How does this get modded as interesting? I continue to argue, while being ignored, that this was a mistake for everyone except those that ONLY use a WebBrowser or Email client and neither at the same time. For everyone else, it was better to slim down the Mozilla Suite.
Anyone ever look at the memory footprint of having FF and TB open at the same time and compare that to the footprint used by the Mozilla Suite? I didn't think so. The former combination is huge when compared to the latter. Why have 2 instances of the GRE open when 1 will do? You know, use it as it was intended to be used!
Just look at my comments below. The 5.1 StarOffice Version ran MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than any one of the OO programs. That was a desktop suite that included everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink.
What we have is crappy coding and a crappy implementation. I hope to God this isn't the way coding is going.
I do agree with you last sentence. "Let's free ourselves of the unwieldy bloat it has given with us" and I'll add " and give us back the StarDivision programmers and the FAST Desktop Environment":-).
Don't make the all too common and downright stupid assumption that individual packages is always better. It's not. It depends on the user and this user wants the speed back. I have multiple windows open and multiple programs open. I use a spreadsheet with a wordprocessor (at the same time) and I have my email client and my web browers open at the same time.
Give me efficient programming led by someone with vision and hopefully performance in mind.
mod me down for having valid points so that we can continue having assinine comments elevated as insightful or interesting.
Yup, I agree wholeheartedly. If they just left the desktop suite alone and upgraded the functionality of it then, fast-forward 5yrs to today, we might have a package that competes.
How much of their bug-squashing has been done because of what they've decided to do to the original desktop design.
The StarDivision people have to be wishing that they didn't sell out. Just give us great functionality in a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation and you'd hit 80% of the market. How many of us REALLY use a database program? They took out the stuff that people use everyday such as an email and web-browser, tore it apart, added better icons/colors (I like the updated look), rearranged the menus but haven't added anything tangible IMHO.
It just depresses me when I think of the feeling that I had when I downloaded and used StarDivisions 5.0 & 5.1 and compare that to the feeling that I get with OO. They said that they'd "improve" the speed by tearing out all the code that we don't need. The complaints about a desktop GUI sucking up resources was shouted from every rooftop. 5 *$@!ing years later and the thing runs MUCH slower than it did as a desktop GUI. I wish I could shove my boot up someones @$$.
Small case in point, the City of Encinitas used to use MS-Word to publish the Municipal Code on their website - now it is posted as PDF's.
I guess it was too much to point the users to the free MS Word Reader or create it in HTML format?
PDF is a closed format but has a freely available reader. How is this different than using a freely available MS Reader?
I agree that there hasn't been much since MSO '97 to get excited about for the basic user. If you take the time to view the video, it makes it easier for just about everyone, including the noobs. It's pretty sweet. I haven't gotten excited about any MS package in a LONG while. I get more excited by the Linux offerings but I find myself having to use the MSO suites to get some things done.
The Gnumeric/Abiword (or OO) don't get it done for me.
He claims that the Desktop environment was bloated. The fact of the matter is that the 5.2 state of StarOffice, where everything was integrated, ran like a hare compared to the tortoise that is now OO. Five yrs later and there isn't much that inspires me..
Take a look at, http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~nino/Openoffice/images. html
Depends on what you define "dirt cheap" as. Since I've given hundreds to FOSS development, I think $80 for an OEM version of MSO 2k3 to be pretty cheap considering it is the leading office package out there.
Disclaimer: I'm no MS fanboi. In fact, I dislike a lot of what they do. I'm no OO fanboi. In fact, I'm quite disgusted with what they've done with the product.
The delta between Excel and Calc is too large to ignore.
The delta between Powerpoint and Impress is small at the moment and can be tolerated.
The delta between Word and Writer is negligible for _most_ users. For a basic word processor Writer is better but _a lot_ of people I know love the collaboration features of Word. I hate how Word keeps "thinking" for me and screwing with my documents.
