Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Microsoft displays fear, uncertainty, and doubt toward OpenOffice.org
Share
Print
CommentsThe Basics
According to the Microsoft document, the basic system requirements for OpenOffice are:
* Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) -- Pentium-compatible PC, 64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD; or
* Linux (x86, PowerPC) -- 64 MB RAM and 170 MB HD
* Solaris (x66, SPARC) -- 64 MB RAM and 240 MB HD; or
* MacOSX (beta); or
* FreeBSD
They did not, however, compare it to Office XP. We shall through Microsoft's own Office XP System requirements:
* Computer with Pentium 133 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended
* # Windows 98, or Windows 98 Second Edition 24 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Microsoft Word) running simultaneously
# Windows Me, or Microsoft Windows NT®
32 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
# Windows 2000 Professional
64 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
# Windows XP Professional, or Windows XP Home Edition 128 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
* Hard disk space requirements will vary depending on configuration; custom installation choices may require more or less. Listed below are the minimum hard disk requirements for Office XP suites:
* Office XP Standard
210 MB of available hard disk space
* Office XP Professional and Professional Special Edition²
245 MB of available hard disk space
An additional 115 MB is required on the hard disk where the operating system is installed. Users without Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Me, or Office 2000 Service Release 1 (SR-1) require an extra 50 MB of hard disk space for System Files Update.
* Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6 (SP6) or later,³ Windows 2000, or Windows XP or later.
* CD-ROM drive
* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors
* Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft IntelliMouse®, or compatible pointing device
Please do not forget the key phrase in these Office XP requirements: "an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Microsoft Word) running simultaneously ." That said, OpenOffice more than holds its own, and does so in less disk space on more operating systems.
Being functional on more operating systems guarantees more cross compatibility between platforms, which allows users to change their operating systems, if they so decide, with a lower migration cost. So OpenOffice's customizability could actually decrease costs in the future; it is not reliant on one operating system.
The Minimum Office XP requirements state 'Pentium 133 MHz machine'. In translation, this would probably be a machine used by a Windows 98SE user, which would require them to have 24 - 56 Megabytes of RAM, 375 Megabytes of Hard disk space, etc.
The XP requirements for Office XP are much more interesting. 128-168 megabytes of memory and 325 megabytes of hard drive space.
Let's compare again with the OpenOffice requirements for XP and 98SE:
'Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) – Pentium-compatible PC,64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD'.
Clear winner: OpenOffice.
Now we shall look at their 'Value Proposition And Response'.
<center>
Value Proposition And Response
</center>
Microsoft's document stresses that the licensing costs are not representative of the total costs of ownership, and this is a valid point. But let's compare, point by point:
* Installation and deployment: OpenOffice can be installed at no cost, and deployed easily. Microsoft Office XP, however, requires licensing costs and requires more hardware to run on (see above). It also requires that you run an operating system which must be licensed at cost. An international comparison of cost per license of operating system and GDP is revealing in this regard.
* Data Migration and Testing: In migrating Microsoft Office documents to OpenOffice, some advanced formatting may be lost - and this is a problem, but it is unreasonable to demand this because of the fact that Microsoft does not make it's data formats public.
They make special note on the cost of migrating a Microsoft Access database to OpenOffice, but fail to mention the costs associated with upgrading a Microsoft Access database even with their own software. Free Software and Open Source databases are typically available at no cost, so the money would be spent on the actual 'liberation' of the data. Microsoft will require you to purchase licensing for SQL Server, and businesses will still have to pay for the migration of the data.
* Document Conversion And Rewriting Macros: OpenOffice does not use Visual Basic for Applications, but has a macro language of it's own. It should be noted that Microsoft's macros are also incompatible with those of OpenOffice. Therefore, this is a valid point and would be part of a migration cost, yet one has to wonder at how complex such macros would be in a SMB.
*Training: OpenOffice is, for the most part, the same as Microsoft Office XP for a user, but there are things that they will need to learn how to do differently. All things being equal, if a company's staff need formal training for OpenOffice, then they probably need it for every new version of Microsoft Office. Therefore there is a cost on both sides, and they are at least equal.
* Email client: Microsoft notes that OpenOffice lacks an email client. This, however, would take us to Mozilla, which is a standalone web browser with more features than Internet Explorer (such as tabbed browsing), and is much more secure than Microsoft Outlook as a default.
* Collaboration: Microsoft makes it a point to discuss that collaboration is required. Yet OpenOffice runs on all major operating systems, and Microsoft Office does not. This certainly becomes an issue of collaboration.
