PDA

View Full Version : MS Word 2007 kicks the *** of OpenOffice



Phil Airtime
November 19th, 2007, 05:53 PM
Sorry, but it does. We've just had it rolled out at work and it's beautiful. The blue isn't to my taste, but the new fonts are gorgeous and the interface changes are so intuitive and convenient that you wonder what OO.org and AbiWord are doing stuck in ten-years-ago land.

Just little touches like a small font and style box appearing when you select a piece of text make it a lot faster and easier to create nice, pretty documents. The way the font changes within the document as you scroll down the font or size menu is brilliant for a quick preview; so much better than OO's clunky old font selection.

It's really, really easy to save to a different format; it's right there on the main menu. And you can even post to a WordPress blog.

Sorry, OpenOffice, but you've just had your bum kicked. I wish I could take this software home!

PmDematagoda
November 19th, 2007, 05:57 PM
If you used MS Office 2007 on an average PC, then watch out because MS Office will not only crash thereby damaging your data, but it also is VERY slow, especially on my mom's Compaq V3005TU laptop, while I realise that the specs of the laptop isn't much, it still does mean that Open Office has a good advantage over MS Office 2007 concerning the efficient use of resources, it's simple look and it's price:).

racoq
November 19th, 2007, 05:58 PM
This is not a fair comparison, Office is developed by a ton of developers paid only to do that. OpenOffice relies on developeres who are willing to give their time to contribute with code. It may be more intuitive, but if i have a free software with quality like Openoffice that does what i need, i won't pay a single euro to Microsoft, or other company.

Vadi
November 19th, 2007, 06:07 PM
If your company paid the same amount of money for OOo like it did for MS Office, and everybody else did, I'm sure it would have performed better.

Surgeon General
November 19th, 2007, 06:08 PM
so what are you suppose to do with a beautiful word processor? look at it all day? :-))

you can have Office 2020 but still people will only use the same set of functions you could find in OpenOffice too.

n3tfury
November 19th, 2007, 06:12 PM
If you used MS Office 2007 on an average PC, then watch out because MS Office will not only crash thereby damaging your data

sounds like there's something wrong with your PC. that's not common place for Office 2007, sorry.

lyceum
November 19th, 2007, 06:21 PM
I used Office 2007 back when it was beta. I was not happy with it at all.

Good:
1. Tabs. Loved them in Lotus, so I love them in MS 2007
2. The graphs look very nice in Excel. 'nuf said.
3. PowerPoint is great. Sorry OOo fans, Impress's layout is great, but PowerPoint out preforms.
4. Grammar check. Yes, I am that guy. Sorry.
5. It is a set of office programs. You have to give them that :)

Bad:
1. The GUI is screwy. It took me a while to figure out how to do things, all the buttons are in different places. Did they have to change it that much?
2. It is slow. OOo may come on slow, but once up it runs fine, MS 2007 can not say the same.
3. It shuts down when you do not want it to. 'nuf said.
4. It can not save as odf. I love the integration between aps odf. provides.
5. It is not open source/FOSS. Doubt it ever will be.
6. It costs too much! If EVERYONE is going to buy it, MS could sell it for $50 and still make just as much money, as then more people could afford it.

My 2 cents.

n3tfury
November 19th, 2007, 06:25 PM
I used Office 2007 back when it was beta. I was not happy with it at all.

Good:
1. Tabs. Loved them in Lotus, so I love them in MS 2007
2. The graphs look very nice in Excel. 'nuf said.
3. PowerPoint is great. Sorry OOo fans, Impress's layout is great, but PowerPoint out preforms.
4. Grammar check. Yes, I am that guy. Sorry.
5. It is a set of office programs. You have to give them that :)

Bad:
1. The GUI is screwy. It took me a while to figure out how to do things, all the buttons are in different places. Did they have to change it that much?
2. It is slow. OOo may come on slow, but once up it runs fine, MS 2007 can not say the same.
3. It shuts down when you do not want it to. 'nuf said.
4. It can not save as odf. I love the integration between aps odf. provides.
5. It is not open source/FOSS. Doubt it ever will be.
6. It costs too much! If EVERYONE is going to buy it, MS could sell it for $50 and still make just as much money, as then more people could afford it.

My 2 cents.

right, but you used it as a beta. so some of those complaints will not apply. speed is one of them. it's quite a bit faster out of beta.

lyceum
November 19th, 2007, 06:35 PM
right, but you used it as a beta. so some of those complaints will not apply. speed is one of them. it's quite a bit faster out of beta.

Yeah, I figured as much (differences from beta). I still hear/read the same complains though. I can get it now for $60 (MS has a deal for students) so I will most likely pick it up early next year, for school. But the PC I run Vista on is a laptop with a Pentium 4 processor, so I am not expecting much better than what I stated in my post. I have no problem up grading my PC for Ubuntu, but I won't do it for MS. Kind of odd, as MS it the one that needs the fast PC, but I only keep one for necesity, not practical use.

Also, now that Lotus code is out mixing with OOo, I think OOo will be better than MS 2007 soon. I always thought Lotus was better than MS Office.

Vadi
November 19th, 2007, 06:50 PM
In simple truth, how much is word 2007 different from 97 for word processing?

