Slashdot Mirror


NeoOffice/J 1.1 Finally In Beta

VValdo writes "Hot on the heels of yesterday's vigorous debate re OpenOffice.org for OS X, the 1.1 beta of NeoOffice/J is now available. Based on Oo.o 1.1.3, improvements include native Mac menus, scroll wheel support, text drag-and-drop, smaller PDFs, new icons, localization for 40 languages, automatic update notification, and much more. No X11 server required!"

73 comments

  1. Its a start.. by CoolCat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Great start (and work) but, as a mac user, it still looks like shit compared to OfficeX or any other native OS X application. Hint: Use native wiggets.

    1. Re:Its a start.. by Bastian · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're working on it.

      OO.o is so non-Mac-friendly that it has been a huge undertaking to get NeoOffice even this far.

    2. Re:Its a start.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, it also looks and behaves like Office for Windows. I'm not saying you've gotta be different just for the sake of being different, but c'mon, can't anyone come up with a UI that doesn't involve strange status bars and toolbars full of inscrutable icons?

    3. Re:Its a start.. by nine-times · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm inclined to cut them a little slack. From what I've read, it sounds like it's been hard work to get this thing operational, and they haven't been getting a whole lot of support.

      I'm sure they understand the interface isn't all that it should be, but it is a beta (they aren't done), and you generally worry about fixing up the interface *after* you get the program *running*.

      Now, if only someone would make a native OSX port of Evolution.

    4. Re:Its a start.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...it still looks like shit compared to OfficeX...

      Ok, NeoOffice/J beta isn't eye candy yet. Consider another angle besides appearances. Last week while using OfficeX to build a bibliography for my PhD Critical Literature Review under extreme time pressure I had the gut-wrenching experience of MSWord crashing over and over due to formatting issues and probably software bloat.

      I switched to LaTeX/BibTeX, but the harshly bitter aftertaste of that MSWord experience lingers still. Now, along comes a free and prospectively much-more-than-adequate alternative to MSWord. I, and my wrenched gut, don't much care if this alternative is cool and stylish at this point, despite the fact that I use a Mac for those reasons among many others, both functional and aesthetic. What matters is: Does the alternative work as a tool to get something done? Can I afford it and tuition too?

      It's a bit early to pass final judgment on NeoOffice/J beta, but so far (and despite appearances) it seems to be at least as stable as MSWord and the price is just right. I won't switch my bibliography and critical documents from LaTeX/BibTeX (loved that learning curve), but I'd be very happy to avoid Microsoft products and especially MSWord.

    5. Re:Its a start.. by valkraider · · Score: 2

      it still looks like shit compared to OfficeX or any other native OS X application. Hint: Use native wiggets.

      Hint: It's FREE.

      Of course, you could VOLUNTEER to jump in and write the code to implement the "native widgets" if it is that important to you.

      I for one, think they are doing a GREAT job, and I can't wait to see how it comes along. This is hard work, seriously.

    6. Re:Its a start.. by r_benchley · · Score: 2

      "it still looks like shit compared to OfficeX or any other native OS X application. Hint: Use native wiggets."

      Congratulations, you just flamed one of of the truly good and great Mac coders out there, working his butt off so you can use a quality office package without coughing up $300.You are one dumb fuck. If you took the time to check out the screenshots, there is no excuse for you to have not read the information on the project:

      "Here's a caveat though--while NeoOffice/J is remarkably stable and feature-complete, it has not entirely adopted the Mac look-and-feel. There are still some bits of the old Windows/Unix interface in there. For example, the scroll bars do not have the familiar blue Aqua rounded look. The dialog boxes and "widgets" like check boxes and radio buttons are not the gorgeous Apple versions you're used to seeing. And the file chooser may look unfamiliar."

      You, sir, are a complete dickhead.

    7. Re:Its a start.. by CoolCat · · Score: 1

      right then... quote only half of my sentence to have a reason to call me dickhead.

      I never said it was it was bad, I criticized the UI and ONLY the UI (yeah yeah, I know they are working on it!). All I commented was what I saw, and honestly, It aint't pretty. OO.org which this is based on is great except the UI, all versions, all platforms.