They also mention that there is a need to assure mission critical data is impervious to virus attack -- and given the latest viruses, this does not bode well for them as all major attacks have taken advantages of flaws in Microsoft Operating Systems and even their Office software. This can lead down the path to security itself, in which ubiquity of Microsoft products probably has an effect.
*Support: Microsoft says that there is no dedicated team for the OpenOffice suite. What Microsoft fails to realize is that the 'dedicated team' are mainly the users; OpenOffice has a community whereas Microsoft users have support groups.
*Limited Compatibility: Microsoft properly asserts that OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with their product. Microsoft, however, has apparently decided not to support the OpenOffice formats either, for which they have no excuse: the standards for OpenOffice documents are publicly available, whereas Microsoft makes it a habit to sue people for reverse engineering their own formats. Richard Stallman wrote about this in 2002.
<center>Total Value Of OpenOffice
</center>
(1) Ease of Use: While computer users throughout the world (including this author) have become familiar with Microsoft's Office suites over the years, OpenOffice is not difficult to learn by simply using it. It's long been kept a secret, but no training in basic use of Office suites is needed; only advanced use of an Office suite may create a need for training -- regardless of which suite it is.
(2) Tailored Solutions: OpenOffice has the benefit of permitting more customized applications to interact with it due to ithe Freedom associated with the source code, which means it will allow more people to develop custom applications which interact with it. Microsoft products require more Microsoft products to interact with them, they come at a cost and limit what a developer can do since the source code is not available.
(3) Better and Faster Work: Such comparisons are inherently flawed, since they would have to have the same users doing the same work on different Office suites. Let's face it: Users just want to do what they have to with their software. In this regard, OpenOffice facilitates this just as Microsoft Office does, but has the benefit of having the source code available for allowing more applications to interact with it. This means more potential productivity when dealing with the business logic of a SMB.
(4) Seamless Data Exchange: Microsoft claims seamless data exchange within Microsoft Office - but it's only between people using Microsoft products. OpenOffice allows people who use a variety of operating systems and data formats to interact with each other. Microsoft Office does not.
(5) Easier Deployment and Maintenance: Installation for either package is very simple. OpenOffice does have a clear benefit here: Service packs are not something one has to constantly look for (at this time). Further, simply installing the latest version of OpenOffice over a later version takes less overall time than constantly updating via patches and service packs.
(6) Security: Microsoft is brave to bring viruses into its marketing strategy when it has been one of Microsoft's greatest problems, despite all the nice things their Marketing brochures have to say about how secure it is. Where the rubber meets the road, Microsoft Office loses.
(7) Investment You Can Trust: Using OpenOffice is an investment of your time, your energy and your future of being able to interoperate with people around the world, without worrying about what operating system that they use. Microsoft Office is an investment in Microsoft's time, energy and future.
<center>Final Words</center>
Microsoft used to have an advertisement asking where you wanted to go today; this is more true of OpenOffice since it allows you more control of your data through vendors and even inhouse staff who can help with it. Microsoft is dictating a future; this is why they do not allow Open Standards.
This is also why Microsoft spends so much time in courts around the world.
Copyright (c) 2004, Taran Rampersad.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License" on the GNU website.
Comments
on Microsoft displays fear, uncertainty, and doubt toward OpenOffice.orgNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Re:You EXCEED the requirements (no failure...)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 27, 2004 08:54 PMRe:I don't meet the reqirements for MS Office
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2004 10:01 AMRe:I don't meet the reqirements for MS Office
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2004 06:37 PM
Why should the mouse be compatible?
And why on earth should office software be not compatible?
Aren't they the same? Aren't they both tools to make you more productive with your computer?
Aren't there mice with more or less buttons, with and without wheels, from a myriad of manufacturers?
Aren't there even 'perversions' like touch pads and trackballs and these little stick-'mice' you find on some laptops?
And yet there are but a few mice protocols. Mice don't differ in important ways on an application level. Why should documents differ in important ways on an office software level?
There can be just one reason: mice vendors trying to not compete on quality --- instead restricting consumers to their brand only --- or was that what a certain office software company tries?
Re:I don't meet the reqirements for MS Office
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2004 11:57 PMRe:I don't meet the reqirements for MS Office
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 30, 2004 12:32 AMThis is basically Microsoft's way of admitting that OO.o is a threat.
This is a good thing.
I can't see how anybody but a gullible simpleton would believe Microsoft's FUD after all these years.