The delta between MSO and OO in terms of speed is just a tad smaller than the distance from one end to the other of the Grand Canyon.
Now considering all that, OO is trailing, hugely. Now look at...
http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=1147 20
and you'll see that OO is 5-6 yrs behind MSO. I've done my best to use OO and even to try and help. I am so disgusted by the developers and their responses to my pleas for improvement in key areas that I've stopped promoting OO to people that need a cheap office suite. If they need a free one then I still show it off. If they have some $$ then I show them where to get MSO dirt cheap. The new MSO 12 looks to blow the socks off of anything out there. If it all works like it is supposed to (huge IF) it will be a remarkable product.
In that case, I thank the OO development team for putting pressure on MS. Like everyone, competition causes one to raise their performance and I think MSO 12 will be a killer app. I just wish OO could have moved quicker.
Disclaimer: I am not an MS lover and if anything more on the side of a MS-basher.
That being said, they will support open formats AND PDF formats. Isn't a PDF format a closed-source format where most users require Acrobat (a closed-source package) to create their PDFs. Yes, I'm aware that there are freely available PDF creation add-ons but they don't offer the ability that Acrobat does. Not only this but isn't the PDF format itself closed-source and even the reader is a closed-source but freely available program.
Where am I going with this you ask? Well, anyone can go to MS's website and download freely available DOC, XLS, etc - viewers. Isn't this exactly what Adobe is doing? How is allowing PDF and disallowing MS (with viewers) fair?
I'm from MA and I support them but they should have constraints from using ANY closed-source software, period, if they are claiming open-source requirements.
I'm sure this won't be modded as insightful or it will get modded down as it comes off as a MS lover when in fact it is the only fair argument that I've seen posted and I'm SHOCKED that I'm the only one that has seen this hypocrisy.
Disclaimer: I am not an MS lover and if anything more on the side of a MS-basher.
That being said, they will support open formats AND PDF formats. Isn't a PDF format a closed-source format where most users require Acrobat (a closed-source package) to create their PDFs. Yes, I'm aware that there are freely available PDF creation add-ons but they don't offer the ability that Acrobat does. Not only this but isn't the PDF format itself closed-source and even the reader is a closed-source but freely available program.
Where am I going with this you ask? Well, anyone can go to MS's website and download freely available DOC, XLS, etc - viewers. Isn't this exactly what Adobe is doing? How is allowing PDF and disallowing MS (with viewers) fair?
I'm from MA and I support them but they should have constraints from using ANY closed-source software, period, if they are claiming open-source requirements.
As for the original poster:
Maybe we give because our gov't won't. We already see in the school systems that if the parents don't give then the fine arts disappear. I would rather have a gov't sponsor these things because they know it is for the good of the people than watching it disappear.
As for the guy above. The problem isn't that the gov't would choose an inefficient path but that is the way things have been done. I'm still hopeful that someone will give Washington the dueshing that it needs. The problem with _all_ gov'ts is corruption, period. If a stalwart and moral ruler wanted to tell me what to do and provided me with all I'd ever need then I'd follow. It's the same plague that afflicts all gov'ts and the US is no different. Some say it is worse and some say better.
I'm not sure but I will say that lobbying in Washington should be outlawed. There should be a cap on campaign spending and people should write their representatives more. There is a huge disconnect from those that have (who happen to run things) and those that have not (the majority of the population). Sooner or later this will bite us in the butt.
My sister-in-law is getting done with her residency and she'll be making $200k-$300k starting as an OB/GYN. Should it _really_ cost that much for an OB/GYN? The complaints about malpractice are warranted as it'll cost her $40k for that so 1/4 of a million bucks.