      So what if OfficeX costs $300, It's my freaking money, if a product in my opinion is worth that I'll pay it, OSS/Free? Sure, just donate a to the project. (Do you think those hard working coders make a living out of peace, love and code??).

      And cheer up a litle, maybe santa reads /.?

    8. Re:Its a start.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did it ever occur to you that maybe not everyone has the skills, or even (gasp!) the desire, to be a computer programmer?

    9. Re:Its a start.. by valkraider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did it ever occur to you that maybe not everyone has the skills, or even (gasp!) the desire, to be a computer programmer?

      Of course it did. But those people without the skills or desire should not complain about the *FREE* software.

      There are many things people could contribute, however. Beta testing. Documentation. Money. Resources. Bandwidth. Artwork. Not every aspect of open source is the code...

      Beggars shouldn't be picky.

      It is one thing to complain about a product you have PAID FOR. Other than that, understand - THESE GUYS ARE MAKING STUFF FOR YOU - FOR FREE! Please stop saying their stuff is no good when they are improving it every day... It takes time and effort, and they have lives and stuff too...

      Maybe I am being a little harsh. I even find myself thinking, MAN, when will the Adium team release that patch they have been talking about... Then I realize, oh geez! It's thanksgiving... Maybe they are eating with their family... Maybe I should just wait a few weeks.

      We all want the Mac to have the best and greatest stuff. Me too. But at least if you have criticism, make it constructive and try and help how ever you can. Not just "The interface sucks". That helps no one.

  2. NeoOffice (J vs. C) by bhima · · Score: 1
    I don't get it. Why did they come up with a version in C (even if it was a hack or a planning tool) and then a version in Java? What does "fundamental mismatches between OpenOffice.org and Cocoa technologies" mean. What about using Carbon instead?

    I got the impression that OO.org is basically OS X unfriendly and that won't change... is that correct?

    Also I am the only one who thinks that the tone of NeoOffice/J FAQ is fairly unfriendly and angy?

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    1. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by NardofDoom · · Score: 3, Informative
      I used to think that, but when I tried NeoOffice/J I found it to be stable and as snappy as MS Office.

      There's a universal fear of Java due to experience with poorly coded apps in the past. (*cough*Limewire*cough) But I can honestly say that is unfounded when it comes to NeoOffice/J.

      Example: Start up time from double-click to document window for NeoOffice/J is 10 seconds. Start up time for MS Word is 14 seconds on my 1.5GHz 15" Powerbook G4 w/ 1GB of RAM.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    2. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      It very much depends on the amount of RAM available: with 256MB NeoOffice/J was a dog, but adding another 512MB made it extremely usable; so much so that I've now switched from using Office to NeoOffice/J (1GHz Powerbook).

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    3. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by bhima · · Score: 1
      OK... The whole reason I read the NeoOffice/C FAQ is that I have had "experience with poorly coded apps in the past". But when I got there it came off being "OO.org is severely incompatible with OS X" sort of thing. That gave me the impression that a native OO.org was an uphill battle at best and a fool's errand at worst.

      (Not that the guys doing this are fools)

      Some where some said aquify Koffice which sounds sort of intriguing. My massive investigation (Google: "OS X" Native Koffice) in to this is tantalizing but essentially turned up nothing concrete (as in most stuff was about a year old). Maybe I'll download the source and compile it and see what happens, it can't hurt.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    4. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Kithraya · · Score: 1
      No, I also thought that FAQ was unreasonably hostile. It does anything but encourage me to try the software. In particular, I love this:
      NeoOffice/J is an open source development project staffed entirely by volunteers. What this means is that a handful of people spend their spare time working on NeoOffice/J instead of spending it with their family and friends. So, don't expect any response.

      Translation: "Go F**k Yourselves".
      One of those volunteers should spend about 10 minutes rewriting that FAQ.
    5. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. One of those volunteers should spend about 10 minutes rewriting that FAQ.

      You can spend time on /. and not do it yourself?

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    6. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by capmilk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The translation is rather: "Don't ask stupid questions - we might answer good ones, though".

