Slashdot Mirror


Alternatives To Office For Mac OS X

imatt writes "From eWeek's article on MS Office Alternatives for Mac: 'Major milestones were recently announced for two Mac OS X-compatible software suites that could provide an alternative to the near-ubiquitous Microsoft Office...NeoOffice/J uses a standard Mac OS X installer, presents native Aqua menus, does not require Mac OS X users to install and use X11 software, uses Mac OS X fonts and has native printing support.' Most [options] seem to be open source, which is good for the programming community and better for the Apple user."

5 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. OO.org Vs Neo by siplus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I have been using my first mac (powerbook) for almost a month now, and i can say that NeoOffice/J does a much better job for a user in mac os x than the X11 version of OpenOffice.

    Since Neo is based on OpenOffice, and I am familiar with it from my use of Linux and Windows, Neo is simply the best choice!

    The only bad part; There won't be an implementation of a native version of OpenOffice 2.0 for awhile.

    I'm not sure if this is because of my experience in high school, but i like the simplistic layout of MS word more than OOo 1.1 writer. I prefer the OOo 1.9 writer and 1.9 presentation layout; but don't see these coming to the Mac very soon (outside of the X11 implementation)

  2. Re:Open Office by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FYI, I think the moderators marked you "flamebait" because you weren't paying attention. OOo for Mac require X11, looks like crap, acts like crap, and can't properly size a window to save its life. This spurred the invention of NeoOffice/J, which is OpenOffice, but using Java to fill in a few holes (such as the GUI). It does not require X11, it's reasonably snappy, holds up quite well, and has most (all?) of the features of the latest 1.x release of OpenOffice.

    though excel really is the best spreadsheet software that I have yet seen on any platform.

    That is the oddest thing to saY. IMHO, most spreadsheets are alike and interoperate quite well. It's the word processing documents that are the killer.

  3. Re:Why does Apple need office, anyways? by Graymalkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AppleWorks is a nice suite if all you need to do is work with files you've created and work with and only need rudimentary Word and Excel support. When you start needing more advanced features that Office has AppleWorks begins to look extremely basic.

    Two excellent examples of this are change tracking and comments. There's no comparable feature in AppleWorks for these. In networked environments these features of Office are seeing more and more use. If several users all edit the same document at different times being able to track the changes made to said document is extremely important. This couples well with the ability to make out of channel comments about the document that travel with it.

    If you're trying to switch a business and their existing document base over from Windows PCs to Macs you're going to need software with not just good but excellent Office compatibility. You can't replace a tool with a new one that does half as much as the old.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  4. Re:Microsoft has to hate this... by jschoenberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The word processing that was in Works is not the same as Microsoft Word. They didn't break any sort of compatibility between versions.

    Most people in this thread who want basic word processing should be comparing the various Mac word processing software to Works, not MS Word. MS Word has way more integrated enterprise and work-group features than a regular consumer will ever want to take advantage of. Most people who migrate away from Word to OO or others just want a word processor, not a collaboration tool, so they shouldn't be buying MS Office in the first place, they should buy Works, or...better yet....download Open Office or other free word processors.

    Comparing any of those basic tools to Office just doesn't make sense. Apples and oranges.

  5. Apple's fault (for making NeoOffice/J possible) by Kaseijin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That's Apple's fault: they are putting roadblocks in the way of people trying to do a better job with X11 integration on Macintosh.... There is no technical reason why X11 couldn't be as smoothly integrated into OS X as Carbon and Cocoa are....they probably are afraid that if X11 becomes well enough integrated so that people can write applications with a native L&F, it would become the predominant API on OS X.
    What you mean is that Apple isn't doing with X11 what is has with Java, which is to devote significant effort to get to the point where the simplest apps can pass for native and the rest feel like poor imitations. Unlike Java, X11 doesn't have a standard high-level graphical framework, so there's no way Apple can provide generic "X11" integration. They'd need to provide their own APIs, and toolkit developers would have to use them... oh, wait.
    The OOo developers got so annoyed with Apple's behavior that they stopped working on Macintosh integration.
    The OOo developers stopped working on Mac integration because it wasn't a priority for them, the NO/J developers were doing a better job of it, and NO/J's license precludes merging code from NO/J into OOo.
    X11 should... run automatically on every Macintosh
    This reminds me of a story, only in reverse. If I wanted X11 to load when I log in, I'd put it in my login items. I don't, because waiting longer for a usable desktop just to hide startup time for applications I may not even use wouldn't do me any good.