Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta Released

Posted by timothy on Wed May 07, 2008 12:11 PM
from the better-each-time-mostly dept.
Sean0michael writes "OpenOffice.org has announced their 3.0 Beta is ready for testing. The new version includes some great enhancements, including MS Office 2007 import filters, an improved notes feature, a built-in Solver component, and an Aqua interface for Macs. The site has a complete list of Beta features. Download your beta release from their site."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Aqua (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Srsen (413456) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:17PM (#23326356)
    Congratulations to the OOo team on (finally) getting an Aqua interface running on Mac OS X. This is a great leap forward for the project and I predict will grow the project significantly in both user base and contributors.
    • Re:Aqua (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sunshinerat (1114191) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:19PM (#23326396)
      Anybody spotted the PPC version of this?
      Looks like there is only an Intel version, no universal binary.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'd just get the powerpc version of NeoOffice [neooffice.org]. It's not 3.0, but it works great.
        • Re:Aqua (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:25PM (#23327528)
          That kinda kills the whole joy of the conversion to an Aqua interface on OOo though. The whole point of that was so that we could move on to the "official" version and stop using NeoOffice in the first place.

          It makes no sense whatsoever for them to not make PPC binaries available. I have both Intel and PPC Macs, and the PPC machines are still perfectly good machines and are nowhere close to deserving of their treatment as outdated relics.
          • Re:Aqua (Score:5, Informative)

            by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @04:31PM (#23330132)
            Nah... NeoOffice still runs a large part of OOo code. Mostly the differences on the front end are in using native widgets instead of the OOo ones (why reinvent the wheel?). The irony here is that the guys doing NeoOffice tried to work with Sun to do this when they started but the people at Sun weren't cooperative. NeoOffice is running what OpenOffice.org should have done a long, long, long time ago and only now have decided this is necessary.
      • Re:Aqua (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:43PM (#23327766)
        There *are* PPC builds so far:
        http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/MacOSX/Dev_BEA300_m2/
    • Re:Aqua (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:51PM (#23326930)
      User base, yes. Contributions, unlikely. The OS X community is renowned for its exclusive commitment to Apple. I can't name a single significant open source project that originated as an OS X-only application but now runs on Linux, for example.
      • Re:Aqua (Score:4, Interesting)

        by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear AT pacbell DOT net> on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:45PM (#23327794) Homepage
        Um, how about KHTML, which started open source (like Open Office), got adopted by Apple into WebKit and (eventually) saw much use of contributions as well as adoption in terms of Nokia's web browser, QT using WebKit, rollbacks of code into KHTML, etc.

        I mean, OpenOffice was a Linux exclusive app that moved to Mac, so you're quest for a OS-X only app that runs on Linux seems pointless.
        • Re:Aqua (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:25PM (#23327522)
          Right, and a huge portion of OS X was lifted wholesale from FreeBSD, so what? Pointing out clones or copies of applications is not what I was asking.


          So I'll ask again: Name a single significant open source application that originated on OS X and now runs on other platforms. You can't, because OS X is designed specifically to prevent cross-platform development, and the Apple development community likes it that way.


          Your inability to honestly answer this question proves my point that Mac users will certainly enjoy downloading and using OpenOffice for free, but very very few will contribute anything back: because OS X developers simply don't care about other platforms. This is also proven by the existence of things like Darwin ports, where the contributions are all one way. Again, an absolutely MASSIVE use of open source by the Apple community, with almost nothing given back.

          Of course, you all have the right to do this since it is open source, just don't expect the rest of us to give you guys any respect as true members of the community.

          • Re:Aqua (Score:4, Interesting)

            by dotancohen (1015143) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @04:56PM (#23330480) Homepage

            I thought the complaint was that KDE looked like Windows?
            When people are complaining about KDE, it looks like Windows. When people are complementing KDE, it looks like OS-X.

            http://what-is-what.com/what_is/kde.html [what-is-what.com]