    7. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by bhima · · Score: 1
      That's the impression I got which is the exact opposite to my experience with all the other OSS projects I've tinkered with. Typically I get a faster, more detailed response than with 'professional' tech support services I have contracts with. That includes my experience with NetBSD and I thought that the BSD guys were supposed to be hostile and arrogant.

      In response to the other reply: I have plenty of time and am certainly willing to rewrite their FAQ, however I doubt they'd except input from someone who has never built or even installed their project

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    8. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Kithraya · · Score: 1

      You can spend time on /. and not do it yourself?

      I'm not one of their volunteers and have no interest in working on that project.

      While I realize you're just trying to be a jerk, you've accidentally brought up a good point. With a FAQ that reads like that, it gives the whole project a rather negative overtone. Forget encouraging people to not try the software. Projecting an attitude like that, how many people are they encouraging to not help with the project?

    9. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Kithraya · · Score: 1

      The translation is rather: "Don't ask stupid questions - we might answer good ones, though".

      I'm sure that's the meaning they intended to convey, but their poor wording pushes a message that's far from that.

    10. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Kithraya · · Score: 1

      That's the impression I got which is the exact opposite to my experience with all the other OSS projects I've tinkered with. Typically I get a faster, more detailed response than with 'professional' tech support services I have contracts with.

      Exactly. I've had to ask a few questions to project volunteers in the past (especially on smaller projects where the field of existing documentation is rather small). Every time, I've been thrilled by the friendly, quick and accurate responses I've gotten. In some cases, the friendliness of the person answering my question has prompted me to address whatever problem I was having and submit a fix. It's a shame that something as simple as poor wording can tarnish the image of a project that I'm sure is staffed with talented and friendly people. If I were one of those people, I'd be unhappy about that image and suggest to the FAQ maintainer that it should be changed.

    11. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      >You can spend time on /. and not do it yourself? ...because I consider my time on /. better spent on /. than working with a group of people who appear to be hostile towards their user base (whether such is actually the case is irrelevant) on a product I don't and--unless it comes a very long way from where it is now and even then--will probably never use?

      I appreciate what the people at NeoOffice/J are doing and the time they put into producing this software, but it is up to them to make their product desirable to me, not up to me to make their product desirable to others.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    12. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by iwadasn · · Score: 0


      But, this is the beauty of the portability of C? Clearly making OOO run on OS X just requires a recompile, if anyone with half a brain wrote the code, because C is portable, right? Oh, wait a minute. You're telling me that it can run on Linux, but can't even be run (with the proper UI) on a closely related UNIX without extensive architectural changes? Good thing it's in C, so it's blazingly fast. What's that, it's pretty slow, well ok then.

      They should have done something similar to ThinkFree office from the beginning. They've spent so much time screwing around and porting, if they had just written it in java the first time, they'd be far better off.

      Also, open source projects would actually work quite well as a webstart script. Just fire off the script, use it to make sure you have everything you need, and there you go. This gives you all the auto-update technology essentially for free. Since the project is open, there's not licensing hassels around upgrading, so people should be notified of newer versions and given the option.

    13. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think you're being a little unfair.

      The standard GUI API for POSIX-type systems is X11. You can get X11 for OS X (since 10.3 it's been bundled with it, before that it was available from a variety of sources), and OpenOffice.org will run natively on the Mac with X11.

      OpenOffice.org was originally StarOffice, and written at a time when the only systems running what today is the Mac GUI were obscure NeXT workstations that hadn't been made in five years, and very small number of "whitebox" systems running NEXTSTEP or OPENSTEP. Most people had pretty much written off the platform as dying, if not dead. Virtually all POSIX systems came with X11, either having that as their native GUI or as a back-up if you needed it.

      Additionally, Java was an obscure in-house project at Sun designed to control washing machines in a language that owed more to mainstream programming dynamics and with more modern features than FORTH. Certainly, if you were writing a "cross platform" application, supporting X11 for POSIX systems and Win32 for Microsoft systems, seemed reasonable.

      OpenOffice.org is a legacy system. It's easy to claim it should have been done in Java to begin with, but the fact is, it wasn't, it came out at around the same time as HotJava (most people's first exposure to the Java system), and it's not as if Java was "right out of the box" to begin with. Just ask Corel.

