I agree on GIMP. It's ok but definitely not up to Photoshop standards. As for media players, that's completely not true. I use mplayer and can play more media file formats than Windows Media Player. Try playing a Ogg or mkv file with WMP.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
OpenOffice is Profoundly Sick
- Thread starter Terry Olaes
- Start date
I agree on GIMP. It's ok but definitely not up to Photoshop standards. As for media players, that's completely not true. I use mplayer and can play more media file formats than Windows Media Player. Try playing a Ogg or mkv file with WMP.
I don't want to argue in this thread, I'll stand by my opinion. Mplayer works but it is hardly a joy to work with and hardly something I'd want to use beyond two formats I hardly ever run into.
No need to argue you have your opinion and I have mine.
OpenOffice.org isn't slow because it uses Java, (JAVA is pretty much only used for the plugin and scripting part NOT the main application - see my stats I posted of src composition - likewise MSO-2007 utilises C# for its stuff... go figure),
The reason it is slow is because Staroffice came up with their own toolkit to provide cross-platform support (if they went to qt4 they would get a decent boost in performance - very good cross-platform performance).
ALSO Openoffice.org is a monolithic application
When you launch MSO-Word you load MSO-Word + shared libs
When you launch MSO-Excel you load MSO-Excel + shared libs
HOWEVER
When you launch OOo-Writer you load ... Openoffice + shared libs
When you launch OOo-Calc you load ... Openoffice + shared libs
Basically OOo is one big application with specific frontends. THIS in itself doesn't make it slower when running, it does however slow down loading the application
Also OOo codebase is a complete mess (have a look at it sometime). It is such a mess that compiling fails if you try to run threaded to speed up compiling (ie a Q6600 would compile OOo in pretty much hte same time as a E6600 simply because the build process will only complete if one core AND one compile thread is used)
The only part of OOo that is "slow" is initial loading and GUI interaction (due to the tookkit statement I have already stated). On the whole OOo3 is actually faster then MSO-2007 (doesn't say much MSO-2007 is a MAJOr regression w.r.t. speed when compared to its other products) Go google for the results or the thread in frontpage on [H] w.r.t. OOo3 release, when someone started spreading FUD that OOo was really slow (and then proved wrong)
BUT OOo isn't sooo slow that it is unusable - Norton interaction is slower YET people still use that
Fact is OOo does a shad load of things, things that the majority of people expect/need from an office suite. YES there are things that it doesn't do but then if there are things that MSO does that OOo doesn't then you use MSO, you don't see a farmer using a porche to plow a field now do you? the right tool for the right job.
That is the simple truth, everyone I have gotten using OOo is more then happy with it and have not suddenly found they are missing something (ie they never used those "advanced" MSO features) or they couldn't do something (esp with OOo3 where things VASTLY improved esp with Calc)
The other truth is if someone really likes something or really doesn't like the other, THEY will find a reason to spread FUD about it, spread negative propoganda about it, but hey that is the nature of the anonymity that the internet provides, every one can be an hero behind their monitor
SVG support for starters - since I use SVG files alot THIS is important. Also importing PDF's is very handy and the export to PDF is alot more flexable then a pdf-printer driver
You don't like OOo (or opensource it seem's) thats fine, you have found products that you are happy with. BUT to blanket rule out such apps for others without actually suggesting them and letting them try (I mean wtf is the price of someone seeing if OOo is what they need - they can try and if they run into compatibility/functionality issues they can always get MSO)
IF I was to goto PCworld today to buy MSO-2007 Standard edition would cost me £321.99, even from ebuyer for a OEM of MSO-2007 Std costs £226.69
I mean seriously! I would be £321.99 out of pocket (OOo3 does EVERYTHING me and my family needs).
Yes the student edition costs: £54 from PCworld BUT I am not a registered student so am unable to buy it, plus why would I? I run linux and I like OOo3. Even my wife uninstalled the trial of MSO-2007 because she hated the ribbon and was actually use to OOo by then
OOo3 has rescued a couple of MSO-word documents after MSO-word got /really/ messed up with it format heirarchy and was apply formatting to sections it shouldn't and no amout of MSO-Voodoo could fix it
I hate the Office 2007 interface, still using Office 2003 here.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
That's the thing. They can't, in my opinion.
The used Office 2003 as their base for creating an alternative. Not that big of deal as many apps looked that way.
Office 2007 is a whole revamped interface. OO cannot create an alternative to that at all, it's so specific, Microsoft could shut that project down instantly if they tried to copy the Ribbon.