Tonight, standing in an office supply store near closing time, I'm pretty certain I 'sold' a copy of RH WS. I told "the Linux story" to a guy who was contemplating buying a copy of XP to run a copy of Adobe Acrobat. I acknowledged that Linux used to be hard to install<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but not any longer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and emphasized its strengths. The guy listened to me, another customer, for about 20 minutes and was asking questions right along.
OO is a threat. In fact, all of Linux is a threat and the more capable FOSS applications become, the bigger the hammer over MSFT's head.
Ballmer was right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
"developers, developers, developers!"
So, no, this is not a good thing.
But many people are now starting to realize that there is more to life than just Microsoft, and Microsoft is helping publicize this.
Many people are getting fed up with Microsoft, and this feeling is increasing. Microsoft continually frustrates those who buy its software. People are 'considering' or 'looking into' using alternatives. Also, many people don't trust Microsoft, and this attitude is increasing.
For those with a clue, Microsoft's FUD fights reveal Microsoft's fears. Look at SCO, people can believe in SCO, but it's not going to stop the company from going down.
Open Source is looking better and better, and Microsoft is constantly trying to produce new weapons to combat it.
I expect many people believed the Iraqi Information Minister too.
If you want to belittle these people as "gullible simpletons" then I guess you're doomed to failure. The first step you need to make in business is to understand your customer. If you can't even do that you may as well go back to, or stay in, University and write papers for the rest of your life.
I don't feel any bitterness to ignorant computer users, after all, we all start from the beginning.
The problem is with people who choose to neglect the information before their eyes, like somebody seeing a person getting mugged but looking the other way because they don't like the thought of that happening in their neighborhood.
OSS is only now really having its potential revealed. What started out as user-unfriendly software, designed by tech-savvy people for tech-savvy people, is now being developed for the average user.
Big companies are backing Linux/Open Source, marketing is happening. Services and solutions are being made available. Compared to a few years ago, Linux/OSS is flying, people know about it.
Of course you have to understand the consumer. This isn't a point of 'OSS' vs 'Microsoft'. This is a war against misinformation.
People should all be aware by now that Microsoft has attempted to force them to upgrade continually. People should all be aware by now that Microsoft says one thing, but things never quite work out the way Microsoft said they would.
The news is full of Microsoft and its anti-competitive practices. If you run a business and you believe Microsoft's FUD without looking into the software for yourself, you are a gullible simpleton - or just completely ignorant and shouldn't be surprised if your business collapses due to your incompetence and false sense of security.
If you know what I mean.
People need to stop burying their heads in the sand and hoping that this will all work out.
Well, unfortunately, that consitutes the vast majority of people in the world..."gullible simpleton[s]" that is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(
Yes. It does appear that the vast majority of people are gullible simpletons.
Now, if anybody out there makes up the 'most people' category, I would strongly suggest that you get a clue. Without being rude, you really should, unless you want to get ripped off for the rest of your miserable life. Would you trust Bill if he said that virii didn't exist? Of course not, so don't trust any of the other crap he spews out.
It would be the sensible thing to do.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
An appropriate decsription of all microsoft customers, to be sure.
the thing is the OpenOffice suites does not have a database at all. I believe StarOffice has something called Abacus and there is some free or open-source databases out there (PostgreSQL and mySQL until they changed their license) but these are not part of OpenOffice.
This seems a major weakness in OpenOffice to me: the abscence of a simple relational database, easy to install and with some (but not all) of the features of the big ones. I know that many people hate Access 'kuz its too primitive' but look at the small business environment: do they run Oracle or DB2? Nope - most of the time they use Access and this is something which our community sorely lacks for the time being.
The fact that OOo has not got an integral database, forcing you to use mySql/Oracle/anything-you-like is actually a productivity enhancement!!!
The users can get on with creating spreadsheets, documents etc and we can set up databases that are efficient, fast and **BACKED UP** because we make sure they are on a server not on a floppy disc "so that I can pass it to X".
By the way... Microsoft forgot to mention that StarOffice is free for educational and research use.
Get StarOffice here:
http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/edu/solut<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> ons/staroffice.html#StarOffice
Granted that a more explicit way of creating those Databases should be made, but just try it:
Go to Tools|Data Source and create a dBase data source in a directory.
You'll then be able to create tables, queries, etc.
This is the best kept secret of Oo.o
Also, we use OpenOffice daily to access data in our Windows PoS (Point of Sale) software (Atrex) which keeps data in the DBF format.
OpenOffice offers one of the best user interfaces to databases that I've found.