            Just this week was the first time I sat down to a Mac. They are rediculously expensive in Israel, and very uncommon. I opened the control center to configure Sticky Keys, and I could have sworn that I had opened Kcontrol, the KDE control center. Worse yet, Kcontrol has two interfaces, one that I like and one that I hate. This was the one that I hate.
        • Re:Aqua (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @03:53PM (#23329568) Homepage Journal
          If you write applications on OS X using Objective-C and Cocoa you can often port them to other platforms using GNUstep. If you use proprietary Apple technologies (Cocoa is not - it's an implementation of the OpenStep specification) like QuickTime then you will need to rewrite those parts. GNU GCC only got Objective-C++ support a couple of years ago, so applications using this were a problem. In Ãtoilé svn we have a partially-complete reimplementation of CoreGraphics too, if anyone is interested in working on it (in etoile/branches/Opal).
    • Re:Aqua (Score:4, Insightful)

      by icknay (96963) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @02:24PM (#23328336)
      I guess it's just part of the geeky mindset that when seeing something complicated, the discussion turns immediately to its flaws.

      But for just a second, I'd like to appreciate how *freaking awesome* it is that GPL app like Open Office exists. Sure it has problems, but it's also an incredibly hard space to work in. The Microsoft monopoly is based very much on the office formats, and the dedication of Sun and the Open Office team to build this complex thing is creating all sorts of freedom for the rest of us. Microsoft knows this, and that's why they expended so much effort trying to mess up the formats ... but it's not working, here we have a GPL tool that reads the newest Microsoft format.

      It's pretty hard to function on the internet without some ability to deal with office documents. In fact, I suspect Open Office is creating more freedom and competition than Firefox. Writing a browser, strangely, is not *that* hard. I can think of ten or so browser projects, but only a few office suites.
      • Re:Aqua (Score:5, Funny)

        by Farmer Tim (530755) <roundfile.mindless@com> on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:45PM (#23326828) Journal
        It reminds me of Appleworks. Which is to say it feels like a Mac application, but not a very good one.

        (Kidding. A brief fiddle about with it makes me very hopeful.)
      • Re:Aqua (Score:5, Informative)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:20PM (#23327438)

        Yeah, but how long is it going to take before some douche bag starts whining about how it doesn't "feel like a 'real' Mac application?" Probably in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . .

        Ooooh! I want to be that douche bag!

        Seriously, this is a great step forwards, but like most ports it is still seriously lacking in real functionality, especially when it comes to features that OS X offers, but other OS's do not. These include:

        • - spell checking - OO.org claims to support OS X's built in spell checker, but as of the beta still flags words as misspelled that every other application knows are not because I added them. Training two, separate spell checkers to know all the technical terms I use daily are not misspellings is a hassle and is "not native." Hopefully this will be fixed by the time the final version ships.
        • - system services - OO.org cannot use any OS X system services including the built in, universal grammar checker, language translation services, or any of the dozen or so services I use in MS Word, Pages, InDesign, TextEdit, mail.app, etc., etc.
        • - responsiveness - whether it is because it is a port, or just because it is bloated, OO.org is still a dog for performance. I sometimes see visible lag when tying in word processing documents and it really, really hogs resources. MS Word is slow and a hog, but OO.org is really the only application I use regularly that is worse in that regard.
        • - keyboard shortcuts - OO.org does not use the standardized keyboard shortcuts for all functions, but does use them for some. For example, copy and paste uses the standard (cmd-c, and cmd-v) but increasing the font size does not use the same (cmd+) that native apps do. Sticking with one set across all platforms makes sense as a standard. Using the standards on a platform makes sense. Going halfway in between, however, means I have to guess if a given feature will be like a "real Mac application" or like OO.org on Windows or something else entirely.

        Please note. These don't mean OO.org sucks or the developers are lazy or anything else. It just means that there is a real usability and functionality concern when comparing a not quite polished port to a native application. One of the drawbacks of cross-platform applications (especially when they are not designed as cross-platform initially, but try to port to new platforms) is they tend to miss things and also tend to become a least common denominator when it comes to features. Windows and Linux don't have a universal grammar checker, so if you use OO.org on OS X (which does) it is ignored, despite being implemented by default in all native applications.