The problem is that we don't have a choice. The medical industry in this country is not a free-market. You can't ask an MD what they charge and go elsewhere. They all charge what they can get from the insurance agencies. The AMA is like a union. Shit, I'm studying 10 yrs for my PhD in ME and a basket-weaver can hit med-school after their Bachelors degree and study for 4 yrs of med school and then 3 yrs with on-the-job-training (aka residency) and make 10x what I can dream to make. The reason that this happens in my industry is that employers _can_ higher engineers for less but the more qualified ones get more. This isn't the case with medicine. When the avg. starting salary is $250k then you know something is amiss.
Let's bring back the mid-wives for the 80% of the population that doesn't have pregnancy complications.
Here's for internationalizing medicine where we have to go to another country for affordable healthcare. We have companies refusing to come to the US because of this problem.
Bush gives us tax-cuts as an incentive to start your own business. He can shove the tax-cuts, give me free healthcare and you'll see people coming out of the woodwork starting their own businesses.
Charge the purchaser $50 up front and give them back $40 when they recycle the product. The only problem is that this should be some sort of secured funds just in case the company goes under.
This takes care of the "incentive" and also covers the cost of recycling.
Here's another idea. Charge $50 up front and give back $50 when it is recycled. The company has 3 yrs (avg. lifespan) to invest the money and make a profit off the interest that will cover the recycling cost. Seems like a win-win.
I'm no financial wiz but doesn't taxing the rich more make sense and isn't it ok to do since they have the privilege of living in a country where they are free to be as wealthy as they want to be. Here's my logic...
The average income is $35,000 or so, let's say $40,000. That's the money it takes to pay the bills and live life and put VERY LITTLE in an investment account or a bank account for a family of 5 assuming something like 30% tax would result in $28,000 a yr to live on.
If some rich guy making $250,000 requires $28,000 to live like the rest of us then that leaves $147,000 (after deducting taxes and the $28,000 required to live on). Now that person can take that $147,000 and reinvest it and recoup whatever they had to pay in taxes or more - RIGHT?!
Why don't people realize that these rich folk have quite a bit of money that they can reinvest, buy property, or use for venture capital to regain it. This isn't something that the middle class even has the ability to do. Isn't it FAIR that they SHOULD pay more? I'm pretty sure that with a personal financial broker that they can make it all back AND THEN SOME.
My brother worked as a financial analyst for a HUGE financial company and would come home with stories about all these different funds that used to be created so that the rich could hord their money and avoid paying taxes. Kerry is one of them and I can't blame them from trying to keep what they've earned AFTER they've paid their taxes which still leaves them with PLENTY. The other thing that I've noticed about the rich - they are the biggest group of tightwads that I've ever met and I have a couple millionaires that I personally know. I find those with less give more - GO FIGURE.
But WHAT IF, I wanted to import those sheets/graphs into a word processor. The fact remains that we NEED programs to work together such as these office suites.
The world needs to communicate their ideas and results and this isn't done with a spreadsheet program. This is usually done with a word processor of some sort so the ability to import and EDIT are important. I've made changes to my sheets after being embedded in Word since it works so well with Excel.
The option of using two, non native, programs to accomplish one task is not an option. They need to work together to make the creation of publications easy and painless.
In almost all of our Engineering classes we are taught to do these analyses using Excel because it is the only package that we already have and it does do a decent job at doing it.
Yes, it is NOT a full-featured package but it is LIGHT-YEARS ahead of OOCalc.
When you are looking for how close a trend line fits your data, this works just fine, if not perfectly. Not to mention, it'll fit trend lines to your data and even give you the coefficients based on any of the several methods available.
The "intent" has been there since it was StarOffice but these yahoos that are currently coding have NO IDEA what the Prosumer needs/wants. So long as these guys think this is an "enhancement" and not a sorely missing feature OO won't have any credibility.
Feel free to mod me down for telling it like it is. A VERY UNHAPPY OO user (except for data analysis which is why I use MS Office).
Let's dispense with the MS-bashing and hoping that this will replace MS Office.
IT WON'T!