So i'd rather go with OO and a nice db.. =)
(Just to add some facts)
Well, MS Office hasn't either. Access is not a database. But why not think of mySQL as OpenOfficeAccess?
Or if you want a real database, there's PostgreSQL.
You seem to be complaining that mySQL and PostgreSQL are not included in the same download as OpenOffice. Why is that a disadvantage? Surely it's an advantage that people who don't want them, don't need to waste the extra time and diskspace on downloading stuff they don't need.
Both the PHP and MySQL sites have good user feedback sections (not a proper Wiki, though) so the stuff you need to know is out there.
And now for a story about databases. A person I used to know was setting up a new business venture: he spent a lot of money on a brand-name server with Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft SQL Server, and created a bunch of web pages in ASP. I was tasked with cloning a copy of his database onto our systems for our purposes. Now, my company's software procurement policy is basically "No Source, No Sale" so we were using MySQL on Linux, with Perl or PHP as necessary.
It took me a morning to throw some scripts together to do the initial cloning; and I did have to download something half-proprietary just to get it to work, but there didn't seem to be anything Open. Now, the idea was supposed to be that we'd run our databases sort-of independently, with occasional syncing up; so anything we changed, we would send him.
I wanted him just to e-mail the INSERT or UPDATE statements generated by his script to an address I was setting up, where a procmail recipe would pass them through to MySQL. When I made this simple request, all I got was a lecture on extensibility, abstraction layers and not getting my hands dirty touching data like that. Turns out he was using some highly complex system for pretending that the MS-SQL database was an array in his programme so he didn't actually generate any SQL statements himself.
So I had to take care of syncing us with him. Which basically meant wherever an INSERT bombed because there was an existing record with the same primary key, doing an UPDATE instead. Anything we changed, he still got an SQL query. Only Microsoft SQL server uses an ever-so-slightly different syntax than MySQL. MySQL uses mandatory "double" speech marks around non-numeric values -- but will tolerate 'single' ones -- and mostly-optional `backticks` around field names. Microsoft use 'single' speech marks around values and "double" speech marks around field names.
In the end I used 'single' quoted values and unquoted field names (they didn't match any reserved words) when I sent him the modifications we were making, which seemed a reasonable compromise.
Well, I must have spent, what, about 24 hours writing the Perl and PHP to do all this. Then I got an error -- couldn't connect to the server. The lovingly-produced, extensible, fully-abstracted "relational" {used in the loosest sense, as there was only one table in it so there was nothing for anything to relate to, but it could have been relational} database he'd designed, wasn't working.
When I tried to ring him to ask about it, I found his business had gone T.U. I couldn't stop grinning for a week after that.
Access allows to share database as simple files.
And in this file, you have the data, the reporting (ugly I must say), and the interface forms.
No bigger database allows that.
I do agree that Access is limited, buggy, slow, and uses some strange subset of SQL.
But it gives to small companies, that often do not have internal computer professional, a great tool for many small problems.
Of course, for longer term solutions, centralised database are required. But they usualy require more knowledge, GUI needs to be developped specifically (compared to Access automatically generated one), often tools of various origin need to be integrated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... They are simply too hard to use for the occasionnal power user who is not a specialist and are overkill for most small uses.
But many of my clients (mostly small consulting companies) create Access databases per project and have found no better solution (either OpenSource (may be EasyPHP sometimes) or proprietary).
So I guess that we definitively need some light utility database (why not base on sqlite?) bundling some interface, some programming logic in a single file that would allow to build small "single use" databases for non computer specialist and share it as a regular file.
(sorry about the poor the english, its not my native language)
Perhaps that's because they can't afford them. That problem goes away with OSS SQL databases.
With mysql or whatever the user would need to setup a db server, a web server (or maybe do a java gui) + php or something. That just does not work for a looney. In comparison I can give him a simple MDB which he double clicks and off he goes (given that he has access installed or installs the access runtime).
I did find this somewhat more limited than MSAccess, but for simple forms like most small businesses would use (i.e. anything not needing a programmer to do) this would be just fine. In fact, it might be somewhat less confusing that MSAccess, since it puts it all in the context of an ordinary word processing document, making it more safe and familiar.
I didn't know about this feature at all, but after reading your post an hour ago or so, I decided to see if it existed, and sure enough, it did, and I was able to get up to speed and create a simple two-table database relating people and their hobbies, all without writing any code.
Mind you, this doesn't do proper relational stuff like using hobbyid as the foreign key in the people table. I was unable to find a way to do that and still display the hobbyname in the dropdown listbox on the form. But if I used hobbyname, it all related automatically and effortlessly. This is how most non-database-trained people would design their databases anyway, so I guess it's a moot point.
