It was really meant to be a comparison of brands, RAID vs single drives, and SCSI vs. IDE. At the time SATA wasn't out yet and I couldn't get any SATA drives to add to the comparison later.
There is a huge difference between RC2 and RC4 -- big enough that your Word problem will probably go away. In my Comparing Word Processors article I found.DOC conversion errors in RC3 and they were really horrible. But RC4 converts to and from.DOC just as well as StarOffice 7 as far as I can tell. I mean I converted about five fairly eclectic files and they all looked as they did in Word.
There's no speed difference between OpenOffice 1.1 and StarOffice 7 as far as I can tell. You can't really use a watch to measure the startup time because there are just too many factors involved, like CPU and hard drive cache. When I said that StarOffice 7 was twice as fast as its predecessor I was talking about StarOffice 6, which would be equivalent to OO.org 1.03, which we all know is intolerably slow and inefficient.
StarOffice doesn't necessarily claim to be a PDF creation tool -- it merely has the ability to export a document into a properly formatted PDF. I wish it did have more PDF tools, but that would probably make it more expensive with the Adobe licensing, etc.
To begin with, I was comparing StarOffice 7 with StarOffice 6. That's very clearly stated in the article.
Secondly, it's not "Really crazy" at all to say that it works with Word.DOC files flawlessly. Between the two of us, only one of us has tested the software extensively using a variety of files, from the heavily formatted instructional articles with embedded graphics to 300-page manuscripts. If embedded graphics don't show up properly in non-Word applications it's because whomever created the document didn't properly anchor the graphics. It's not the fault of the conversion filter.
To me, a flawless PDF is one that doesn't have formatting errors, extra page breaks, improperly rendered fonts, etc. OpenOffice.org 1.1RC4 has this problem and I even linked to the issuezilla number in the article, which listed at least two duplicates. It's apparently been fixed but not yet implemented. StarOffice employs third-party conversion filters and therefore didn't have to go through this mess.
It's my opinion that word processors shouldn't have fancy drawing tools -- that should be left to programs like Draw and pro graphics utilities like Illustrator. Word processors are for processing words, not graphics. Less bloat in the word processor is a good thing; Writer 7 didn't seem to offer any significant advantages in the drawing tools arena. But as with any review, some things are overlooked and some things are left out -- no one wants to read an exhaustive 30-page report on every little thing that a program can do. I certainly don't want to write one.
The port itself is easy -- after all, there's already a PPC OpenOffice port. But the trouble is hiring the staff to run the tests they need to run to certify the software for OS X. Then they need to buy equipment, hire or retrain the support team, etc. So the demand has to be pretty high in order to ensure a profitable outcome. I know, it sucks -- I'm on FreeBSD here and StarOffice 7 won't install on it.
Simpler products *can* be used -- that's why Microsoft has Works and WorksSuite as inexpensive OEM offerings. Corel has WordPerfect Essentials at a competitive price as well.
That was a beta edition (RC3) of OpenOffice and a beta edition of StarOffice (6.1). It was also written from the perspective of a writer and it was looking only at word processors. It's important to make these distinctions, because I am not at all against OO.org and I'd like to see it improve. But quite honestly, StarOffice is worth the $80 at this point because of the better fonts and writing tools.
TextMaker is indeed an awesome word processor, and for the price you just can't beat it. In the context of the review it does win because of its value. It's no replacement for a whole office suite though. It all depends on what you really need.
-Jem
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote this months ago using newer hardware and comparing RAID arrays as well:
Comparing Hard Drives
It was really meant to be a comparison of brands, RAID vs single drives, and SCSI vs. IDE. At the time SATA wasn't out yet and I couldn't get any SATA drives to add to the comparison later.
-JemYou might not be able to change Adobe, but Macromedia has a web-based product activation feedback form here:
http://infopoll.net/live/surveys/s22559.htm
And the new Studio MX 2004 is also more pricey, buggy, and restrictive than Studio MX was.
-JemThere is a huge difference between RC2 and RC4 -- big enough that your Word problem will probably go away. In my Comparing Word Processors article I found .DOC conversion errors in RC3 and they were really horrible. But RC4 converts to and from .DOC just as well as StarOffice 7 as far as I can tell. I mean I converted about five fairly eclectic files and they all looked as they did in Word.
There's no speed difference between OpenOffice 1.1 and StarOffice 7 as far as I can tell. You can't really use a watch to measure the startup time because there are just too many factors involved, like CPU and hard drive cache. When I said that StarOffice 7 was twice as fast as its predecessor I was talking about StarOffice 6, which would be equivalent to OO.org 1.03, which we all know is intolerably slow and inefficient.
StarOffice doesn't necessarily claim to be a PDF creation tool -- it merely has the ability to export a document into a properly formatted PDF. I wish it did have more PDF tools, but that would probably make it more expensive with the Adobe licensing, etc.
-JemTo begin with, I was comparing StarOffice 7 with StarOffice 6. That's very clearly stated in the article.
Secondly, it's not "Really crazy" at all to say that it works with Word .DOC files flawlessly. Between the two of us, only one of us has tested the software extensively using a variety of files, from the heavily formatted instructional articles with embedded graphics to 300-page manuscripts. If embedded graphics don't show up properly in non-Word applications it's because whomever created the document didn't properly anchor the graphics. It's not the fault of the conversion filter.
To me, a flawless PDF is one that doesn't have formatting errors, extra page breaks, improperly rendered fonts, etc. OpenOffice.org 1.1RC4 has this problem and I even linked to the issuezilla number in the article, which listed at least two duplicates. It's apparently been fixed but not yet implemented. StarOffice employs third-party conversion filters and therefore didn't have to go through this mess.
It's my opinion that word processors shouldn't have fancy drawing tools -- that should be left to programs like Draw and pro graphics utilities like Illustrator. Word processors are for processing words, not graphics. Less bloat in the word processor is a good thing; Writer 7 didn't seem to offer any significant advantages in the drawing tools arena. But as with any review, some things are overlooked and some things are left out -- no one wants to read an exhaustive 30-page report on every little thing that a program can do. I certainly don't want to write one.
-JemThe port itself is easy -- after all, there's already a PPC OpenOffice port. But the trouble is hiring the staff to run the tests they need to run to certify the software for OS X. Then they need to buy equipment, hire or retrain the support team, etc. So the demand has to be pretty high in order to ensure a profitable outcome. I know, it sucks -- I'm on FreeBSD here and StarOffice 7 won't install on it.
-JemSimpler products *can* be used -- that's why Microsoft has Works and WorksSuite as inexpensive OEM offerings. Corel has WordPerfect Essentials at a competitive price as well.
-JemThat was a beta edition (RC3) of OpenOffice and a beta edition of StarOffice (6.1). It was also written from the perspective of a writer and it was looking only at word processors. It's important to make these distinctions, because I am not at all against OO.org and I'd like to see it improve. But quite honestly, StarOffice is worth the $80 at this point because of the better fonts and writing tools. TextMaker is indeed an awesome word processor, and for the price you just can't beat it. In the context of the review it does win because of its value. It's no replacement for a whole office suite though. It all depends on what you really need. -Jem