Yes, they finally have a database program but you won't see any REAL business/scientist/engineer switch over until they get statistical analysis that comes ANYWHERE near Excel.
You can't even plot regression lines/error bars/regression equations on the curve without figuring out the coefficients somewhere else on a spreadsheet and then plotting them as an equation. Those OO yahoos have been dragging their feet on this one for years.
I'm SHOCKED that there are so few that notice these features as missing, especially from the./ crowd. Hang your heads low - you are NOT techies!
There happens to be several of us in the University/Scholastic segment that value OO for everything but Calc and their regression capabilities when compared to Excel. THis has been discussed OVER and OVER but the OO community views these issues are "features" or "non-essential" when they are THE most critical thing for the teacher/scientist/engineer in us. For example, see
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/showvotes.cgi?is su e_id=366
When they start seeing issues like this as essential and not a feature then I'll start giving them my $$. Until then, and because of their attitude on this, I will still use MSO on a limited basis and therefore not contribute. I contribute monetarily to other packages (Mozilla, PCLinuxOS, etc) that I use daily because they DO replace their competitors wholeheartedly. I choose to vote with my support or non-support.
Well, here's what I've noticed. AOL has recently launched another campaign saying that for $30 they'll give you free Anti-Virus software but they just don't get it.
The problem lies with the cost of their service not their software BUT all software companies do the same thing when they lose market share - load more bloat and try to charge for it. PEOPLE DON'T WANT MORE BLOAT THEY WANT CHEAP PRICES. Nobody is going to spend $30 for dialup when that is the same price for broadband in this area AND it frees up the phone line. It's just crazy.
I've noticed this happen with almost all software makers when they become big. Roxio used to have a decent package and nero too. They were slim packages that did just about everything that I could do. 2 yrs ago Roxio and Nero had functionalities that can now only be found in their retail package. So what do we do, we go and use the free stuff CDXPPro or Linux K3B that is full featured for basic needs. MSFT did it too and AOL is doing it.
I've noticed this trend but don't understand WHY they do it this way. Just drop the price to $15 -$20 and people will stay. Look at the cost of Netzero now. Dial-up is cheap which is right where it should be for the quality/speed that you get through dialup.
I don't think $250K is that much considering what you'll make. I know that many of my friends graduated from 4 yr institutions oweing about $50k and their annual salary starting was about $40k so it took them over a couple years to pay it off. I wouldn't think that a doctor making $100k+ would think that a $250k loan is all that much especially come year 5 or 6 after graduation. You will still be WAY ahead of the game.
Look at the writing on the wall. Most of you are correct in saying that since the cost of hardware is so cheap we are asked to look at the price of software and most of us realize that the MS "suite" of software (OS and Office) is too expensive for the functionality provided.
Microsoft wants the hardware to be very cheap so that they can start selling a subscription service. Most Americans wouldn't think anything of paying $35-40/month for a computer - heck, they pay that for their cell phones already. So if the hardware is $100, then where is the other $380 going (approx); and what about the next year and the year after that. MS would get incredibly rich.
The FOSS should also be looking to take care of that threat also and would be able to compete better. Imagine the following option: 1) Buy a windows PC w/a $40/yr subscription 2) Buy a FOSS subscription for $20 or less/yr
So we don't have to worry about the shuttle or a rocket spilling liquid waste into the atmosphere anymore. Let's point that rocket at the sun and say BA-BYE!
Don't have to worry about terrorists getting them anymore:-) Don't have to worry about storing them Don't have to worry about them harming the environment either
Slashdot Mirror
How does this get modded as interesting? I continue to argue, while being ignored, that this was a mistake for everyone except those that ONLY use a WebBrowser or Email client and neither at the same time. For everyone else, it was better to slim down the Mozilla Suite.
:-).
Anyone ever look at the memory footprint of having FF and TB open at the same time and compare that to the footprint used by the Mozilla Suite? I didn't think so. The former combination is huge when compared to the latter. Why have 2 instances of the GRE open when 1 will do? You know, use it as it was intended to be used!
