Secondly GUI looking sharp and/or pretty is 100% subjective. Some people love the OS X look I for one can't stand it. This is true for just about anything, my mother loves sedans and no other kind of cars, I like mostly liftback coupe's. This is strictly looks based not performance or anything else. If you want to use looks as a measure of desktop readiness then I would suggest easy themeability/skinability (yeah I made those words up) rather than default good look.
The thing is not necessarily that Office 2007 sux by itself but that it's not as good as the previous version. Add on top of that a new interface (it's not a little different, it's quite a bit different) and OOo becomes on about the same level for like 70% of people out there.
I LOVE Office '07, and find it more enjoyable to use than OO.o because of its ease of use, and everything it put in human readable form, in menu's that make sense. Nothing is put where a person that would use logic that is not known by you or I, but where the general population could easily be more productive.
My two cents.
Aside from all of that, MS's main weapon is familiarity. Look at the complaints on the forum there is a huge number that basically boils down to "this is not what I'm used to in Windows". When they redesign the GUI to the point where someone who's worked with their product for years needs to relearn again what's going on they loose that edge. I actually seen comments from people on Vista that it's too different from XP and that they have to learn how to use the computer again. This basically supports that the whole "intuitive interface" is nothing more than a myth. To a fresh person it makes no difference in terms of "intuitiveness" whether it's Aqua, KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Aero, Aero Glass, or Explorer that runs the interface. However I have seen people who are used to Windows get confused on the Mac (and that's supposed to be the most intuitive interface). Hell when I started using Win95 I couldn't figure out where Norton Commander was and why I can't just type my commands anymore. All that clicking wasn't "intuitive" it seemed unnecessary.
After Feisty's install and Windows reinstall at the same time I come rethink the issue. Maybe there are no Desktop-ready OS's today.
Feisty's live cd didn't startup due to Ati X1400. Edgy did it. I won't rant on how stupid this is. Appart from these kind of childish bugs that should obviously not appear in an professional OS Ubuntu is ready.
Windows on the other side... I have an official XP cd but can't install from that because it doesn't have sata drivers and I don't have a floppy-disk. Asking for a floppy disk with the drivers for a sata disk is an insult. No professional OS should insult it 's users. Not being able to startup and install at least the minimum without additional help is again 'a childish bug that should not appear...'
Ubuntu doesn't come with all drivers and codecs as they could or should or as we all dream about. Yes I use Automatix.
Windows does worse by far. My graphic drivers are not installed after I use the recovery cd that came with my laptop (has sata drivers though). Neither installed is my network card or wireless card. Mind you, this is the official windows recovery / install cd. My XP doesn't play a long list of file types. The help file 'helps' me to the site of a certain Redmond based company where I can buy the codecs. Even though I live in country where I can legally download and install them for free from another place. A OS that makes you pay can be professional, an OS that makes you pay for something that's obviously free....
I'm surprised how little many people who work with computers daily know about them. And how it becomes harder every day to comprehend for me that they just don't know, don't care and will never know.. For these people any computer with big icons on the desktop that spell 'Internet' 'Email' 'Office' is 'ready'. They accept whatever anomaly appears as something 'that computers do'. My girlfriend switched to ubuntu without any pain whatsoever. And still she is a smart person who cares a little. I'm sure my mother and most of my collegeas would do the same. They would frown slightly at the different look, find the firefox icon, notice that office looks 'more or less' the same (they only used bold, italic, an occasional table and page preview as features beyond a text-editor anyway).. and continue to work with it.
The less it bothers them with questions the better they consider it. By far Ubuntu has less pop-up questions then windows. Ubuntu is therefore more desktop ready.
gee long post.
I don't like Ubuntu! It's NOT easy to work with, very SUPER HARD infact. I can't get my belkin wireless card to install, nor can I get my on-board sound to install.
What good is this OS "Ubuntu" if you can't go online to the internet OR get sound? I tried for many hours and hours and hours. I gave up. I will stay with VISTA!
At least I can go to the internet with NO problem and listen to music.
relax man, if you have a question ask it instead of releasing anger.