:/

AJerman
November 19th, 2007, 07:04 PM
I think you guys miss the point though. Obviously, every word processing going back for ages has been basically the same. There's not a whole lot you can do to the core features of a blank page that you type on. All that's left is what makes the experience more enjoyable and easier. For that I agree, Office 2007 is miles ahead. The ribbon interface is brilliant. At the same time, OOo is a more than capable alternative for those of us who can't run Office 2007 or don't feel like spending the money. Then that brings up another obvious point. Sure, it may be nicer, but is it worth the incredible amount that Office costs to just get a little bit nicer of a UI?

I don't think that there is much to compare here. Office 2007 is a very nice office suite, however OOo is definitely not a bad free, cross platform alternative.

50words
November 19th, 2007, 07:05 PM
I prefer OOo, but for philosophical reasons, not performance reasons. Word is a big jump beyond Writer from a user perspective. Even an advanced user perspective.

And Office 2007 has Outlook, which is head and shoulders above Evolution and the one thing that makes it really hard to stop using Windows for my business computing.

Erik Trybom
November 19th, 2007, 07:11 PM
It's not about word processing. Computer programs have been doing that since the 70's. No, what it's all about is doing what the user wants. The user wants a table, the app should give him one. The user wants a new font, the app should change it without hassle. The user wants a picture inserted, and the app should put it right were it should be and make it fit in good with the rest of the text.

Anyone who has ever used Word 97 knows that Word 97 didn't do this. You tried to change the font, the font stayed the same. You inserted a picture on page 5 and it ended up on page 14. Captions were a mess. Working with Word 97 required some skill and much swearing.

I haven't used Word 2007 much, but I'm very impressed with what I've seen. OpenOffice is similar to Word 2003 or something, working well, but it still belongs to the old generation of word processors.

Nowadays I use Latex almost exclusively for any papers that are supposed to look good.

aysiu
November 19th, 2007, 07:14 PM
Why does it matter?

I'm not going to pay for MS Office 2007, and I don't want to pirate it, and it doesn't run natively on Ubuntu anyway.

OpenOffice does everything I want an office suite to do.

Dragonbite
November 19th, 2007, 07:15 PM
Sorry, but it does. We've just had it rolled out at work and it's beautiful. The blue isn't to my taste, but the new fonts are gorgeous and the interface changes are so intuitive and convenient that you wonder what OO.org and AbiWord are doing stuck in ten-years-ago land.

Just little touches like a small font and style box appearing when you select a piece of text make it a lot faster and easier to create nice, pretty documents. The way the font changes within the document as you scroll down the font or size menu is brilliant for a quick preview; so much better than OO's clunky old font selection.

It's really, really easy to save to a different format; it's right there on the main menu. And you can even post to a WordPress blog.

Sorry, OpenOffice, but you've just had your bum kicked. I wish I could take this software home!
I've heard Word 2007 also uses a new format for their files (.DOC) which is supposed to be more stable than the previous version. Is Word 2007 backwards compatible?

The only issue I see with the pop-up font style box is the potential performance hit. Sounds like a nice feature but not if it slows the system down all of the time.

I know it is only a matter of time before we move to Office 2007 here, largely because of the heavy use of Excel and special Excel functions (plus the familiarity). Vista?.. well we're going to hold on to XP as long as we possibly can. Maybe by that time OO.o will improve enough and we'll be able to transition people out of Excel just enough to make some "alternatives" an option :).

Thanks for the "review".

n3tfury
November 19th, 2007, 07:37 PM
lol, nice thread move.

Quillz
November 19th, 2007, 09:03 PM
I agree, Office 2007 is both beautiful and functional. I much prefer it to OpenOffice.

SunnyRabbiera
November 19th, 2007, 09:10 PM
well hopefully it can be run on wine soon for those who like it, give it time

NilsHG
November 19th, 2007, 09:22 PM
so now that ms office 2007 is out, OOo is in "ten years ago land". but a few month ago, before ms office 2007 was released, the ms office suite was also in the "ten years ago land". it was as ****** as you call open office now. (sorry for the language)
booohooo!
I am a student, i write papers, lab reports and since i am not into Tex yet i am using and very much appreciating OOo. I do not have the money to pay for MS office, i do not need to use MS office. OOo serves the average user very well.
good for you, your company has the resources for ms office 2007! enjoy it :) no need to talk down on an FOSS project that serves many users just great. it might not be as good as ms office 2007, but do not forget the different backgrounds and resources for developing MS software and FOSS.

mivo
November 19th, 2007, 09:30 PM
In simple truth, how much is word 2007 different from 97 for word processing? :/

You mean the pretty blue bars and the beautiful scrolling don't make it a superior word processor? ;)

(Hey, I use Abiword on one box and KWord on another for the little word processing I do!)

Chrisj303
November 19th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Your right Office 2007 is very nice - I have it installed onto my Vista partition on both my machines, I like it.

I Have been running Office 2008 for Mac recently and thats real nice as well - it looks like a carbon copy of Pages, but it is still *very* nice!