Just look at my comments below. The 5.1 StarOffice Version ran MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than any one of the OO programs. That was a desktop suite that included everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink.
What we have is crappy coding and a crappy implementation. I hope to God this isn't the way coding is going.
I do agree with you last sentence. "Let's free ourselves of the unwieldy bloat it has given with us" and I'll add " and give us back the StarDivision programmers and the FAST Desktop Environment"
Don't make the all too common and downright stupid assumption that individual packages is always better. It's not. It depends on the user and this user wants the speed back. I have multiple windows open and multiple programs open. I use a spreadsheet with a wordprocessor (at the same time) and I have my email client and my web browers open at the same time.
Give me efficient programming led by someone with vision and hopefully performance in mind.
mod me down for having valid points so that we can continue having assinine comments elevated as insightful or interesting.
Yup, I agree wholeheartedly. If they just left the desktop suite alone and upgraded the functionality of it then, fast-forward 5yrs to today, we might have a package that competes.
How much of their bug-squashing has been done because of what they've decided to do to the original desktop design.
The StarDivision people have to be wishing that they didn't sell out. Just give us great functionality in a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation and you'd hit 80% of the market. How many of us REALLY use a database program? They took out the stuff that people use everyday such as an email and web-browser, tore it apart, added better icons/colors (I like the updated look), rearranged the menus but haven't added anything tangible IMHO.
It just depresses me when I think of the feeling that I had when I downloaded and used StarDivisions 5.0 & 5.1 and compare that to the feeling that I get with OO. They said that they'd "improve" the speed by tearing out all the code that we don't need. The complaints about a desktop GUI sucking up resources was shouted from every rooftop. 5 *$@!ing years later and the thing runs MUCH slower than it did as a desktop GUI. I wish I could shove my boot up someones @$$.
PDF is a closed format but has a freely available reader. How is this different than using a freely available MS Reader?
I agree that there hasn't been much since MSO '97 to get excited about for the basic user. If you take the time to view the video, it makes it easier for just about everyone, including the noobs. It's pretty sweet. I haven't gotten excited about any MS package in a LONG while. I get more excited by the Linux offerings but I find myself having to use the MSO suites to get some things done.
The Gnumeric/Abiword (or OO) don't get it done for me.
He claims that the Desktop environment was bloated. The fact of the matter is that the 5.2 state of StarOffice, where everything was integrated, ran like a hare compared to the tortoise that is now OO. Five yrs later and there isn't much that inspires me.. Take a look at, http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~nino/Openoffice/images. html
http://www.surpluscomputers.com/store/main.aspx?p= ItemDetail&item=SWW12421
not pro but std
Depends on what you define "dirt cheap" as. Since I've given hundreds to FOSS development, I think $80 for an OEM version of MSO 2k3 to be pretty cheap considering it is the leading office package out there.
Disclaimer: I'm no MS fanboi. In fact, I dislike a lot of what they do. I'm no OO fanboi. In fact, I'm quite disgusted with what they've done with the product.
7 20
and you'll see that OO is 5-6 yrs behind MSO. I've done my best to use OO and even to try and help. I am so disgusted by the developers and their responses to my pleas for improvement in key areas that I've stopped promoting OO to people that need a cheap office suite. If they need a free one then I still show it off. If they have some $$ then I show them where to get MSO dirt cheap. The new MSO 12 looks to blow the socks off of anything out there. If it all works like it is supposed to (huge IF) it will be a remarkable product.
The delta between Excel and Calc is too large to ignore.
The delta between Powerpoint and Impress is small at the moment and can be tolerated.
The delta between Word and Writer is negligible for _most_ users. For a basic word processor Writer is better but _a lot_ of people I know love the collaboration features of Word. I hate how Word keeps "thinking" for me and screwing with my documents.