I guess this does not fill the need Access does, but it is still usefull to know.
Even if they never heard of Codd I find my clients doing some pretty sophisticated stuffs with the help of Access wizards.
Often they begin some project, define usefull data, do a first raw database, then buy me a few days of work (one or two usually) to add what they could not....
Access is good for that, particulary since its graphic request builder is not too bad for someone that would not be able to write SQL.
I don't know if this is only me, but among my clients, 4 companies are regulary doing that (and I did not induce them to do so, I even tried to find some free software equivalent since I did not like (and still doesn't much) Access).
Small companies, particulary those dealing with imaterial services often have this need for a data swiss knife, which, more or less, Access fills.
I have not found anything that would compare favorably to Access for this use.
I'm even really thinking to combine some C++, Python interpreter, wxWindows and SQLite to make something that I could substitute to Access sometime.
But this is still pretty theorical (if I find a full week of free time, I guess it won't anymore).
Just my 2 cents
I'm still working on the kinks in the online book on OS on Win, but give it a try and send feedback
<A HREF="http://lccdigital.com/osonwindows/top.htm" TITLE="lccdigital.com">http://lccdigital.com/osonwindows/top.htm</a lccdigital.com>
see chapt 16 and 17 for MySQL use straight (ODBC) into OO.O, or XSell spreadsheets, text' docs & cetera.
JayNicks
It seems that many of your arguments were written as though OOorg already had the marketing leverage that MS Office has conquered over many years, and (yes) some hard work (at least early on, they overcame great obstacles to get on top of the heap).
I have yet to discover (after several web search and Help searches) how to show two pages side-by-side and discover a "format painter", other then adding a new named format based on the existing text and then using that to paint to the area desired - an extra step for which I don't understand the reasoning or necessity.
Just two little examples which, at least in my case, undermine the concept of
"All things being equal, if a company's staff need formal training for OpenOffice, then they probably need it for every new version of Microsoft Office."
From one version of Office to the next, for the most part (but admittedly not always) Microsoft knows better than to change things which already work, so you can still do what you did, until you start learning extras and adding More New Things (which you probably didn't need anyway - but that's a different rant).
And most importantly (to me):
"In migrating Microsoft Office documents to OpenOffice, some advanced formatting may be lost - and this is a problem, but it is unreasonable to demand this because of the fact that Microsoft does not make it's data formats public."unfortunately, since no one is physically coerced to purchase MS Office (or at least doesn't seem to have been proven yet) I don't see why Microsoft, a private company, must release its standards, just because it would be convenient to its competitors. And if the company uses a valid, functioning product, I don't see how they can be blamed if in using a competitive product, the competitor doesn't "get it quite right" just because I am unwilling to help the competition out of the "good of my heart" (we're talking business, not humanitarianism here...)
The capability (or not) of OOorg to deal with the data is one of its Davidian problems in overtaking Goliath, but it is silly for us to say that Goliath is injust unless he warns before taking a swing, just because David thinks it's cool to let out a yell before every stone's throw.
You can bet that if and when OOorg becomes a threat to Microsoft, it will either support the public standards already available, or suffer the losses (if it feels it can afford it).
Or maybe it will just try to buy its way out here too...
I do like OOorg, and can manage with the limitations it has with MS Office documents, but I don't see any reason to hide that the problems exist, just to play it up better against the competition without actually improving anything.
"In migrating Microsoft Office documents to OpenOffice, some advanced formatting may be lost - and this is a problem, but it is unreasonable to demand this because of the fact that Microsoft does not make it's data formats public."I think you missed why he made this as an example.
What's better? Having your information and data tied up into proprietary formats where future access might not be possible or complete, or in open standards where your information and data are stored in a way that even if new features or software would be imcompatible with the existing format, you could still engineer a filter that would make access to the info and data possible? It's an obvious choice.
His point is MS makes the situation where your data is locked up in a proprietary then have the gaul to make this a sales comparison!
I agree with you this is business. But business that poisons the food you eat then offers you an antidote you always have to take else you will get hurt but then tries to convince you it's a good thing IMHO is just plain wrong.
It would hurt them immensely if they had to open their office formats. Then again, it's how they maintain their monoply and extort companies into using them by holding the info and data in closed and proprietary formats.
As for your first point... either the features exists and you need to do the leg work to find out how to do it, or it needs to be added if it's something that might be useful to others and doesn't conflict with the software architecture. This is one area that OSS has over proprietary and that is if you need a feature, all you have to do is cruise over to the forums or email your requests to the OO.o devteam.