Open Office looks and feels cheap and ropey to me, I hate it.

sub2007
November 19th, 2007, 09:44 PM
Uhm, well as far as I can see MS Office is a commercial office suite, OpenOffice.org is an open source office suite. If you want to pay 400 bucks for MS Office (and that still doesn't give you a database) then that's fine by me, if you want a free open source alternative then OpenOffice.org fits in beautifully. I think you'd find that OpenOffice.org does nearly everything that a regular user would want from an office suite (how many people with MS Word just use it to write the odd letter with?) Sure it doesn't win on the eye candy front but it's functional and has good support for MS Office files (MS Powerpoint 2003 refused point blank to even attempt to read a .odp when I accidentally took in an .odp to college instead of converting it to PPT format first) and when I DID convert it to .ppt it worked like a dream. That's all I need from an office suite, something that has good compatability on simple files with MS Office. OpenOffice.org is perfect for me.

So I'm sorry, but I couldn't care less whether OpenOffice.org is "better" than MS Office because OpenOffice.org does all I need and I know a bunch of people who agree with me (and I've converted a few Windows users to OpenOffice.org who wanted MS Office and they say that it's a fantastic piece of software too).

I don't think it's necessary to compare the two products because they are apples and oranges. But if you gave me the choice I'd pick OpenOffice.org any day (because I think it's a wonderful achievement for open source more than anything else). Plus it's great to have a decent fully featured office suite for GNU/Linux.

Dragonbite
November 19th, 2007, 10:11 PM
One thing I found lacking in OpenOffice.org was Base.. it just didn't seem as stable or powerful as Microsoft Access (200 or 2003) does to me.

SunnyRabbiera
November 19th, 2007, 10:57 PM
well Koffice looks pretty good, and its soon to go cross platform with kde4

Chrisj303
November 19th, 2007, 10:58 PM
I don't think it's necessary to compare the two products because they are apples and oranges.

Nonsense - you said yourself, that they are both Office suites. They are not 'apples and oranges'. How could you not compare O.O to Microsoft Office?

It is perfectly normal for similar pieces of software to be compared against one another - regardless of genre.

inversekinetix
November 20th, 2007, 01:22 AM
Kinda like comparing garageband with Logic/Reason/etc etc

blender with max/maya

gimp with ps

aac with ogg

lancest
November 20th, 2007, 01:58 AM
The real question is do we NEED Office 2007 or just want it? In many cases it's the former.
Just another bloated (overly feature rich) program trying to establish itself as something we can't live without. OO runs on 3 platforms, prints PDF natively and does the job. Those things in my mind are far more important and real. (BTW OO opens fast with quickstart)

SomeGuyDude
November 20th, 2007, 02:18 AM
MS Word 2007 is FANTASTIC. I used OpenOffice exclusively for about two years or so before someone showed me Word 2007, and that made me switch. Menus are great, it looks nice, and the filesize is a lot less (which is helpful for people like me with a whole boatload of giant documents).

SunnyRabbiera
November 20th, 2007, 02:55 AM
yeh but still I seee no reason to use it.
really if looks are the most important thing to people they are barking up the wrong tree.

phillywize
November 20th, 2007, 03:02 AM
We need a poll.

For myself, I'll use OO, but only if some version of MS Office 2000 or later isn't available. I really think that Word/Excel are solid applications. Their feature set is rich, if bloated. But you can use what you want, and forget the rest. No bizarre innovations are forced on you. But you come to appreciate some of it (um, auto correct, which I hated initially, and have come to accept...and what about the ubiquitous red squiggle under spelling errors? Geez, even Firefox has that now...)

OO is good enough, but it's just a bit clunkier. It's uglier, and I just plain don't like it as much. That said, it's perfectly acceptable, and does a fine job of getting things done. If people want to use it, I think it's a perfectly rational decision.

Now for the thing we haven't been talking about: WordPerfect and the whole Corel thing. As much as I think MS Office beats out OO, I have to say, I think OO does top Corel. I've had to use WordPerfect at various points for various jobs and purposes, and I can't think of anything I like less.

Well, ok, I hate Lotus Notes also, but it's the same junk.

WordPerfect is clunky, counterintuitive, inconsistent, arcane, and unuseable, if you ask me. OO is way better, any day.

n3tfury
November 20th, 2007, 03:15 AM
aac with ogg

what? do you even know what you're talking about?

TeaSwigger
November 20th, 2007, 04:28 AM
As well it should, since it took one of (if not the?) filthy richest mega-corporation on the planet to make it. But does it? Here's how my comparison goes:

OpenOffice doesn't cost one cent.
Word2007 costs... Um. Try one hundred times more ($1), seventy times over again.

You may install OpenOffice on as many units as you desire.
You may not install Word on anything but one single unit per license paid.

OpenOffice was produced with very miniscule resources.
MicroSoft's staggering wealth and er, proprietary market advantages were poured into Word2007.

OpenOffice's authors wanted to create an office suite for you.
MicroSoft only wants your money and the Word2007 authors only worked for the money.

OpenOffice has been arguably superior to Word for years and years.
Despite MicroSoft's profound advantages on every front, it took them until 2007 to finally offer any significant advantages.

OpenOffice supports more formats.
MicroSoft owns more formats.

OpenOffice can use formats you can freely utilize outside of their products.
Word uses formats you can not freely utilize outside of their products or licenses.

You are free to examine and change OpenOffice code you're installing on your unit.
You are not free to even look at, let alone examine and change, MicroSoft code you're installing on your unit.