      It's also easy to claim that the underlying GUI wrappers should have been more modular and better designed. That I'd agree with, but knowing the culture in the mid-nineties, it doesn't surprise me, indeed it surprises me they went to the extent that they did.

      A rewrite might be in order, but bear in mind that a rewrite is just that - throwing the code away and starting afresh. There's no difference between a rewrite and an entirely new project, especially in the FOSS worlds where it's easy to grab code from other projects to do whatever it is you want done.

      Right now, OpenOffice.org is probably the most full featured office suite available in the FOSS worlds. It needs some work to make it also the most comfortable platform, but the solution may lie in others.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is an X11 version of OpenOffice.org which will run with relatively minor changes.

      I am afraid you may be trivialising the differences between X11 and Apple's window API (which are pretty substantial, or so I hear). Adapting X11 to work with that apparently takes a lot of work and time. From what I've seen, there are exactly 2 people coding this and several dozens actively testing - and all of it in their spare time.

      As for extensive architectural changes, I understand that 99% of the code is OpenOffice 1.1.3 code, with all the burdens and limitations, as well as functionality, that comes with it. The other 1% is Java / Carbon code that tries to tie the Apple UI to the OpenOffice architecture.

    15. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by p4ul13 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Agreed that the tone of the FAQ needs a bit of work, but the folks involved are definitly a pleasure to work with. I ran into a bug with a previous release where Neo/J was crashing and one of the developers (Patrick) worked with me for a couple days so he could patch the bug in the installer that caused this.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    16. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by peragrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      OO.org 1. series is dependant on either the Windows GUI or an X -server.

      OO.Org 2 series is supposed to make a tranistion to Aqua easier.

      NeoOffice is a quick port designed to get people up to speed.

      I run OO.org 1.2 under OS X and X and it takes a long time to load up. Of course it has to start the X server, then load Open Office, then the document, and it looks ugly. But it does work.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    17. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by AndyElf · · Score: 1

      You may want to look at NeoOffice guys posting on earlier thread (mentioned in parent story) -- they're explicit enough as to what are J vs C issues. Basically, Sun (sponsor of OOo) has neither interest nor experiance in MacOS X software writing.

      --

      --AP
    18. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by bhima · · Score: 1

      Andy.... Ed responded to me (in this thread) hours ago and his link made the issues fairly clear.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    19. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. While I realize you're just trying to be a jerk, you've accidentally brought up a good point.

      Actually, I'm entirely serious. Consider Wikipedia. OSS documentation is not much different.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    20. Re:NeoOffice (J vs. C) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm being more than a little unfair, however the point is a valid one. Though OOO may not have had the option to write everything in java, modern projects do, yet they avoid that route all the time due to foolish claims about the portability and performance of C, as if X11 were some highly optimized toolkit.

      The truth is that software is about managing complexity, and handling the future which is to a very real extent unknowable. This is why writing to the metal in something like C is just idiotic for more than 90% of the projects out there. Nobody knew that OS X would come along with a brand new GUI layer unlike anything that had come before, but you know what, they could have easily suspected that SOMETHING would come along that would be very different and they'd be in the position of either throwing everything out, or letting it become a dirty hack. They didn't have the option of java, so it's excusable, but modern programs have more options, and the software world is littered with burnt out wrecks of software that have washed up on these very same rocks since the very beginning of the field of computer science, learn from the past and steer clear of this particular problem.

      This is my problem with a lot of the OSS zealots (and a lot of the guys I once worked for on Wall Street), they don't learn from the past. Look back 3-4 years and you'll find easily 50 large scale projects totally destroyed by their creator's desire to write to-the-metal, give it up. If you're not writing an OS (more specifically, the kernel of an OS), or perhaps a RDBMS, or something to run a microcontroller or washing machine, then you really shouldn't even consider to-the-metal, and that all but eliminates C from the running entirely.

      Know this, computer architectures change, compilers change, GUI toolkits and OSes change. You don't want to have to fix your code to handle each of those changes, let someone else manage that change, and code to the constants that are available to you. Even if you want to write in something like perl or OCAML, that makes sense.

