Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Sun Microsystems IT

OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta Released 390

Posted by timothy
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta Released

Comments Filter:
  • 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Macs, and the PPC machines are still perfectly good machines and are nowhere close to deserving of their treatment as outdated relics.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: (Score:3, Funny)

            For those of you who want this in PPC:

            1. I haven't looked, but I suspect the source code is available.

            2. IIRC, every Macintosh with OSX has shipped with full development software. It isn't normally installed, but it's there. If you've lost the install disks and never installed Xcode, you can always download it from Apple.

            3. So, you can always compile it yourself. There should be accomodation for compiling for Macs, and that should work for PPCs.

            4. ???

            5. Profit!

      • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by spasm (79260)
        One of the March builds of 3.0.0 included a PPC version - OOo_3.0.0_080314_MacOSXPowerPC_install.dmg - I can't find it on OO's site any more, but it still seems to be available at http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/download.openoffice.org/extended/ooomisc/MacOSX/ [mirrorservice.org]
        and on some torrent trackers.

        I've installed it alongside 2.4 - it's a lot slower than 2.4 (so much so that it's close to unusable on my 1.5 Ghz G4), but it has the lifesaving feature of being able to open .docx files, so it's worth the dual install
    • by dgb2n (85206)
      It is an accomplishment and I'll download it but I wonder how this compares to Neooffice.
    • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dotancohen (1015143)
        Not ported per se, but half of KDE looks like it was lifted from the Mac. Quicksilver has spawned a dozen clones.
        • 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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07, 2008 @06:03PM (#23331246)
            Simple:

            LaunchD
            Bonjour (Dynamic DNS Stuff (mDNS))
            iCal Server

            Thats just a few
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by WiseWeasel (92224)
            Specifically designed to offer an extensive set of frameworks and object-oriented C variant Obj-C language != designed to prevent cross-platform development. Does .Net specifically prevent cross-platform development? Just because you offer developers an advanced set of frameworks that only run on your own platform doesn't mean that you're necessarily trying to prevent interoperability, you could just be trying to attract developers with a productive environment. Mac developers don't HAVE to use Apple's fram
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pembo13 (770295)
          I thought the complaint was that KDE looked like Windows?
          • 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 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@pacbe l l .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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Zoxed (676559)
          > Um, how about KHTML, which started open source (like Open Office) ...

          FWIW OpenOffice.org started as the *proprietary* suite Staroffice, which was bought by Sun and open sourced.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Winckle (870180)
        The handbrake project.

        http://handbrake.fr/ [handbrake.fr]
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cp.tar (871488)

        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.

        Um... Transmission?

        It's only the best BitTorrent client I've ever used, and now it has become the default client in Ubuntu. Though AFAICT the Mac version is still superior.

    • 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.
  • 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)

      by TofuMatt (1105351)

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by turing_m (1030530)

            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.

            The great thing about Linux these days is the community. It only takes one "genius" (i.e. anyone who can read a man page) to figure out how to do something via CLI and post the howto on ubuntuforums. He ups his "thanked x times in y posts" count, and the rest of the proles have an easy recipe they can search for.

            This is oftentimes superior to the closed s

      • 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 Abcd1234 (188840)
        ; Windows is the reason we want something else, so why are you copying it

        No, the Windows implementation of these things is why people want something else. The features themselves aren't necessarily a bad idea.

        Meanwhile, things like VBA support are *vital* for migration away from Microsoft products. Without them, people will continue to be locked in to MS solutions. So quite complaining. This is a good thing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        There's no reason to be against some feature just because it emulates what MS Office does. MS Office does some things well, and it'd be foolish to not implement those features just because it's like Office. Similarly, it'd be just as foolish for Microsoft to ignore the features that OSX does well just because it's made by Apple. Imitating competitors and improving their features is part of what makes good software.
      • Its a matter of perspective really. I manage the IT of a small office who relies heavily on MS Office.