  • Don't Hate! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:18PM (#23326382) Homepage Journal
    I will probably get crucified for this, but one of the new features seems to be support for VBA! While this may not appeal to folks creating NEW solutions, at least we got a stepping stone for supporting old solutions on a non-windows/office platform.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:22PM (#23326460)

      I will probably get crucified for this, but one of the new features seems to be support for VBA! While this may not appeal to folks creating NEW solutions, at least we got a stepping stone for supporting old viruses on a non-windows/office platform.
      Fixed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I don't understand why people think that OpenOffice gets better the more it's like MS Office. OpenOffice.org seems to try hard to be an MS Office clone, but it's like the Linux distros that try to be "Windows-like"; Windows is the reason we want something else, so why are you copying it?

      Macs, for instance, do looks of things differently than Windows and Linux, and people are attracted to them because they're different, not because it's just a way to do MS-things, the MS-way, with non-MS program. Until Ope

      • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:35PM (#23326682)

        Windows is the reason we want something else, so why are you copying it?
        Speak for yourself there, cowboy. The pricing is the biggest reason that I use open source instead of proprietary, everything else is just icing on the cake. The biggest problem with open source that most people have with it is user friendliness, something that their proprietary competitors either nail or create (since they're the de facto user friendly program). In the case of OOO, at the very least they need to be able to replicate the functionality of the Office version to replace usage for complex documents.

        I'm DMing a D&D game right now, and most people are trying to use HeroForge spreadsheets to build their characters and show them to me. Without MS Office, I can't read them. If there's a problem with character sheets for D&D, I can only imagine how many businesses and other groups have problems with OOO not recognizing MS scripts.

        Until OpenOffice, and a lot of other Open Source Software projects, understand this [that they need to be different], they aren't much better than what they emulate.
        In the areas that matter, they're very much inferior. Apple has been able to create UIs that are much superior to anything anyone else offers. Open source has failed to do so for 90% of their attempts. Unless the project is in that 10%, they could do better by moving towards the MS version rather than continuing what they're doing.
        • by sm62704 (957197) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:13PM (#23327310) Journal
          The biggest problem with open source that most people have with it is user friendliness, something that their proprietary competitors either nail or create

          Maybe that's why I love Linux and hate Windows. I don't need "user friendly". I need user obedient. I don't care if it sneers at me and insults me so long as it does what I want it to do the way I want it to.

          Microsoft programs do what they allow you to have them do, the way they want or no way at all.

          As an added bonus with Linux, it doesn't unsult me, while my intelligence is often insulted with Microsoft's "user friendliness".

          I don't need my hammer to be user friendly, either. I just want to drive a nail and no backtalk from the damned hammer. Like Linux, it is user-obediant.
      • Re:Don't Hate! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:35PM (#23326696)

        I will probably get crucified for this, but one of the new features seems to be support for VBA!
        I don't understand why people think that OpenOffice gets better the more it's like MS Office.

        In this particular instance, this is a real and useful feature, especially for people looking to perform a large migration to OpenOffice and away from MS Office. Simply put, this feature means less work for people trying to perform such a migration and that is better than more work. That seems quite understandable to me.

      • Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MightyYar (622222) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:37PM (#23326738)

        I don't understand why people think that OpenOffice gets better the more it's like MS Office.
        It depends on what the goals of the project are. If they want to go after users of Office, then they will need to import - more or less flawlessly - from Office formats. Since there are 10-15 years worth of VBA macros out there, it is reasonable that you should support that part of the file format.

        I know that I personally have a few GB worth of data in Excel and Word formats, and much of the Excel stuff is macro-enabled/enhanced. If OpenOffice did not support the Macros, I'd have to keep a copy of Office... at which point, why download and use OpenOffice?

        Now, please note that I am playing somewhat the devil's advocate here. I'm a user of NeoOffice (even paid for the early access thing) and do in fact use both Office and OpenOffice together on the same machine - in part because I don't want to be locked in to a specific package again in the future. I was just trying to convey the vantage point that I think typifies the office market.
      • by Uncle Focker (1277658) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:56PM (#23327020)

        The feature bloat in both Office and OpenOffice is gross.
        Yep, in my day programs had no features and that's the way we liked them!
      • Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KnightNavro (585943) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:19PM (#23327416)
        The more like MS Office it is, the easier it is for corporations to switch to OO. The more compatible with MS Office it is, the easier it is for people to use OO.

        I use MS Office 2007 at work. I don't have a choice in the matter. If we start delivering documents in any other format, our clients will have a conniption fit. If we can't open a Word file because our office suite isn't perfectly compatible with the file, we have a major problem.