The delta between MSO and OO in terms of speed is just a tad smaller than the distance from one end to the other of the Grand Canyon.
Now considering all that, OO is trailing, hugely. Now look at... http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=114
In that case, I thank the OO development team for putting pressure on MS. Like everyone, competition causes one to raise their performance and I think MSO 12 will be a killer app. I just wish OO could have moved quicker.
Disclaimer: I am not an MS lover and if anything more on the side of a MS-basher.
That being said, they will support open formats AND PDF formats. Isn't a PDF format a closed-source format where most users require Acrobat (a closed-source package) to create their PDFs. Yes, I'm aware that there are freely available PDF creation add-ons but they don't offer the ability that Acrobat does. Not only this but isn't the PDF format itself closed-source and even the reader is a closed-source but freely available program.
Where am I going with this you ask? Well, anyone can go to MS's website and download freely available DOC, XLS, etc - viewers. Isn't this exactly what Adobe is doing? How is allowing PDF and disallowing MS (with viewers) fair?
I'm from MA and I support them but they should have constraints from using ANY closed-source software, period, if they are claiming open-source requirements.
I'm sure this won't be modded as insightful or it will get modded down as it comes off as a MS lover when in fact it is the only fair argument that I've seen posted and I'm SHOCKED that I'm the only one that has seen this hypocrisy.
Disclaimer: I am not an MS lover and if anything more on the side of a MS-basher.
That being said, they will support open formats AND PDF formats. Isn't a PDF format a closed-source format where most users require Acrobat (a closed-source package) to create their PDFs. Yes, I'm aware that there are freely available PDF creation add-ons but they don't offer the ability that Acrobat does. Not only this but isn't the PDF format itself closed-source and even the reader is a closed-source but freely available program.
Where am I going with this you ask? Well, anyone can go to MS's website and download freely available DOC, XLS, etc - viewers. Isn't this exactly what Adobe is doing? How is allowing PDF and disallowing MS (with viewers) fair?
I'm from MA and I support them but they should have constraints from using ANY closed-source software, period, if they are claiming open-source requirements.
As for the original poster:
Maybe we give because our gov't won't. We already see in the school systems that if the parents don't give then the fine arts disappear. I would rather have a gov't sponsor these things because they know it is for the good of the people than watching it disappear.
As for the guy above. The problem isn't that the gov't would choose an inefficient path but that is the way things have been done. I'm still hopeful that someone will give Washington the dueshing that it needs. The problem with _all_ gov'ts is corruption, period. If a stalwart and moral ruler wanted to tell me what to do and provided me with all I'd ever need then I'd follow. It's the same plague that afflicts all gov'ts and the US is no different. Some say it is worse and some say better.
I'm not sure but I will say that lobbying in Washington should be outlawed. There should be a cap on campaign spending and people should write their representatives more. There is a huge disconnect from those that have (who happen to run things) and those that have not (the majority of the population). Sooner or later this will bite us in the butt.
Bullshit,
My sister-in-law is getting done with her residency and she'll be making $200k-$300k starting as an OB/GYN. Should it _really_ cost that much for an OB/GYN? The complaints about malpractice are warranted as it'll cost her $40k for that so 1/4 of a million bucks.
The problem is that we don't have a choice. The medical industry in this country is not a free-market. You can't ask an MD what they charge and go elsewhere. They all charge what they can get from the insurance agencies. The AMA is like a union. Shit, I'm studying 10 yrs for my PhD in ME and a basket-weaver can hit med-school after their Bachelors degree and study for 4 yrs of med school and then 3 yrs with on-the-job-training (aka residency) and make 10x what I can dream to make. The reason that this happens in my industry is that employers _can_ higher engineers for less but the more qualified ones get more. This isn't the case with medicine. When the avg. starting salary is $250k then you know something is amiss.
Let's bring back the mid-wives for the 80% of the population that doesn't have pregnancy complications.