Word has slicker font changing integration.
OpenOffice has font changing integration.

Word has smoother scrolling.
OpenOffice has scrolling.

Word has a gaudier functional UI.
OpenOffice has a functional UI.

OpenOffice is slow to load.
Word is even slower to load.

Word consumes a load of resources, making it undesireable or even unuseable on anything but recent high-powered units.
OpenOffice consumes a fraction of the resources and runs fine on a huge selection of recent high-powered units, mid and low-powered units and even a hefty slice of units dating back a number of years further.

MS Word 2007 kicks the *** of OpenOffice? That's not how it adds up on my ledger. I'd say little OpenOffice has been making the world giant MicroSoft look pretty sorry for a long long time, and in many senses they still do. So I suggest that's a shallow and disrespectful statement.

Mithrilhall
November 20th, 2007, 04:34 AM
Didn't Microshaft purchase most of the office suite and then customize it? Did they actually write anything in the suite from the ground up or was most of it purchasd?

SomeGuyDude
November 20th, 2007, 04:36 AM
As a general note, as soon as I read "Microshaft", "Windoze", "Winblows", or "Micro$oft", I immediately consider that person's opinions Not Worth Considering. Pointless rhetoric.

phillywize
November 20th, 2007, 04:46 AM
OpenOffice has been arguably superior to Word for years and years.
Despite MicroSoft's profound advantages on every front, it took them until 2007 to finally offer any significant advantages.

OO's superiority to MS Office certainly is arguable. I'd argue against it.

I suppose we've bottomed out in terms of being on topic, so I'll go ahead and say it: FOSS is not inherently superior to non-FOSS. It's just another way to do things, and in some cases, a more suitable, functional, or cost effective way. But not necessarily or inherently. Thus, I don't really mind that MS poured a fortune into office, and OO was developed on a shoestring. Office is more sophisticated. Better? Probably. Does it survive the cost benefit analysis? Well, that's a closer question, and depends entirely on the use/user.

Anyhow, I should add though that I have mad respect for developers and contributers to the open source movement, since it has been absolutely vital to technological development in the past 20 or 30 years. Then again, so have Microsoft and Apple, IBM, Google, and the rest of them. Good design is good design, no matter where you find it, or what you're allowed to do with it. (I know, I know, spare me the flame on MS's many bad designs and shoddy products; I'll spot you that. MS still makes some excellent stuff -- like Office.)

lancest
November 20th, 2007, 04:52 AM
Although I don't doubt Office 2007 is pretty and has advanced (necessary?) features- I do question it's security. People who send Word documents have been known to also send embedded Windows viruses. And sending someone a Word document in proprietary .doc or .docx and expecting them to have the same MONOPOLISTIC software on the other end is unfair.

RealG187
November 20th, 2007, 04:55 AM
I have some issues with OO.

p_quarles
November 20th, 2007, 04:57 AM
Thus, I don't really mind that MS poured a fortune into office, and OO was developed on a shoestring.
OOo was developed on a shoestring? You're aware, I hope, that the project shares code with Sun's Star Office suite?

Anyway, Sun Microsystems (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:JAVAD) had a total revenue of more than $13 billion last year (and that was a bad year, since they actually had a net loss). I have no idea how much goes into Star Office/OpenOffice.org, but I doubt it's shoestring.

I'm not going to enter into the OOo vs. MS Office debate, but I do like to remind people that a pretty significant amount of money goes into open source development.

jrusso2
November 20th, 2007, 05:25 AM
I got a free copy of Office 2007 and now after a Microsoft Security update I get this error message and have to click ok to get rid of it.

This error usually occurs because of macro security settings. If you know that the macro comes from a source that you trust, you can change your macro security settings to allow you to enable the macro. The way that you change your macro security settings depends on the Microsoft Office System program that you are using.

I tried to fix it according to the instructions but it won't stop.

This is why Microsoft is annoying.

When I want to write something I use Open Office

bluedragon436
November 20th, 2007, 05:31 AM
It is all a matter of looks and flashy stuff.... I used it when it was in Beta form also, and was not all that overly pleased with it....not enough to pay the outrageous price they want for it, especially when I can do the same things with either Open Office, or my MS Office 2003 (that thank God I didn't have to actually pay for)......and it may not look as cool, but I have over four thousand fonts on my Office 2003 setup, when I do use it....and am working on getting that many with my Open Office setup....

mivo
November 20th, 2007, 07:56 AM
well Koffice looks pretty good, and its soon to go cross platform with kde4

Which is one of the reasons why I switched back to KDE. I expect that there will be an influx of new development (and developers) once the number of users increases. (Gnome had started to annoy me lately with how it handles some things -- KDE still feels busy, but now at least I have a little more experience and can customize it properly. The most recent vanilla version (not what Kubuntu uses) is also rock stable for me.)

TeaSwigger
November 20th, 2007, 08:39 AM
OOo was developed on a shoestring? You're aware, I hope, that the project shares code with Sun's Star Office suite?

Anyway, Sun Microsystems (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:JAVAD) had a total revenue of more than $13 billion last year (and that was a bad year, since they actually had a net loss). I have no idea how much goes into Star Office/OpenOffice.org, but I doubt it's shoestring.

I'm not going to enter into the OOo vs. MS Office debate, but I do like to remind people that a pretty significant amount of money goes into open source development.