      How fast will your old program designed for a 386 run on a modern Athlon 64?, will it be able to take advantage of all the newest features (bigger address spaces, etc...)? Probably not. If you write it in something like C, you'll eventually have to (at least) recompile it, and probably rewrite it if you want good performance as processors change. Write it in something that delegates the actual machine code to a toolkit that can be maintained by others though, and you'll always take full advantage of the hardware that is available. People compare C vs Java when they were both compiled yesterday on the best whiz bang compiler, but that isn't the real world scenario. The real world scenario is 5 year old .jar file compared against a 5 year old program compiled to run on a 386 and using ancient libraries. Which is faster then? The Java code will be recompiled by the JVM to be reasonably optimized for the newer CPU you are testing it on, the undelrying libraries will probably have been substantially optimized, etc... The C program will be executing retarded instructions (for a modern processor), and will probably rely on a lot of templated in code, or compiled in objects, or just old and incompatible versions of .dlls that are completely inefficient on modern CPUs. This is even ignoring the fact that the old program will use some hideous VGA graphics package (totally ignoring most hardware acceleration, probably), whereas the java one will use modern code (underneath awt). In just a few years the performance difference has probably been reversed.

      Anyway, that's my rant.....

  3. Holy Crap! by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
    I just got the 1.1 Alpha version working and now I have to upgrade again!

    Thanks a lot.

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    1. Re:Holy Crap! by koi88 · · Score: 1


      I just got the 1.1 Alpha version working and now I have to upgrade again!

      Anybody still remembers the good old QuarkXPress times when every update cost about $500 and was compulsory for the next update...?

      (BTW, have they changed this policy or have they forced everybody to switch to InDesign...?)

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    2. Re:Holy Crap! by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      I dont' know, but the time it took them to switch to OS X made a lot of people switch.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  4. Neo by cuteseal · · Score: 3, Funny

    We've had our eye on you for some time now. It seems that you've been living two lives. In one life, you're OpenOffice, an open source multi-platform office productivity suite. The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias NeoOffice/J that has been engineered to run natively on Mac OS X. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.

    1. Re:Neo by koi88 · · Score: 1

      Uhmm.. no option where I can be rich and famous?

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    2. Re:Neo by soullessbastard · · Score: 2, Funny

      Screw that. I'm sick of being a single coder eating ramen and Diet Coke. I'll just take the juicy steak and some insertion.

      ed

  5. Re:First Color Scheme Complaint by amichalo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sorry to feed the troll but since you brought it up, yeah, /. have all the room in the world for improvement looks wise, but I think it is part of the /. brand to look non-commercial, non-marketing, all-geek. /. = News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  6. Laughed out loud by amichalo · · Score: 1

    nice to see the NeoOffice/J people have a sense of humor. From the website:

    Warning: all NeoOffice/J development and testing is done by volunteers so there are always some missing features and bugs. So if you expect software to be absolutely perfect before you install it, we recommend that you purchase a commercially supported office suite like MicrosoftTM Office

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  7. Non-profit status? by amichalo · · Score: 1

    As I was reading about Donating to NeoOffice/J, I was wondering if NeoOffice/J was a non-profit. It does not appear to be, but now it has me wondering if they or any other opensource, non-commercial community software project could apply for and be approved for non-profit status.

    It isn't exactly helping the homeless, but if it isn't trying to make a buck and it's all open to the public, then why not?

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  8. Translated docs in German, Italian, Japanese, ... by soullessbastard · · Score: 3, Informative

    While the link in the story is to the English download pages, the site itself has the download instructions, FAQ, and other pages available in Dutch, French, German, Italian, and Japanese. You can use the language links at the top of the page or link to the language-agnostic download link which will redirect you automatically to the correct language based upon your browser user-info string.

    ed

  9. Not yet because of history...and money. by soullessbastard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're not a non-profit but we're also not a commercial entity either. We're a group of volunteers who are doing this and hosting the project. For two years we didn't have any type of donate page or the like and just encouraged people to contribute by answering questions in forums, testing, or developing. Funny enough, there are still people who don't want to contribute in those ways. This started a fairly vigorous discussion as to whether we should give those people another vehicle for helping out. You can check out the user community debate back in November as to how things wound up the way they are now and where they will hopefully be going.

