformed HTML, but that doesn't make it correct HTML and there's no guarantee that future browsers will continue to display it in the future. It's quite possible that anyone having to reverse-engineer HTML without access to the specifications might mis-interpret something and end up generating something malformed that would be displayed by some earlier browser versions but not later ones.
Undocumented formats suck, but I think it's premature to suggest that Microsoft is deliberately targetting the reverse engineers just because a later version of Word fails to open something that earlier versions will open. I'm sure that certain people running Microsoft wouldn't care in the slightest about this incompatibility, and it's most likely the effect they're after with the closed format. It's also possible that the Microsoft developers simply adjusted part of their document model that the OpenOffice team had semantically mis-interpreted.
I want 'em to do to OO.o what Firefox did to Mozilla: Split the package into multiple independent programs. I get mad every time I choose "Exit" on writer forgetting that it will also kill my spreadsheets.
FreeSpeech.org
Ed,
:[
The one thing I find depressing here is that Apple has not put some resources at this one. The benefit that Apple will get from having Native OOO is astronomical. The number of users who would be available to switch to OSX is much higher than people imagine.
Picture all those users who:
-- Don't want to pay for crazy Win32 OS prices
-- Don't want to pay for M$ Office prices
-- Are not sys admins (or capable of) and as such cannot, and should not, use linux
-- Who, rightly so, have an moral aversion to installing M$ software on a OSX box
-- Want stable enterprise quality office apps running on a stable system (OOO on OSX)
I know that the number of users that are above are in the millions globally. If OOO was native, all of the above could selling features of Mac OSX. I am not even thinking of the corporate possibilities here.
I know that many argue that M$ Office is available but it's way too unstable and the interface bites. Also programmability is poor.
Another argument against OOO on OSX is that apple has AppleWorks. But, apple has never and will never come close to the features programmability of OOO. Personally, I still consider AppleWorks a toy product not worthy of true enterprise Office hacking.
I am sure that Sun is aware of the benefits that Apple will gain by an native version and this is why they don't care to pay anybody to do the work.
Sad state of affairs
I am very glad that you have put in all the work so far and I will be glad to assist in the future in any of your 'forks' to get OOO 2.0 on OSX.
Keep up the good work!
JsD
[Looking forward to hacking python/javascript/... apps on top of OOO 2.0]
> Sun pays no one to work on Mac OS X support.
look, I know this is obvious and all, but since when has is it been one non-free OS company's job to support another non-free OS's software - even with the spirit of RMS blessing them (or not)
I'm sure you're doing a great job, but how's Apple's work on paying people to work on Dtrace?
Sun are doing a great job with the 4 (!) archs/kernels that you mention above. Maybe Apple could move some dev. time from, I dunno, fskcing widget extensions for OSX10.5.1.2.4.2 to chuck an engineer or two at OO.org on OSX?
http://milkshake.dexy.org
Are not sys admins (or capable of) and as such cannot, and should not, use linux
Linux is just a kernel. There are some software distributions that utilize Linux which are difficult for non-sysadmins to use. There are also some which are nearly idiot proof today. (moreso than Windows, almost as good as OSX) Don't make silly generalizations about who should and should not use Linux.
I can see that you have missed my point. What I was saying is that people will pay for a finished project, but unless someone makes a huge effort to organize them, they will not contract someone to write/port one. Most users are just fine with MS Office, and are not looking hard for an alternative. If one was presented, they would consider it, and it would likely gain popularity, but hiring someone is just not going to happen. Open Source extremists do not run OS X. OS X is for people who want power, and ease of use, and don't mind paying money for it, and don't care if all the source is open, so long as it works. MS Office works (but is buggy), OpenOffice does not (it is somewhat functional, but not finished).
Personally, I don't use OpenOffice or MS Office except to test the compatibility of files. The reason I mentioned that I think the OpenOffice team should consider putting effort into it, is because it is a good strategic move to prevent MS from killing them with their proprietary format lock-in. I don't expect Sun to actually care that much about promoting open standards and, realistically, they have done most of the work to date.
I will continue to use OS X, thank you, and Windows, and NetBSD, and Linux. I don't imagine I will be using OpenOffice for much anytime soon, and I don't expect MS's .doc format will stop being the standard for home/office file sharing.