        Unfortunately, I sometimes have to take my work home with me, where I don't want to pay the MS tax. The more easily I can work with Word and Excel files with OO on my home computer, the happier I am. The more OO screws up my cell formatting and causes things to print incorrectly, the more likely I am to turn to the dark side at home.

        Before anybody brings it up, no, it's not an option to explain to our clients that open source and implementing open standards is the way to go. We get files from governments at all levels and work for dozens of different clients. Most of them are a hell of a lot bigger than us and won't care if some engineering consulting company thinks an open program is better. Changing office suites is a big deal to some companies. Just look at the feedback MS got for changing to ribbons in Office 2007. People bitched and moaned that they couldn't find anything and it took a whole click more to do a something they had done in three clicks before.

        • Re:Don't Hate! (Score:5, Informative)

          by ianare (1132971) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:24PM (#23327498)
          I'm getting tired of this blatant lie. OO is released under the LGPL. There, end of story - it's open source.

          And while sun does have the copyright, the community plays a role in the development process.
          Furthermore, some other projects do use OO code, eg neooffice [wikipedia.org]
            • Re:Don't Hate! (Score:4, Informative)

              by ianare (1132971) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @02:44PM (#23328620)
              From the about [openoffice.org] page :

              The OpenOffice.org project is primarily sponsored by Sun Microsystems, which is the primary contributor of code to the Project. Our other major corporate contributors include Novell, RedHat, RedFlag CH2000, IBM, and Google. Additonally over 450,000 people from nearly every curve of the globe have joined this Project

              Now, I have never contributed to OOo, so I can't speak for how they actually handle individual contributors. Many open source projects are not always very inviting to individual contributors, especially when their opinions differ from the core devs (see GNOME). But they certainly do accept code from others.
  • by GeekDork (194851) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:27PM (#23326544) Homepage

    I'm missing the "complete rewrite of rendering API and functionality", as well as proper SVG handling (or EPS, or PDF, hell native support for any proper vector graphics format!), and other things that would keep Impress presentations from looking like ass. What about uniform lines, circles that look at least remotely like circles, etc.? What about proper inline (and display) math typesetting? Instead of trying to remain bug-compatible with MS Office at all cost, they should perhaps think about, well, not sucking as bad.

      • by evanbd (210358) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:15PM (#23327340)

        Alternately, I could work on the code I know, you can work on the code you know, and the OpenOffice developers can work on the code they know. We all pay attention to user requests, and then we don't have to all go learn a new codebase every time we find a program that's missing a feature. Much more efficient that way, don't you think?

  • by xeno (2667) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:36PM (#23326700)
    Ugh. I sound like a broken record: Every OOo update, I hope that the OOo developers will add an outline mode to Writer. And every release I'm disappointed. I really like OOo, but this one missing feature keeps me from using it for serious work becuase it makes large document planning and writing production in Writer sloooooow. It's been requested of the OOo team quite a few times over the past 4-5 years. ODF intuitively matches this concept, but implementing it apparently requires some nontrivial change to the Writer codebase. And a little more enthusiasm by those who could code it (wish I could). If I could direct my OOo donation to this one feature, I'd give $XXX instead of my paltry $XX donation. There's some background available here: http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/category/writing

    And to quote myself (http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=322381&cid=20912291): "...before some n00b who's never written a 200-page document jumps all over me: No, the OOo "Navigator" does not provide an outline mode. It provides something akin to a re-organizable TOC in a floating window, but it doesn't provide the productivity enhancements afforded by inline hierarchical control within the editing window. This is one function that MS Word got right. For example, in Word I can start typing and make a list in normal text, click into "outline mode" and either use a key shortcut or a single click-drag to promote/demote some text to headings (while leaving other items as content), or re-order paragraphs of text or headings. To do the same thing in OOo's Navigator, I need to switch to a different window to reorganize headings, but switch back to the editing window to resume editing content. I also need to switch between two windows to split a heading into two sections, switch back to move it, and switch again to resume composing content -- something I can do with a CR and single mouse-drag in Word.

    Word: type, type, drag, type, type, [enter], key-combo, type.
    OOo: type, type, switch-window, drag, switch-window, type, type, re-style, switch-window, drag, switch-window, type.