Granted, you can do this with MS also, but they usually ask the question, "Will this feature make us money so we can justify the expenditure of resources to develope it?" If the answer is yes, then it is added to the developement queue. If no, then it may not necessarily be abandoned, but looses all priority and maybe added at an undetermined point in the future.
But you say, "Well, the same priorities in different ways maybe assigned to feature upgrades in OO.o as well." True. But here is the big difference. I, as a 3rd party, can hire another 3rd party to develope my feature. And if I so choose, I can sell that feature so long as it conforms to the GPL'ed nature of OO.o.
However, I do agree, OO.o is not as good as OfficeXP or Office2003. But OO.o does what I need and it's free and I feel safe with the licensing.
And if this doesn't bring home the difference between OO.o and Office...
I have nine computers in my living room. Eight of them have OO.o installed. I have one computer with OfficeXP, a laptop that came with a business bundle. That copy I think cost around $350 dollars or so. It's in a bundle and ther is no inventory of how much each cost. Irregardless, if I bought Office at a store it's $400+. My point is that one install cost $350+ and the eight installs of OO.o cost nothing (in theory, I did sent $15 to them (unemployed student)). If I had to pay MS's price for OO.o, 8 x $350 or 8 x $400 is $2800-3200 stinking dollars! Free, or $2800-3200? Hmmmm...
I know you didn't mention anything about what my last point was about, but to me it's so striking any conversation about OO.o vs MS should include it.
either the features exists and you need to do the leg work to find out how to do it, or it needs to be added if it's something that might be useful to others and doesn't conflict with the software architecture. This is one area that OSS has over proprietary and that is if you need a feature, all you have to do is cruise over to the forums or email your requests to the OO.o devteam.but my point is that for many things that a common or average business user need do, MS Office is at the point of development that the feature is more often than not already there.
Without asking anyone.
And relatively easy to find usually, as well.
OOorg is trying to play catch up, and to the average business user that means extra time: what company will allow you time to go over to the OOdev site, or take up the IT Dept time of requesting something that MS Office already had, and the users already know how to use. That is one of the extra "catch-up" costs that the $0 up-front doesn't cover (part of the MS propaganda that actually hits home).
I know I don't have time to develop something for my Word Processer, particularly if it is only as support to be able to do more productive work (like writing a new bid for my real work).
Don't get me wrong, several things about OOorg I like even better than MS Office, but then I still find myself cursing at OOorg when I erase a paragraph, and find that the following paragraph gets reformatted. Oh well, better hope it gets corrected in the next release...
"since no one is physically coerced to purchase MS Office (or at least doesn't seem to have been proven yet) I don't see why Microsoft, a private company, must release its standards, just because it would be convenient to its competitors."
Under normal circumstances this should not be a requirement. However, capatalist democracies have long recognised that monopolies must be treated differently for the health of the market; that they must be made to ensure that others have at least the opportunity to compete with them, even if they then fail for reasons of incompetence; that, in short, there must be a level playing ground.
For a wordprocessor to compete in todays market it is absolutely essential that it be able to inter-operate with the defacto standard (.doc). If that standard is kept a secret by a monopolist, then there can be no competition. The only reason there is so much buzz about OO.org is because it has the best compatability with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format at the present time -- there are other better, free WPs in most other respects.
The recent European ruling against MS was a failure in this respect. The most important change that is needed to allow competition with MS is the opening up of all MS's secret formats, protocols, and APIs. Taking money from them only punishes them for their past actions, but sets no precendents for there future actions.
> compatability with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format at the present time
I have found that OO's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc compatibility is not as good as other WP options (TextMaker seems to be much better, though it's not "free").
> -- there are other better, free WPs in most other respects.
Like what? I truily interested in knowing.
There is a way to live without MS, and that doesn't always mean just banning it altogether either.
Check out http://network.gouldacademy.org/ for more info on my school.
Once upon a time Microsoft (and AutoCAD - another monopoly) made their way into a market dominated by Wordstar and the behemoth WordPerfect (who? I hear the high school senior ask...) by offering low priced student versions the others did not.
If you manage to set the standard as OOo (interchange amongst high schoolers I am guesing is on an informational level - not format-critical, and not the same as the critical needs of a world Multinational Company Standard that has existed for 10 years...).