You're quite right. Point taken. There is indeed, and it takes substantial work from numerous people to achieve something on that scale. It's not shoestring.

But comparitively? I would still suspect that MicroSoft's investments in Word and related ventures puts OOo's financial flow (OOo alone, not Sun's other concerns to be clear) and probably Star Office's financial flow as well, strictly in the shade.

popch
November 20th, 2007, 08:58 AM
I don't give a hoot which program was more expensive to build. Since I can afford it, I also do not care whether the software I need to use for a particular job costs money.

My word processing needs are now roughly the same as they have been the last five or even ten years.

Up to now, Open Office and MS Office have been roughly on the same level of quality. Open Office has - for me - the overwhelming advantage of not using closed document formats. In some instances, I had to use Open Office in order to fix MS Office documents which had been ruined by one or the other MS Office version. Also, I mildly prefer OO's templating over the one implemented by MS.

Changing all of the UI and adding more glitter to it tips for me the scale away from MS Office. Since I still need the same functions I refuse to re-learn menu positions and such just in order to be able to do the same thing I did before.

Does not kick the rear end.

k99goran
November 20th, 2007, 01:33 PM
I used Office 2007 when writing the report for my bachelor's degree in electronic engineering and I thought it was great. They really went back to the drawing board regarding the user interface and should be commended for that.

However, I do think that the handling of documents and data is still very conservative and old-fashioned. I would have wanted the program to better separate the different sections (cover-sheet, abstract, table of contents, appendices...).

I would be more impressed if it looked like this mock up of kOffice 2.0 (http://www.koffice.org/competition/gui1results.php).
http://www.koffice.org/competition/gui1results/koffice_nodoc_sm.png (http://www.koffice.org/competition/gui1results/koffice_nodoc.png)

phillywize
November 20th, 2007, 07:00 PM
OOo was developed on a shoestring? You're aware, I hope, that the project shares code with Sun's Star Office suite?

Point taken.

At the end of the day, though, it's not what matters...for a pragmatist just trying to get the job done, it's what works better for you from a cost effectiveness standpoint.

In my line of work, I couldn't use OO because the open doc format isn't standard, much less known to anyone. And I also need precise control over formatting and other features, so saving from OO into Office would be risky at best.

popch
November 20th, 2007, 07:41 PM
I couldn't use OO because the open doc format isn't standard, much less known to anyone. And I also need precise control over formatting and other features, so saving from OO into Office would be risky at best.

Ssh - don't tell anyone. OpenDoc is standard. It is also documented.

MS's .doc and .docx are not standards. There is no standards body which has reviewed and endorsed those formats. They are invented by MS alone. Doc is not properly published. Docx has been published but is useless. Also, it has not passed any standardisation procedure yet.

And if precise control over formatting and other features is so much of an issue, you have to exactly define which version of MS Word has to be used when reading your precisely controlled documents. I have used features in Word which have been more closely reproduced by OO than with another version of the original office product.

baqai
November 20th, 2007, 10:00 PM
The only good thing i liked about Office 07 was power point and specfically the ability to put 3d effects to any image with few clicks, that made me able to make awesome presentations in no time

other than that i think it sucks due to the fact its slow as hell, it makes my machine crawl at times

Intel Dual Core 3.0 Ghz
1x2 Gb Ram (Dual Channel 2gb in total)
8600GT

i prefer using office 03 on my office laptop although we have office 07 corporate lying around

juxtaposed
November 20th, 2007, 10:02 PM
Office 2003 was nice. 2007 isn't as nice.

I still like abiword though :)

toupeiro
November 20th, 2007, 10:06 PM
I guess this is the way I look at it.. Back before OpenOffice was really as developed as it is today. If John Doe went out and bought Microsoft Office .. say 2003.. then that is one thing because there wasnt an as developed alternative. Now, with Open Office being able top open access databases, what are you spending several hundred dollars for in office 2007? ... A friggin ribbon...


enjoy it

Dimitriid
November 20th, 2007, 10:09 PM
Pretty interface or not MS loses: its not only closed source program but produces closed source documents. Thats a double lock in and they are not even decent enough to have decent backwards compatibility anyway.

I'd like to be able to open old documents in the future, without having to pay for expensive updates each year. Even for closed source commercial software the office suit is as close to a scam as they can get away with.

RealG187
November 21st, 2007, 01:21 AM
I used Office 2007 when writing the report for my bachelor's degree in electronic engineering and I thought it was great. They really went back to the drawing board regarding the user interface and should be commended for that.

However, I do think that the handling of documents and data is still very conservative and old-fashioned. I would have wanted the program to better separate the different sections (cover-sheet, abstract, table of contents, appendices...).

I would be more impressed if it looked like this mock up of kOffice 2.0 (http://www.koffice.org/competition/gui1results.php).
http://www.koffice.org/competition/gui1results/koffice_nodoc_sm.png (http://www.koffice.org/competition/gui1results/koffice_nodoc.png)

Koffice?

phillywize
November 21st, 2007, 02:34 AM
Ssh - don't tell anyone. OpenDoc is standard. It is also documented.

MS's .doc and .docx are not standards. There is no standards body which has reviewed and endorsed those formats. They are invented by MS alone. Doc is not properly published. Docx has been published but is useless. Also, it has not passed any standardisation procedure yet.