          I don't want something else. I want a clone of MS Office. I want to save money to spend it on training costs.
      • by Kjella (173770)
        Most people want better and cheaper, somehow same quality and cheaper isn't as valid an improvement as same price and better? Pardon me if I don't mind if they take the 95% of the market using Office first by being cheaper (and possibly better too) than Microsoft first, I'm sure they'll get around to fighting about the all important 5% that want to "be different" afterwards.
      • 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!
      • A mature OS isn't based around the idea of being "different" from Windows. A mature OS is designed to work well. Just because MS does something in Office doesn't mean that OO shouldn't have it too.
      • 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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor! Take him away!
  • Aqua interface for Macs.... not that NeoOffice is bad or anything.
  • Finally I don't have to launch X11 to open Open Office on Mac anymore. I look forward to the final release so that I can finally get everyone I know on Macs off Microsoft Office once and for all.
  • by GeekDork (194851) on Wednesday May 07, 2008 @12:27PM (#23326544)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Zadaz (950521)
      Looks like you've got a lot of work to do.
      • 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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GeekDork (194851)

        I've been looking around. The OO.o people know exactly that their drawing framework stinks out loud, and they announced far-reaching changes for 2.0. What they came up with is XCanvas [openoffice.org]. OO.o and Inkscape were officially started around the same time. Both had a base to work from. In that time, Inkscape has evolved into a quite powerful vector graphics tool with a rendering engine (libcairo) that is extremely capable, and with an interface that's actually fun to work on. OO.o on the other hand has done... what

  • 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)
  • So how exactly does the 3.0 beta release compare with Go-Openoffice.org 2.4 [go-oo.org]?
  • by danaris (525051) <danaris AT mac DOT com> 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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by f8l_0e (775982)
      I once read a quote that more than 65k rows was overkill and that if you needed that many rows, you should be using a database instead. If you're not under some kind of NDA, what does your company do that they need that many rows on a spreadsheet? Can anyone else chime in on legitimate reasons to need that many rows in a spreadsheet?
      • by danaris (525051) <danaris AT mac DOT com> 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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by syphax (189065)

        I agree that if you have 65k+ records or rows of data, a spreadsheet probably isn't the best tool.

        However, there are several reasons why handling such data in Excel/OO is not unreasonable. These include:
        • Many people are much more proficient in Excel than in any other software, due to familiarity. The cost of moving the data over to other software and then figuring out how to do what you want to do is often not worth the time required.
        • Spreadsheets are inherently more flexible than a database. This is both
  • This sounds more like a version 2.4 or 2.5 than a 3.0 release.

     
  • by lorand (764021) on Wednesday May 07, 2008 @01:16PM (#23327366)
    I can't believe they got to 3.0 and there is still no OpenType font support...
  • by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) <marc.paradise@gma i l . c om> on Wednesday May 07, 2008 @02:48PM (#23328662) Homepage Journal
    ... if adding a single word to the dictionary is still a three-click process?
  • by oxfletch (108699) on Wednesday May 07, 2008 @02:57PM (#23328812)
    So great. They've released some fancy new version with blah, blah and blah, none of which most people are terribly interested in.

    Meanwhile, the thing is still a slow, bloated pig. Do we have to make efficiency some sort of feature, or provide fake goals and a shiny racetrack before people address the fundamentals?

    Makes me sick to see open source apps follow the same fated trails as other bloatware
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by barzok (26681)
      Perofrmance is one of the reasons I gave up on OOo/NeoOffice and took advantage of the Home Use program my employer offers as part of our MS licensing deal. $20 for MacOffice 2008 is a better value to me than OOo/NeoOffice right now. I can't reliably open Word documents for my wife using NeoOffice, and the whole suite is just a pig. Plus the graphing in the spreadsheet is more trouble than it needs to be as compared to Excel.
  • 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 gravis777 (123605) on Wednesday May 07, 2008 @07:01PM (#23331728)
    How the heck am I supposed to get used to these Text menus? I need a ribbon!

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...