    To organize as a non-profit in the state of California requires filing paperwork, meeting minimum tax requirements, and other state and federal requirements. We're not expecting to see a lot of monetary donations, so instead of shelling out all that capital to set up a new corporate entity and lose money we don't have (!) we just reused one of the S-corps we already had set up.

    We couldn't just take money directly as that opens us up to personal legal liability, a bad thing for us Americans with our predatory legal system. We also can't afford to do it personally due to tax reasons. Right now we're only hoping to get enough to pay for bandwidth and hosting costs. If people actually do start donating enough though we've already decided we'll go through all the hassle of setting up a non-profit entity. It's unfortunately not worth that much hassle for just a few hundred dollars in donations ;)

    Still, I'd rather encourage people to donate time, support, and hopefully code instead. It's much more useful then money. Unfortunately time and code are more then most people are able or willing to give :(

    ed

  10. NeoOffice is NOT written in Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...the external bit-blasting and event code is in Java. Basically it's using an X11 to Java translator. The rest, as I gather, is simply OpenOffice.

  11. 98.8% C++, less then 1% Java by soullessbastard · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't forget that OpenOffice.org itself is huge, and it is a C++ application. It's actually a beautiful example of how horridly slow C++ can get, both running and compiling. NeoOffice/J is just OpenOffice.org with some extensions.

    I did a line count analysis a while back in response to some FUD spreading, but it's probably still roughly accurate. On a source code level, less then 2% of NeoOffice/J is actually Java. 98% of the code is straight from OpenOffice.org. And not all of the NeoOffice/J code is in Java, so the actual figure is probably less then that.

    On a binary level, the size of the combined JAR files for NeoOffice/J and OpenOffice.org are only 3.7 MB of the application's 317 MB footprint. And those JAR files include the support OOo has for Java applets, DocBook filters, and the like. The "Java" magic NeoOffice/J adds to OpenOffice.org is essentially contained in a single file "vcl.jar", which is 70k. I'm sure someone can do those percentages themselves as I left my RPN calculator at home ;)

    ed

    1. Re:98.8% C++, less then 1% Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word you're trying to use is actually "than".

  12. No Word 5.1 compatibility? by ignalina · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not to downplay the great achievement of Mac-ifying OOO, it is by far the best MS Office alternative for OS X yet. The only thing that keeps me from deleting the only remaining MS software on my HD is that my work (a publishing house) actually requires me to open and save in MS Word 5.1 for Macintosh format. Am I the only one who misses this? Has that format been reverse-engineered yet?

    1. Re:No Word 5.1 compatibility? by soullessbastard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately that file format hasn't been reverse engineered yet. We're not focusing on doing the reverse file format engineering ourselves. We just don't have the resources (two programmers!) to focus on the old Mac file formats, or even the new Mac file formats like Keynote. I wrote some design specs to get developers started if you're curious, but I haven't had the time to do engineering for those features.

      The only "old school" Mac app that has had its format engineered is the old Mac WordPerfect, thanks to the OOo WordPerfect filter team. They integrated their code into NeoOffice/J and now we can sort of open the old Novell/Corel WordPerfect 3.5 formatted files. Note this still doesn't give you "show codes", just the files. I think the old MacLink Plus may have had a Word 5.1 to WP translator, though, so that might be a way to get at your legacy docs even if it is convoluted as all hell.

      ed

  13. Why we used J over C by soullessbastard · · Score: 4, Informative

    At one point in antiquity, both J and C were prototypes. C was really a hack to explore technologies, but J was engineered a bit more carefully. The idea was eventually that OOo X11 would yield to the short-term solution of J to the long term solution of C.

    Unfortunately, Cocoa was just too difficult to fit to the OOo event model. While I hacked and struggled with Cocoa until he smote my ruin upon the mountainside, the Java+Carbon of J the amazing engineering of Patrick and his testing crew was triumphant and created a stable, functional app. When it comes down to it, redoing all that work in Cocoa is just reinventing the wheel for no tangible benefit aside from pure geek thrills. Even if done, the result still wouldn't be using ObjC, Interface Builder, or any of the other tools that make Cocoa so scrumptious. It'd be the penultimate Cocoa hack job. Doing OOo in Cocoa is kind of like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Cocoa suffers from the fatal flaw of all framework technologies; they really don't work well for building apps that are not engineered to conform to the framework design.