Here's for internationalizing medicine where we have to go to another country for affordable healthcare. We have companies refusing to come to the US because of this problem.
Bush gives us tax-cuts as an incentive to start your own business. He can shove the tax-cuts, give me free healthcare and you'll see people coming out of the woodwork starting their own businesses.
Charge the purchaser $50 up front and give them back $40 when they recycle the product. The only problem is that this should be some sort of secured funds just in case the company goes under. This takes care of the "incentive" and also covers the cost of recycling. Here's another idea. Charge $50 up front and give back $50 when it is recycled. The company has 3 yrs (avg. lifespan) to invest the money and make a profit off the interest that will cover the recycling cost. Seems like a win-win.
I'm no financial wiz but doesn't taxing the rich more make sense and isn't it ok to do since they have the privilege of living in a country where they are free to be as wealthy as they want to be. Here's my logic...
The average income is $35,000 or so, let's say $40,000. That's the money it takes to pay the bills and live life and put VERY LITTLE in an investment account or a bank account for a family of 5 assuming something like 30% tax would result in $28,000 a yr to live on.
If some rich guy making $250,000 requires $28,000 to live like the rest of us then that leaves $147,000 (after deducting taxes and the $28,000 required to live on). Now that person can take that $147,000 and reinvest it and recoup whatever they had to pay in taxes or more - RIGHT?!
Why don't people realize that these rich folk have quite a bit of money that they can reinvest, buy property, or use for venture capital to regain it. This isn't something that the middle class even has the ability to do. Isn't it FAIR that they SHOULD pay more? I'm pretty sure that with a personal financial broker that they can make it all back AND THEN SOME.
My brother worked as a financial analyst for a HUGE financial company and would come home with stories about all these different funds that used to be created so that the rich could hord their money and avoid paying taxes. Kerry is one of them and I can't blame them from trying to keep what they've earned AFTER they've paid their taxes which still leaves them with PLENTY. The other thing that I've noticed about the rich - they are the biggest group of tightwads that I've ever met and I have a couple millionaires that I personally know. I find those with less give more - GO FIGURE.
MAN, some people are SO naive!
A friend worked for the state department/FBI drug enforcement and it was ROUTINE for them to break into cars and plant monitoring devices. ROUTINE.
So thinking that they don't/won't break laws is just plain NAIVE.
The only thing more naive is the American public that doesn't do anything about it. We are a lazy lot, aren't we!
But WHAT IF, I wanted to import those sheets/graphs into a word processor. The fact remains that we NEED programs to work together such as these office suites.
The world needs to communicate their ideas and results and this isn't done with a spreadsheet program. This is usually done with a word processor of some sort so the ability to import and EDIT are important. I've made changes to my sheets after being embedded in Word since it works so well with Excel.
The option of using two, non native, programs to accomplish one task is not an option. They need to work together to make the creation of publications easy and painless.
You've GOT to be kidding, right?!
In almost all of our Engineering classes we are taught to do these analyses using Excel because it is the only package that we already have and it does do a decent job at doing it.
Yes, it is NOT a full-featured package but it is LIGHT-YEARS ahead of OOCalc.
When you are looking for how close a trend line fits your data, this works just fine, if not perfectly. Not to mention, it'll fit trend lines to your data and even give you the coefficients based on any of the several methods available.
It doesn't sound like you've ever tried it.
I'm just trying to keep the disciples of the Church of OO in check. It is SERIOUSLY lacking as you've noted too.
I get MS Office for $15 here at school so that is what I use.
Any spreadsheet program that doesn't have basic and simple regression analysis is a JOKE. Puh-lease - OOCalc is a JOKE compared to Excel.
7 422 3 66
Just take a look at these...
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=
The "intent" has been there since it was StarOffice but these yahoos that are currently coding have NO IDEA what the Prosumer needs/wants. So long as these guys think this is an "enhancement" and not a sorely missing feature OO won't have any credibility.