    Come on guys, suck up the Not-Invented-Here pride and adopt this one feature that MS got right! Or do it one-better and improve on the similar inline hierarchical editing from FrameMaker+SGML. Or innovate some collapsible tag interface from something like the old HotMeTaL from SoftQuad. (But don't trash the Navigator; it *is* useful for final proofing, just not composition)
  • by danaris (525051) <.moc.cam. .ta. .siranad.> on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:52PM (#23326962) Homepage

    From what I've seen, this release still has the absurd 65535 row limit on Calc—the only reason such a limit was acceptable in previous versions was because MS Office didn't yet support more, but now that Office 2007 supports up to 4 million-some-odd rows, there is absolutely no excuse for putting that many or more into OpenOffice.

    More than 65K rows is the killer feature that has gotten parts of my company to upgrade to 2007. Until and unless OOo supports it, there's no way we'll be able to use it as a full replacement for MS Office, as much as we'd like to.

    Dan Aris

      • by danaris (525051) <.moc.cam. .ta. .siranad.> on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:14PM (#23327330) Homepage

        ...what does your company do that they need that many rows on a spreadsheet?

        We're querying data out of a database and trying to do simple processing on it (the type that Excel does very well) in the simplest ways we can, and present it to the bosses. Yes, I could write a Java program to subtotal all our payments by type and spit it out in some kind of elegant format, or we could spring for a dozen more Crystal Reports licenses, but the fact is that Excel does this just fine, and now we don't even have to use 6 worksheets within a workbook to hold it all.

        I hate Microsoft, but I just have no way of recommending replacing Office with OpenOffice while this is an issue.

        Oh, and by the way (not directed at you, but at the stuck-up git who wrote that quote, which I read, too): when someone says they have a reason to use more than X of something in your product, and all it would cost you to give it to them is (I think) changing the types of a bunch of variables, and maybe adding a couple of extra converter methods, you don't tell them, "No one should ever need that many! Only an idiot would even ask for that!" You either say, "Well, we don't currently have enough demand for that feature to be worth the trouble," or you just darn well do it!

        Dan Aris

        • by mhall119 (1035984) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:39PM (#23327706) Homepage Journal

          We're querying data out of a database and trying to do simple processing on it (the type that Excel does very well) in the simplest ways we can, and present it to the bosses.
          What kind of processing are you having to do that can't be done on the database itself?

          when someone says they have a reason to use more than X of something in your product, and all it would cost you to give it to them is (I think) changing the types of a bunch of variables, and maybe adding a couple of extra converter methods, you don't tell them, "No one should ever need that many! Only an idiot would even ask for that!" You either say, "Well, we don't currently have enough demand for that feature to be worth the trouble," or you just darn well do it!
          I'm sure there will be more to change than just that, and probably some unintended consequences of such a change as well.

            And not to defend someone who is acting like a stuck up git (I haven't read the quote), chances are that he's right, it sounds like you're using a speadsheet to do the job of a database. When someone tells you you're using a hammer to cut wood, you can't just tell them that it costs them little to put serrated edges on the hammer's head and that they should just darn well do it.
  • by temcat (873475) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @04:45PM (#23330338)
    Just downloaded the beta to check what has changed since I last tried OOo. Not much as far as I can see.

    1) Bullet/numbered lists.
    - Still cannot quickly (one mouse drag) change spacing between the text and its bullet/number. Something I can do in Abiword.
    - "Clear formatting" does not clear the bullet/number.

    2) Still no Normal mode.

    3) Keyboard Shortcuts
    - Still limited shortcut selection.
    - Still assign a shortcut to a special character without recording a macro.

    4) The new notes implementation is actually a step back.
    - Word compatibility hasn't improved here. You cannot collaborate with people using Word when they use notes. Even if you don't change their notes, not all content is preserved.
    - Now I can only see a note on a special page margin, instead of having it as a special markup in text with an option to read it on demand. Moreover, this margin increases with text zoom in Web Layout mode (WTF?)!
    - Still cannot assign a note to a range of text.

    5) Still cannot search and replace text with a specific named style.