    Frustrated with Cocoa, the decision I came to was to shelve C for a while and go join Patrick and help him bring Aqua into J, stop splitting our efforts, and combine to make a kickass app. Thus the Aqua menus were born with the other widgets to come. Eventually when J is finished, I am hoping to find time to take the "core" parts of J out and wrap them into a framework that can then be embedded into Cocoa apps, similar to the Gecko engine. That's a long way off yet...

    For more of my own logic read a more detailed discussion about why J is the best engineering choice for now.

    ed

    1. Re:Why we used J over C by JPyObjC+Dude · · Score: 1

      When you port the 'core parts' out of J will you be moving to Obj-C or directly to C/C++? I would assume that an Obj-C/C/C++ port would be best completed while using Python as your OOP and proceduraly prototyping layer, Obj-C as your core framework layer and C/C++ as your performance/optimization layer.

      BTW - How is the performance of Obj-C over Java, from what I have seen, Java is getting very close to the performance of C'ish languages but still with a large resource footprint, particuarily memory.

      I'd be very interested in such hacks whey you decide to go that way.

      JsD

  14. BitTorrent download by soullessbastard · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although it's not on the main download page yet, we also do have a torrent available for the main installer:

    http://trinity.neooffice.org/torrents/NeoOfficeJ-1 .1_Beta.torrent

    There are only a couple of seeders right now, but if the mirrors slow to a crawl the torrent may be a better choice.

    ed

  15. Not bad, but not good either. by Mirkon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been using the X11 port for a long time now, and I was hoping Neo/J would offer some performance boost over the sluggish OOo/X11 system. While the interface is snappy and responsive, the program consumes a ridiculous amount of system resources. Over 100 MB of my physical memory? And I thought the kernel was a memory hog.

    I like the fact that I can use the Apple command key instead of ctrl, but unless the devs are willing to give me a free 512 MB or Gig DIMM, I think I'll wait for something with a smaller memory footprint.

    --
    Glog!
    1. Re:Not bad, but not good either. by valkraider · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that since this application is FREE and that OfficeX is like $400, that the developers HAVE, in essence, given you a free Gig DIMM. :)

    2. Re:Not bad, but not good either. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      This is not a good stance to be on. This is emplying just because it is free it has the right to be lower quality. OO is slow on my system with a Gig of Ram (Its Maxed out). Thus I shelled out the cash for OfficeX Last year to have some way of good office tools, needless to say I am happy with OfficeX Until OO can really make a good brakethrew in their Mac offering of their product.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Not bad, but not good either. by valkraider · · Score: 1

      It absolutely has a right to be of lower quality. Would you expect a free meal at a homeless shelter to be the same quality as a $75 steak meal at Ruth's Chris? (ObNote: I am not a big fan of Ruth's Chris, but it is a national enough chain that most people have heard of it. Here in Portland I would say "Portland City Grill" or "Ringside")

      The WHOLE POINT of PAYING for software is that it is supposed to be good. If it is NOT, people won't pay for it. Now having said that, Microsoft has the advantage in that they can be a little less good and people still pay because they *have* to have the compatibility.

      But developers have to eat too, and so until the software is paying for their food - expect it to take a long time to improve. I would LOVE OO products to be faster and better than the Microsoft versions. And maybe it will happen.

    4. Re:Not bad, but not good either. by bdsesq · · Score: 1

      The development curves are different for Open Source and comercial software.

      Once a comercial product ships and the company has your money there is little incentive to do small improvements. (Other than bug fixes) They do large releases and charge for them.

      Open Source is constantly being improved by people who just like seeing the programs get better. They make many small improvements and this results in a lot of "point releases".

      So just wait a bit and see if this doesn't become useable on your system. I believe it will.