Congratulations, I think you are better off staring out as you are with OOo, and envy your luck. Unfortunately, a 50+ yr.old secretary that works with MSOffice since 1995 WILL undergo much greater costs and productivity loss (short-mid term) sidegrading from any MS Office to OOo/StarOffice then from Office 97 or 2000 to Office XP.
As a person using MS Word dince its version 3.0 for DOS and current user of OpenOffice, I can agree with you that OOorg feels a bit rough here and there ut I have to disagree with you on publishing storage formats.
Matter of fact, I think, the question here is not really the data format, but access to my data.
Even if MS does not publicise its document format it should provide a feature of exporting MY DATA (which includes every bit of formatting) to a publicly available stnadard format.
Sandor Laza
<A HREF="http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/18/2048250" TITLE="newsforge.com">Newsvac</a newsforge.com>?
Slackware and Gentoo are arguably the fastest and less resource intensive distros. While businesses using Linux are typically running Red Hat, it is only for their lack of knowledge for Linux that they are not running a more productive distribution.
In "viewpoint #1", Microsoft is obviously trying to pass Linux off as unstable and unproductive by stating "end user downtime and loss of productivity" while also hinting that Linux will cost more money than Windows from these facts. I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I have yet to see Linux generate a fatal crash or keep me from being productive from whatever reason Microsoft may be implying.
Also, they state "additional deployment, management, and support" as being more costly. Any Linux administrator with half a brain knows that any conceivable problem can be fixed with a few minutes of searching through a newsgroup or user forum (Google is our friend). As far as deployment or management, I am having a hard time thinking of how this is any more of a problem for Linux than Windows.
This whole document is a big fabrication, and Microsoft is trying their hardest to fool the gullible people out there with cheap lies and exaggerations.
One more thing... "Some customers simply don't want to replace their legacy hardware. For these customers, consider Windows Terminal Services as a potential solution"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... okay, this is ridiculous, I've got a 386 running the latest version of Slackware -- WinXP simply won't boot on this system. Where does Microsoft get off implying that their solutions for legacy hardware are any better than a much less expensive Linux solution?
1) The document is in pdf format -- not Billy format
2) Apparently Billy office does not export pdf natively,
a third party app is required.
3) The document it turns out was written using
quark express on a mac.
4) They couldn't use Billy office format for their
pitch, because (contrary to their pitch), acquiring
Billy office is rather expensive for Joe user, and
thus Joe user couldn't read this document in Billy office.
5) If they had nevertheless pushed it out in Billy office
format, folks would have had to download open office,
to read their Billy office formatted paper that explains
why folks shouldn't use open office to read Billy office
documents.
"Software is like sex. If you really have to pay for it because you can't figure out how to do it yourself, there's always someone willing to take your money."
I know that StarOffice and OpenOffice.org are basically the same product when it comes to documents, but I believe it is important to note that OpenOffice.org documents can move easily between OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, and in the future, other applications using the format.
And my translation used to be:
"Let us take you for a ride."
A Nony Mouse
I work with PDF files a lot. They're easy to distribute and render well almost everywhere. It lets me distribute documents using fonts I like without forcing others who want to see it rendered as intended to install my fonts on their systems.
Microsoft also realise the benefits of PDF and decided to release their Competative Guide as a PDF document.
However, I create my PDF files using OpenOffice.org. Saving the current open document as a PDF file is a matter of clicking the PDF icon on the toolbar or choosing "Export as PDF..." from the "File" menu.
Microsoft Office does not have integrated support for exporting to PDF. In fact, for this document in which Microsoft defend their Office suite, they had to use third party software.
While Microsoft Office has a text processor (Word) and a desktop publishing program (Publisher), they used Quark, Inc.'s QuarkXPress to design their two page propaganda.
One would expect Microsoft to use Microsoft's own operating system (Windows), but it appears they think Apple Macintoshes are better suited for creating this kind of document.
If you run their OpenOffice.pdf through strings(1), near the end are these interesting hints:
<nobr> <wbr></nobr><TT>/Producer (Acrobat Distiller 4.05 for Macintosh)
/Creator (QuarkXPress\(tm\) 4.11)</TT>
I have created marketing material similar to this document with OpenOffice.org. If Microsoft think Microsoft Office is so great, why do they not use it for their propaganda?
Re:Microsoft are afraid to use their own software.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2004 08:07 AMAs for why they used PDF: think about it. They are appealing to Linux users. They can't exactly open Word files - seems like a smart move to me. Thank god none of you are in any marketing positions...