    And all of this is only after a cursory look, there is probably much more.
    • by swimin (828756) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @12:35PM (#23326678)
      Maybe a bunch of users should get together and form a bounty on it. I'd gladly throw in $10 to have reveal codes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I would LOVE reveal codes. Unfortunately, I don't think that their object model is like WordPerfect, where everything is stuck inside one big layer. I wouldn't expect "reveal codes" to happen in Word or OpenOffice... it would certainly not be trivial to implement.
      • by Viduliya (39839) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:00PM (#23327084)
        I have not looked at any code, so I do not know this for sure. If you can convert the document on the fly to an XML like format then reveal codes should be trivial to implement. Heck, I would accept the XML in a another window/pane as reveal codes.

        Sadly, I believe that the OpenOffice developers are thinking the same way, Microsoft has thought of MS Office. The must be thinking, all users are dumb enough to never want anything more abstract than WISIWYG editing with some useless hidden formatting characters shown.

        I think Openoffice Writer is a nice product, it is too bad they do not aim to improve it beyond MS Word.

        Nothing worse than having garbge/redundent/misplaced formatting staying hidden just to bite me on the next change on a large document. This is still my prime reason to not use OpenOffice (or MS Word) to create any serious document of a substantial size.
    • by sm62704 (957197) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:04PM (#23327168) Journal
      You got that backwards there, son. Even though I know you're either trolling or (more likely) astroturfing, I'm going to bite.

      I can open a word document with OO. I cannot open an OO document with Word.
      I can open a Word Perfect document with OO. I cannot open a WP document with Word.
      OO has the cool cachet of the GPL, while Word is just another boring corporate moneymaker.
      OO has fewer bugs and faster bug fixes.
      OO costs nothing, while stupid people pay good cash for Word that could otherwise be spent on more important things like beer, games, and more beer.

      The only thing Word has going for it is that the Uncyclopedia parodies Bill Gates [uncyclopedia.org] (and even includes a real criminal justice system mug shot [uncyclopedia.org] of him) but not Scott McNealy [uncyclopedia.org]. I mean, if Uncyclopedia doesn't make fun of you your software must really suck, right?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2008, @01:45PM (#23327798)
        Some poeple consider features to be more important than compatability.

        Microsoft Word has many more (and more mature) features than OO.org and your post does not dispute this at all.

        +4 "Informative" indeed.
          • by encoderer (1060616) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @03:15PM (#23329062)
            No, it's just that for most people compatibility no longer an issue.

            I can't recall the last time I sent a Word/Excel doc to somebody who couldn't open it.

            Nor can I recall having a WP file sent to me in the last decade or so. Besides, Word CAN open up WP docs saved in the WP5 or WP6 formats.

            Now.. as a developer, I have done some pretty great things with Office. Not so much using Office as the platform (although everyones done a bit of that at some point), but moreso just automating it in C#/Visual C++ using its COM wrapper.

            A good example is an MRP we wrote in C# that uses Excel as a reporting platform.

            Many here just can't get past the idea that it's closed-source, a MSFT product, etc. Me? I just want to deliver the best software I can. We're a small company. Top Line growth is important. And I don't have the luxury of indulging personal preferences.
          • by zooblethorpe (686757) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @04:44PM (#23330320)

            I'll ditto encoderer here:

            ...it's just that for most people compatibility no longer an issue.

            Plus, there's one feature that really belongs more in the "Basic Functionality" category, and that's accurate word and character counting. As documented on the OOo bug list for some years now [openoffice.org], any combination of double-byte Asian text + regular single-byte alphanumeric text results in "word" counts that are worse than useless. A number of Asian languages do not count by "word" so much as by character (and for that matter there still isn't much agreement as to what exactly is a "word" in Japanese). OOo gives a total "word" count for either the document or selection, but does not break out any included Asian text -- which MS Word does, and has done for longer than I can clearly remember (starting maybe with MSO 97?). This makes OOo a non-starter for anyone working with such Asian languages in any situation that requires counts -- which includes just about all academic and professional use.

            There's a sample .odt file included in the bug report (direct linky [openoffice.org]) that clearly spells out the differences in how the two apps count from a UI perspective (can't speak to the internals). I'd love to pitch in with the coding, but I sadly cannot afford the time and energy required to dig through OOo's extraordinarily convoluted API documentation to figure out how to update the source code myself; I started the process, but gave up in disgust at how the docs are organized. I've still got MSO, so until such time as the OOo team can get around to fixing this long-standing bug, and / or produce more sensible API docs, I'll keep using Word.