    5. Re:Not bad, but not good either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      couple of things.
      one, yes it is a memory hog, but that is a part of OO.o, not the port. The Neo-guys port the software, they don't write it (99% of the code is pure OO.o code)

      second, this is a breakthrough. OO.o 1.1 without X11, native printing, aqua menues, wordperfect converters (which windows OO.o does NOT have).

      also, if you are basing your experience on 'last year' (so i assume you mean Neo 0.8 or so) then things have improved, both with the java and the OO.o code itself.

      this is not a low quality software package. does that mean it can't get better? no, it can, so can OfficeX. Neo/J however is incredible esp when you consider that the mac portion is two programmers.

    6. Re:Not bad, but not good either. by caseih · · Score: 1

      Umm, most mac users I know always run at least 512 mb of ram with Panther. Anything under that and the entire OS is sluggish. RAM is cheap, so I don't care.

  16. I was skeptical... by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    NeoOffice/J works so well for me that I find myself wondering why people bother with the OS X/X11 version. The hacking-free font handling especially is much nicer. At least until an OS-X-native version of OOo2 can be produced, I'd suggest NeoOffice/J as the version for slightly adventurous but non-hacker Mac users.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  17. There's a wiki too by VValdo · · Score: 1

    With more information here.

    Answers a lot of questions people are posting here, especially about the difference between the stable Neooffice/J and the older, experimental NeoOffice/C (Btw-- the C stands for "Cocoa" not the programming language C).

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  18. Not bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really care if it's not "Aqua" and pretty yet - it works, the menus are in the right place, and it's farily responsive. This is actually faster than Office 2004 on my Powerboook. Yeah, it's a bit of a memory hog, but not much worse than Word 2004 by itself.

  19. where my screenshots at? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pictures to speak a thousand words...

  20. doesn't matter to me... by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

    ...if it's ugly and not all cutesy aqua; so long as it has, a grammar checker to catch all of my comma, splices and other such nonsense that I write.

  21. No good OSS grammar checker tools exist by soullessbastard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FWIW, one of the primary reasons that neither OOo, NeoOffice/J, nor AbiWord have grammar checkers is that no good open source grammar checker tools exist yet. Just about any grammar checker worth its salt is completely closed source. There are some options available, though...

    The Link Grammar Parser is one that I've actually been keen on integrating with NeoOffice/J for quite some time. I have ideas on how to do so but have not yet had time to devote to it. I had been waiting for an OSS license for a couple of years for it, but unfortunately I think their new license was incompatible with GPL and can't be used in OOo or NeoOffice/J. Aside from that parser, I don't really know of any other good OSS grammar projects for English, much less all the foreign languages that need to be supported too!

    If you have knowledge of any other OSS grammar engines (or contacts for acquiring and freeing source code for a defunct grammar checker like Correct Grammar please contact me!

    ed

    1. Re:No good OSS grammar checker tools exist by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

      Yeah I've noticed this. I've downloaded pretty much every free and open source office suite or word processor out there. But I always grudgingly go back to Microsoft Word for only one reason - the grammar checker. It really does make a difference. I wouldn't worry about hunting down a grammar checker, because when there finally is a grammar checker on something open source it'll be BIG news anyway.

    2. Re:No good OSS grammar checker tools exist by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      But I always grudgingly go back to Microsoft Word for only one reason - the grammar checker. It really does make a difference.
      I'm not convinced. The grammar rules that Word comes up with are pretty lame. They don't like technical journal - style text, and they aren't really much good at comprehending or commenting on well-written material in general. The grammar checker may catch some singular-plural mismatches but not much beyond that.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  22. [OT] what happened to KOffice for Aqua? by Val314 · · Score: 1

    does anyone knows what happened to KOffice for Macs? i've read in january that there was a port planed but i havent seen anything new. is there some progress or is it canceled?

    1. Re:[OT] what happened to KOffice for Aqua? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Binaries for KDE on OS X.

    2. Re:[OT] what happened to KOffice for Aqua? by Val314 · · Score: 1

      but the binaries are dated 09-Mar-2004... looks kinda dead to me

      the status page from the other site is dead too... mailing lists has close to no traffic, so i asked myself: is anyone working (and not reading mails/updating webpages) or is it abandoned.

  23. No it doesn't by bach37 · · Score: 1

    It looks fine. Fonts are great and all! I think you are thinking of a previous release.

  24. KDE/Darwin project page here by bach37 · · Score: 1

    Check out this page for progress.