And if precise control over formatting and other features is so much of an issue, you have to exactly define which version of MS Word has to be used when reading your precisely controlled documents. I have used features in Word which have been more closely reproduced by OO than with another version of the original office product.

I can appreciate that there's an open "standard" for odt. But until it's in wide use, it's not a standard I can use. As for OO's interoperability with the .doc format, I guess we can go on all day about you've had this experience and I've had that experience. I don't think OO is a disaster for office interop -- in fact it's pretty good (and way better than WordPerfect, which I hate more than anything on the planet) (it's a matter of taste -- if you disagree, we can still be friends...namaste, etc. etc.). But OO isn't good enough.

And then there's the "network effect" issue. Office is extremely widespread in my industry and in others (I grant you, office does not have all of the market). But the bottom line is this: I have to send stuff in .doc/.xls/.mdb/.ppt/.whathaveyou because (a) any recipient can reasonably be expected to support them; and (b) if I sent it in .odt or whatever, they wouldn't know what the heck to do with it; it would get me in trouble.

But don't get me wrong: I don't like that MS owns the Office standards and does not share them well or at all. In fact, I'd like to see MS go open standards. I'd like everything to be open standard. It's better for end users that way; better for the data-consuming world. I want the Open Doc standard to succeed. But it's not a business reality for me right now.

Dimitriid
November 21st, 2007, 06:19 AM
I can appreciate that there's an open "standard" for odt. But until it's in wide use, it's not a standard I can use.

You are missing the point: at least it IS a standard, that is not something Microsoft is willing to do, they rather kidnap users and "IT" people who know more about management than technology.

mivo
November 21st, 2007, 10:11 AM
I can appreciate that there's an open "standard" for odt. But until it's in wide use, it's not a standard I can use.

Why the quotation marks? It is an open, documented standard. If you refuse to use it even if you could, or when you could (I realize it may not always be possible in some work environment or for all tasks), then you are part of the problem. Standards become widely used only if people use them. ;)

Phil Airtime
November 21st, 2007, 10:52 AM
As well it should, since it took one of (if not the?) filthy richest mega-corporation on the planet to make it. But does it? Here's how my comparison goes:

OpenOffice doesn't cost one cent.
Word2007 costs... Um. Try one hundred times more ($1), seventy times over again.

You may install OpenOffice on as many units as you desire.
You may not install Word on anything but one single unit per license paid.

OpenOffice was produced with very miniscule resources.
MicroSoft's staggering wealth and er, proprietary market advantages were poured into Word2007.

OpenOffice's authors wanted to create an office suite for you.
MicroSoft only wants your money and the Word2007 authors only worked for the money.

OpenOffice has been arguably superior to Word for years and years.
Despite MicroSoft's profound advantages on every front, it took them until 2007 to finally offer any significant advantages.

OpenOffice supports more formats.
MicroSoft owns more formats.

OpenOffice can use formats you can freely utilize outside of their products.
Word uses formats you can not freely utilize outside of their products or licenses.

You are free to examine and change OpenOffice code you're installing on your unit.
You are not free to even look at, let alone examine and change, MicroSoft code you're installing on your unit.

Word has slicker font changing integration.
OpenOffice has font changing integration.

Word has smoother scrolling.
OpenOffice has scrolling.

Word has a gaudier functional UI.
OpenOffice has a functional UI.

OpenOffice is slow to load.
Word is even slower to load.

Word consumes a load of resources, making it undesireable or even unuseable on anything but recent high-powered units.
OpenOffice consumes a fraction of the resources and runs fine on a huge selection of recent high-powered units, mid and low-powered units and even a hefty slice of units dating back a number of years further.

MS Word 2007 kicks the *** of OpenOffice? That's not how it adds up on my ledger. I'd say little OpenOffice has been making the world giant MicroSoft look pretty sorry for a long long time, and in many senses they still do. So I suggest that's a shallow and disrespectful statement.

"Disrespectful"? It's a piece of software largely developed by paid programmers at a major corporation. I'm sure they can cope. And it's not like Word was produced by eight year olds in a Chinese sweatshop; well-paid programmers put a couple of years' full time work into it, so it should be good.

I honestly don't get the whole "you can view the source code" thing, personally. If I'm sitting here writing a document, I'm sitting here writing a document. I couldn't care less if the source code is available or not and wouldn't know what to do with it if I had possession of it. Do people really "examine and change" the code on their office package on a regular basis?

And as for the ODT format, does anyone actually use it? I know I can't save out in ODT on my Linux system and expect anyone else to be able to view the documents I send, or even to be able to work on them on other computers. So every time I save, I have to go to the trouble of selecting .doc in whatever obscure box I need to select. At least in Word, other formats are right there on the File menu!

All the people saying Word is slow to load or crashes a lot need to take a look at their own systems. I've no idea what this computer is, other than the fact that it says "Intel Pentium D Inside" on the front, but Word loads in less than two seconds and hasn't crashed once. OO.org on my home computer loads in over eight seconds.