Feel free to mod me down for telling it like it is. A VERY UNHAPPY OO user (except for data analysis which is why I use MS Office).
Let's dispense with the MS-bashing and hoping that this will replace MS Office.
./ crowd. Hang your heads low - you are NOT techies!
3 66 7 422
IT WON'T!
Yes, they finally have a database program but you won't see any REAL business/scientist/engineer switch over until they get statistical analysis that comes ANYWHERE near Excel.
You can't even plot regression lines/error bars/regression equations on the curve without figuring out the coefficients somewhere else on a spreadsheet and then plotting them as an equation. Those OO yahoos have been dragging their feet on this one for years.
I'm SHOCKED that there are so few that notice these features as missing, especially from the
For reference see this bug and ALL the other linked to bugs...
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1
There happens to be several of us in the University/Scholastic segment that value OO for everything but Calc and their regression capabilities when compared to Excel. THis has been discussed OVER and OVER but the OO community views these issues are "features" or "non-essential" when they are THE most critical thing for the teacher/scientist/engineer in us. For example, see
s su e_id=366
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/showvotes.cgi?i
When they start seeing issues like this as essential and not a feature then I'll start giving them my $$. Until then, and because of their attitude on this, I will still use MSO on a limited basis and therefore not contribute. I contribute monetarily to other packages (Mozilla, PCLinuxOS, etc) that I use daily because they DO replace their competitors wholeheartedly. I choose to vote with my support or non-support.
Well, here's what I've noticed. AOL has recently launched another campaign saying that for $30 they'll give you free Anti-Virus software but they just don't get it. The problem lies with the cost of their service not their software BUT all software companies do the same thing when they lose market share - load more bloat and try to charge for it. PEOPLE DON'T WANT MORE BLOAT THEY WANT CHEAP PRICES. Nobody is going to spend $30 for dialup when that is the same price for broadband in this area AND it frees up the phone line. It's just crazy. I've noticed this happen with almost all software makers when they become big. Roxio used to have a decent package and nero too. They were slim packages that did just about everything that I could do. 2 yrs ago Roxio and Nero had functionalities that can now only be found in their retail package. So what do we do, we go and use the free stuff CDXPPro or Linux K3B that is full featured for basic needs. MSFT did it too and AOL is doing it. I've noticed this trend but don't understand WHY they do it this way. Just drop the price to $15 -$20 and people will stay. Look at the cost of Netzero now. Dial-up is cheap which is right where it should be for the quality/speed that you get through dialup.
I don't think $250K is that much considering what you'll make. I know that many of my friends graduated from 4 yr institutions oweing about $50k and their annual salary starting was about $40k so it took them over a couple years to pay it off. I wouldn't think that a doctor making $100k+ would think that a $250k loan is all that much especially come year 5 or 6 after graduation. You will still be WAY ahead of the game.
Look at the writing on the wall. Most of you are correct in saying that since the cost of hardware is so cheap we are asked to look at the price of software and most of us realize that the MS "suite" of software (OS and Office) is too expensive for the functionality provided.
Microsoft wants the hardware to be very cheap so that they can start selling a subscription service. Most Americans wouldn't think anything of paying $35-40/month for a computer - heck, they pay that for their cell phones already. So if the hardware is $100, then where is the other $380 going (approx); and what about the next year and the year after that. MS would get incredibly rich.
The FOSS should also be looking to take care of that threat also and would be able to compete better. Imagine the following option:
1) Buy a windows PC w/a $40/yr subscription
2) Buy a FOSS subscription for $20 or less/yr
Then MS would really be staining their shorts.
So we don't have to worry about the shuttle or a rocket spilling liquid waste into the atmosphere anymore. Let's point that rocket at the sun and say BA-BYE!
:-)
Don't have to worry about terrorists getting them anymore
Don't have to worry about storing them
Don't have to worry about them harming the environment either