Do you know of any companies that rely solely on their own products for all their corporate purposes?Do you not think it is strange that while Microsoft Word can be used to write books and Microsoft Publisher is a nice frame based tool to create leaflets like this Competative Guide, they choose to use QuarkXpress?
Why create an in-house PDF mod for Word when there is already market dominance by Adobe and Quark - it doesn't make economic sense.It would add a great feature to Microsoft Office and take away one of OpenOffice.org's important advantages. As it would increase the value of the product, it would make economic sense.
As for why they used PDF: think about it. They are appealing to Linux users. They can't exactly open Word files - seems like a smart move to me.,I use Linux and have no problems opening documents created using Microsoft Word. Only a few times has this caused problems. Even Microsoft's own documentation written in Word opens in OpenOffice.org Writer with all lay-out and formatting intact. Note by the way that I think they made the right choice by publishing this as a PDF. I also use PDF a lot.
Re:Microsoft are afraid to use their own software.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2004 09:23 AMWhy create an in-house PDF mod for Word when there is already market dominance by Adobe and Quark - it doesn't make economic sense. Just use the one in existence.
Yeah, just like way back when when everyone had Netscape 1..4.
As for why they used PDF: think about it. They are appealing to Linux users.
No problems. Since the software is free, Microsoft should publish it in SXW and KWD formats as well. (-:
As to why they used Quark Express, putting this together in Quark is as easy as falling out of bed, doing the same in MS-Word and getting the layout to work across all versions of MS-Word and all printers on all OSes would have been kind of similar to falling out of bed: it would have been a nightmare. OpenOffice Draw wouldn't do too bad a job, and MS-Publisher would look OK until you changed printers or versions or had to download it over a modem link, but watching someone knock that up in PowerPoint would be marketable entertainment.
Quark is probably also the main reason the PDF is so portable. Somehow MS-Office-produced PDFs seem to be the ones which most often break PDF readers.
QuarkXPress
OpenOffice.org Draw
Microsoft Publisher
Microsoft Word
Microsoft PowerPoint
Interesting. The non-MS products (even the free OOo) are rated higher than all of the MS Office programs that cost $$, have been out for many many years, one that is designed precisely for desktop publishing, one that has many desktop publishing features (which should be more than adaquate to crank out this particular piece), etc..
I agree 100% with you. As far as Quark being the main reason PDF is so portable -- umm.. i don't quite understand that, Quark AFAIK still does not have PDF functionaility and requires Adobe distiller/acrobat to create PDFs..
Re:Microsoft are afraid to use their own software.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2004 09:56 AMRe:Microsoft are afraid to use their own software.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2004 11:16 AMWow, so Microsoft uses a third party application... amazing. Do you know of any companies that rely solely on their own products for all their corporate purposes? Why create an in-house PDF mod for Word when there is already market dominance by Adobe and Quark - it doesn't make economic sense. Just use the one in existence.
You suck at economics then... Microsoft do not put a native PDF exporter in Word because they do not own the standard. It does not help them keep SMB's locked into MS office when they allow people to easily export their documents to another popular standard.
As for why they used PDF: think about it. They are appealing to Linux users. They can't exactly open Word files - seems like a smart move to me. Thank god none of you are in any marketing positions...
They are not just appealing to Linux users, It could be safely assumed their goal is getting this FUD to people who are yet to use OO... Duh. Once someone has swapped he/she will tend to make a judgement on the software themselves. And likely then make the move to OO.
Oh yes, you are clearly a marketing genius!!
Re:Microsoft are afraid to use their own software.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2004 08:57 AMThere is really no reason at all that MS office doesn't export to PDF since Office XP. To be honest all commercial office suites, except MS Office, either has native PDF export or sell a 19.99 plugin to export PDF. Word Perfect Office has had it since version 10, Lotus Smart Suite has had it for a while, Easy Office 123 has had that feature since 2000, and even 601 Office Suite has a 20 plugin (Since 2001) to export as PDF. The only reason why I can see MS not adding that feature is so that people export as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc thus requiring MS Office (Or a MS Office compatibility filter) to open the file.
The document actually made me laugh my butt off. Secure with MS Office!!! This is so funny. How many MS Office Meta-Data snafus have been the press lately? Cmon... The White House plagurizes most of a document fr
I don't meet the reqirements for MS Office
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 27, 2004 07:11 PMI have a Logitech mouse and its not written anywhere on it that it is compatible with Microsoft Mouse or Microsoft IntelliMouse so I obviously can't use MS Office.
* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors
There again I fail. I have a higher resolution (1280x1024) but in 16M colors. Switching back to 256 colors? no way!
#