I just use what's best for me. As a home operating system, Linux is superior to Windows in several ways, notably the lack of junk software and speed on older hardware. But that doesn't mean I have to be an open-source "fanboy" and I'll criticise pieces of software I think are particularly weak. OpenOffice is such a piece.

mivo
November 21st, 2007, 11:06 AM
I honestly don't get the whole "you can view the source code" thing, personally. [....] I couldn't care less if the source code is available or not [...].

It is about peer control, bug fixing, and freedom (independence). How can you really trust a company that released an alleged "critical update" a little over a year ago that turned out to be malicious software that phoned home? When it was discovered, it was declared an accident, naturally. Closed source software is a black box. You may not be interested in the source code, but you will benefit from its openness nonetheless.


And as for the ODT format, does anyone actually use it? I know I can't save out in ODT on my Linux system and expect anyone else to be able to view the documents I send, or even to be able to work on them on other computers.

Yes, I use it. The format can be used on Windows and Mac as well, it is not a Linux-only format. if Office 2007 does not support it, even though it is an open standard, then it seems pretty obvious why Microsoft opted for deliberately not supporting it. It's not about serving the customer, but about tying them to a commercial product.

TeaSwigger
November 21st, 2007, 12:35 PM
"Disrespectful"? It's a piece of software largely developed by paid programmers at a major corporation. I'm sure they can cope. And it's not like Word was produced by eight year olds in a Chinese sweatshop; well-paid programmers put a couple of years' full time work into it, so it should be good.

In a way I'm glad Word is more worth its salt than it used to be. Word should be great, as I stated. The world's best in fact. It was pointed out to me that OpenOffice shared code with Sun's Star Office, and so is largely corporate funded and partly not. That's true, and the point's taken. It is still a far smaller input than MS puts in Word and related interests, and is offered to you as a free open source software rather than as a proprietary package for your money. How then do we get this perception that there's some way to compare them so evenly as to say one can "whup" the other?

On an unrelated note, if the best intended plans were to succeed and everyone everywhere were to achieve high education and become computer literate while most labor becomes the realm of automation: I wonder if the equiv. to Word2107 couldn't end up being produced by eight year olds in a Chinese sweatshop. Devil's advocate speaking perhaps. Just an off handed muse.


I honestly don't get the whole "you can view the source code" thing, personally. If I'm sitting here writing a document, I'm sitting here writing a document. I couldn't care less if the source code is available or not and wouldn't know what to do with it if I had possession of it. Do people really "examine and change" the code on their office package on a regular basis?

That's already addressed, but to analogize, why would one intentionally buy (let alone pay more for) a car if they were legally denied the right to look under its hood, or eat a food cube forbidden to see inside it? Why does one prefer a "no hormone, organic" seal on a package of food when they won't study it themselves? One can, and in these cases some will. It's to your benefit, in your interests, instead of the product's producer, that the right is there on your side. I do understand the desire and heck, need to pay for an expert to do work on something so that one can simply get to using it, but it can go too far; I feel the liberty of choice should always exist.


And as for the ODT format, does anyone actually use it? I know I can't save out in ODT on my Linux system and expect anyone else to be able to view the documents I send, or even to be able to work on them on other computers. So every time I save, I have to go to the trouble of selecting .doc in whatever obscure box I need to select. At least in Word, other formats are right there on the File menu!

Doesn't Word2007 view ODT? But I suggest it's the other way around; ODT is useable and fully compatible on anybody's computer, but Word's proprietary formats are (intentionally) not. Give an .odt file to anybody and yes they can go open it in their computer at no burden to them. Give a closed proprietary file to somebody without their having bought a license to a copy of the appropriate software (oh and also the OS, same company by coincidence) and they can not, being limited to whatever level of support is managed by whatever software they can get. Most people may know of .doc and not .odt but that doesn't relate to their ability to actually use the formats.


All the people saying Word is slow to load or crashes a lot need to take a look at their own systems. I've no idea what this computer is, other than the fact that it says "Intel Pentium D Inside" on the front, but Word loads in less than two seconds and hasn't crashed once. OO.org on my home computer loads in over eight seconds.

1) Word2007 is likely already preloaded into memory. Thus it's started when the computer is started. You're just opening the window, if that makes sense? You may also configure OpenOffice to do this, but it is not configured that way by default to avoid hogging resources on slower computers. Word2007 won't work at all on such computers, not exactly an advantage I'd suggest.

2) That computer is very powerful and is "opening" a preloaded program from ram. Your home computer is very likely not as powerful and is loading a program cold from the hard drive (and may also be loading Java runtime unless you've configured it not to do so). If anything that's a respectably small difference. Nice hardware you've got.

3) Take an old but perfectly operating computer running a leaner word processor on a leaner os. Take the impressive new machine running a word processor and os so much heftier that it wouldn't even run on the old computer. Well, the folks making the latter would have one turn the former into a pile of toxic waste so long as they get more money from the new purchases, and they do work to actively cultivate this approach as the current working environment. Certainly we should make progress, and old gear will eventually have failures. But I feel folks should be taking this in a more manageable pace that's oriented less towards the benificiaries of MS profit less, and more toward everybody else. Therefore I feel that OpenOffice's model is preferable to MicroSoft's.

There's a lot more back-and-forth to weigh than the GUI features.


I just use what's best for me. As a home operating system, Linux is superior to Windows in several ways, notably the lack of junk software and speed on older hardware. But that doesn't mean I have to be an open-source "fanboy" and I'll criticise pieces of software I think are particularly weak. OpenOffice is such a piece.