          • by sdnoob (917382) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @10:51PM (#23333448)
            and most of them sit there unused...

            the majority of ms office users could easily get by with either openoffice or abiword/gnumeric. basic typed documents and simple spreadsheets are the most common types of documents and many users simply do not do anything more "involved" than that, ever, with ms office.

            the only reason we have ms office (or windows, for that matter) in our office is because we support users and companies that buy them, and the most common reason they give us as to why they did is simply "because everybody else has them", NOT because they NEEDED them.

            we promote and support open source solutions wherever possible. we live and work in a poor, rural part of the US and not everybody has money to burn on things they don't truly NEED. saving a couple hundred bucks or more by skipping ms office and maybe windows, too, is one way a lot of people can save some cash (so they can afford other things like food, electricity and fuel; which are all steadily rising in cost).

            so what if the open source product is missing feature XYZ; how many people actually use feature XYZ and is it really crucial to have in the first place? is it worth spending $$$ just to have it? is there another open source product that'll work better? or can you simply do what you need to do a different way and save the money? the beauty of open source projects is that if people do want and need feature XYZ, it stands a chance of being added.. or if you're so inclined, you can add it yourself. how often do big, greedy corporations actually listen to their consumers instead of the ka-ching their money makes when they blindly hand it over?
      • Despite my being a huge "fan" and user of Open Source software, I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion.

        While OpenOoffice.org has many features that are more than enough for the average user (e.g. Me), Microsoft Office has more and many that many users can't do without.

        And Microsoft Office 2007 (once you get used to the "ribbon") is even better than Office 2003, which is better than anything from OpenOffice.org.

        Personally, I'm happy with OpenOffice.org in Linux but I'm also open-minded enough to know that it's inferior to Microsoft Office 2003/2007.

        It's pretty much a copy of Microsoft Office 2000 (which is 9 years old).

        You get what you pay for...

        When was the last time you used Microsoft Office and what version was it?

        • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 07 2008, @02:12PM (#23328148)
          And let us not forget the speed. While I have no qualms giving OO.o to my customers when they have me build them a new box, I would never recommend OO.o to a business that was using hardware older than 1 to 2 years. It is just too damned slow.


          Compare OO.o,even the older 1.5,to say,Office 2K(best damned Office released IMHO) the speed will blow you away,even with the hidden Office service disabled. I personally think it is because Sun insists on tying OO.o together with the JRE. But not having tried tearing into the guts of OO.o I can't really tell for sure. All I know is on the 1.0-2.2Ghz 512Mb of RAM equiped machines I come across most often when working on SOHO computers OO.o is simply blown away by any version of Office. Of course,since most of them are running Win2k Pro(best damned Windows released IMHO) they can't run the pretty bloat that is Office 2K7. But I have tried OO.o 1.1-2.2 and have yet to find one that can match the speed and stability of Office 2K or 2K3.


          That said, I am downloading OO.o 3 Beta as we speak and since I'm typing this on a 1.1Ghz with 512Mb running Win2K Pro(perfect for testing freeware before offering it to my customers) I'll be installing it and putting it through its paces as soon as the download completes. Maybe like Firefox 3 they've managed to trim some of the bloat,who knows. But IMHO OO.o on anything less than a 2.4Ghz with 1Gb of RAM is just too damned painful. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

          • by pavon (30274) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @02:32PM (#23328464)

            I personally think it is because Sun insists on tying OO.o together with the JRE.
            You can disable the JRE: Tools > Options > Java > disable. Only a few components [wikipedia.org] use it. Doing so does improve the start up time quite a bit, but I haven't seen any difference whatsoever with runtime performance, so I don't think the JRE is to blame there.
        • by sm62704 (957197) on Wednesday May 07 2008, @03:21PM (#23329128) Journal
          OOo has about the same functionality now that Office had 10 years ago.

          We have Word (and Word Perfect) at work, and I don't use anything in it I didn't use ten years ago.

          At its best, an unused feature is bloat. At its worst it's a security risk.

          If OO lacks a feature you need that Word has, you should buy Word. If not and you still buy Word IMO you're either not thinking clearly or you're spending someone else's money.