But could you criticise it on specific points in consideration of context instead of with shades of a*se kicking shame? Here you say, "I just use what's best for me." That, I suggest, is the far better way to look at it.

Vadi
November 21st, 2007, 05:50 PM
Koffice?

KDE's office suite :) They have Kword and all.

Chrisj303
November 21st, 2007, 08:54 PM
I've never used O.O and actually saved anything as an .odt file.

For all intents and purposes, it is a useless extension as next to nobody in the real world uses it.

Same for Mac. I don't think Ive ever actually forwarded/used anything with the .pages extension. I export it as .doc without even thinking.


There is however a Mac-specific fork of O.O called 'NeoOffice' which is better than the Original (IMO) : http://www.neooffice.org - it feels and looks sharper, more responsive.

A big bonus for Mac users, is that it does not require X11 to be installed in order to use it (X11 took a couple of gigs of your harddrive)

phillywize
November 21st, 2007, 11:12 PM
You are missing the point: at least it IS a standard, that is not something Microsoft is willing to do, they rather kidnap users and "IT" people who know more about management than technology.

Well, not exactly: my point is that the standard is beside the point. It hasn't gained the kind of acceptance or penetration that would allow me to use it in my work (not IT). Office, on the other hand, whether or not you would call it a standard, is widespread. And when it comes to sending documents, spreadsheets, etc. back and forth (excepting pdf and its uses), it's the lingua franca. The coin of the realm. The thing that everyone uses. Normatively, perhaps I agree with you that we'd be better off with the open standard -- yes, it is a standard, and not some semi0secret, arbitrary file format cobbled together over time by devs in Redmond. But right now, it's useless to me as a work tool.

I don't know any IT people (not that I know many) who are in love with MS. They do, however, accept the need to provide their users with an office suite that's standard, and won't befuddle either users or document recipients.

Which all brings me down toa more basic point: to beat Microsoft at its game here, the open document standard has to make its case to the marketplace. Much like Apache, Firefox, and Ubuntu. All successful open projects. I'm listening...

Mivo, quotes around the word standard withdrawn. ;)

p_quarles
November 21st, 2007, 11:42 PM
Which all brings me down toa more basic point: to beat Microsoft at its game here, the open document standard has to make its case to the marketplace. Much like Apache, Firefox, and Ubuntu. All successful open projects. I'm listening...
You're exactly right. I compose with .odf, but for business documents, I have no choice but to use the norm (which is maybe a better word for .dox/x than "standard").

The other project that uses .odf, of course, is Google Office. As far as I can tell, they haven't made much more headway than any other non-MS office suite, and I find the idea of online office apps pointless, but the company as a whole is in direct competition with Microsoft, whereas the other projects are more or less trying to maintain and build upon a niche.

misfitpierce
November 21st, 2007, 11:44 PM
Opinions... hmmmm :)

phillywize
November 22nd, 2007, 07:16 AM
You're exactly right. I compose with .odf, but for business documents, I have no choice but to use the norm (which is maybe a better word for .dox/x than "standard").

The other project that uses .odf, of course, is Google Office. As far as I can tell, they haven't made much more headway than any other non-MS office suite, and I find the idea of online office apps pointless, but the company as a whole is in direct competition with Microsoft, whereas the other projects are more or less trying to maintain and build upon a niche.

When I was a grad student, I did the same -- composed in odf and converted...worked well enough for me, except when working with footnotes...somehow OO and word could never quite get their stories straight on that issue. Other than that, the interoperability (that is, OO's handling of reading and writing .doc files...MS doesn't play that game at all) was actually pretty good.

As for online apps, I'm interested in your point. I tend to think that online apps are the way everything is headed. Kind of scares me if it's the hands of MS--they'll just make it expensive and annoying...hence, why I like FOSS, and maybe the Google model. If I have an app that I need, I don't want to be marketed into thinking of it as a subscription service rather than a product I own some set of permanent possessory rights to. Call me old fashioned.

Lord knows, everyone wants my credit card # to ding it for $25 a month or something. Cell phones, cable, broadband, you name it. Alls I need is for Microsoft to start hitting me up that just to write documents, spreadsheets, etc. That said, I like the universality of online apps, and the ability to access them from wherever, and with whatever you've got on you, be it pc (desktop or laptop), handheld, smart phone, blah blah blah.

Would this be a good direction for OO? I don't know. Maybe? Perhaps there's some synergy there with Google's adoption of odf, Google office, etc.

bruce89
November 22nd, 2007, 08:24 PM
OO.o is a bloody disaster, GNOME office for all.

qamelian
November 22nd, 2007, 09:00 PM
OO.o is a bloody disaster, GNOME office for all.

Only when you can pry OO.o from my cold, dead hard drive. I can't stand Abiword or Gnumeric.

jgrabham
November 22nd, 2007, 09:05 PM
In simple truth, how much is word 2007 different from 97 for word processing?

:/

Actually word 97 wasnt very different to the words with numbers, not years, Microsofts office for windows 2.0 works fine!! (If you can be bothered to feed your computer 20 floppys!!)

Anyway, OOo $0.00 MS office 2007 $200 at best. hmm.