So now, we sit at the position that OO needs to come up with something original. They can't keep up with the functions of Office, much less come up with something original.
If you're a programmer, I think most people wouldn't deny that you'd rather program for MONEY than program for nothing. It's the whole problem with Open Source in general. Open Source stuff is great at times, but Open Office is not.
Irrelevant. Microsoft has a plugin to do this.
But wow, that's all Open Office offers that's better than Microsoft Office?
I think you've proved my point.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Ahhh... didn't comment on this quote...
I'd tend to agree. HOWEVER, most of the great Open Source software comes from places that make a basic Open Source version, as well as a paid version.
In other words: they've got money coming in.
The 100% true Open Source, freebie software generally doesn't have great featuresets. I'd say the only exception to that rule is certain Linux distros.
I find it odd you listed email servers as an example though... As Exchange kicks the butt of any open source software out there.
And there's no open source software I'm aware of that comes close to offering what Microsoft's got in Enterprise networking.
I'd tend to agree. HOWEVER, most of the great Open Source software comes from places that make a basic Open Source version, as well as a paid version.
In other words: they've got money coming in.
The 100% true Open Source, freebie software generally doesn't have great featuresets. I'd say the only exception to that rule is certain Linux distros.
I find it odd you listed email servers as an example though... As Exchange kicks the butt of any open source software out there.
And there's no open source software I'm aware of that comes close to offering what Microsoft's got in Enterprise networking.
There are significant areas in which Open Office falls behind Office 2007 that a normla user would come into contact with.
1) Office 2007 has better auto formatting for lists, notes, and such. This is very helpful because I spend multiple hours a week writing outlines for my history class
2) I am a terrible speller, and Office 2007 has the best spell check I have found. Open Office will miss words that are off by a single transposed letter on some occasions
3) I prefer the interface for Office 2007, although this is a matter of opinion
This is not to say I dislike Open Office, there are certainly area's in which is better, such as format supports. But since cost is not an issue in my case since I have a Technet subscription, I choose Office 2007.
Audacity?
+1 My company upgraded to Office2007 and I've been fighting with it ever since. I can't find anything that was easy to find in 2003. In my experience, just about everything that becomes "user friendly" suddenly becomes "power-user unfriendly." The ribbon can die a quick and horrible death.
Not necessarily. I know more people that hate the ribbon than like it, and prefer to stick with MSO 2003 than upgrade to 2007 (even some who switched from 07 to 03 because they hated the ribbon so much).
Also, for those saying OOo starts so much slower than MSO need to learn a few things. First, the reason MSO appears to start so fast is because it cheats. It preloads in the background when the system start up (its shared libraries are considered "necessary" by the OS). OOo has something similar called quickstart, although it is accompanied by a tray icon. With quickstart OOo "starts up" very quickly.
As for those saying that MSO is "lightyears" ahead of OOo - in regards to what? I have yet to find anything that MSO does that OOo doesn't in my normal usage (spreadsheet for tracking finances, typing papers, making presentations, standard school crap mostly). Sure, MSO has more features, but they aren't anything I care about. I even get MSO 2007 enterprise for free for my school laptop, but I don't have it installed because it takes forever and a day to install and I'm too lazy to go get MSO 2007 installed just so that I can have Outlook (the only thing I miss from MSO compared to OOo, and even then only because the school's mail server is MS Exchange so I can't use Thunderbird). In terms of the interface OOo compares well to MSO 2003, and I don't remember anyone saying MSO 2003 was profoundly ugly or anything like that.
As for all those bashing GIMP, OOo, and open source in general - its FREE. OOo vs. MSO: Sure, MSO is better overall, but OOo is FREE and does what most people need it to do. GIMP vs. Photoshop: Yes, Photoshop does many things a lot better, but photoshop is fucking expensive. GIMP does what most people need from an image app just fine (people who aren't professionals, I mean), and is free. I would hardly say that open source lags behind when it is considered OK to compare something that costs $320/$700 (MSO/Photoshop) to something that is free. I would consider it damn impressive that donated time and code is worth comparing to products that cost so much.
Honestly I hate Word's auto formatter with a passion. I can never seem to find a way to tell it to fuck off and stop formatting my crap for me. I love that OOo has a box that appears in the bottom corner so it can tell you what it did, why it did it, and more importantly, how to stop it from doing that. Ditto for Word's "grammar check" that almost always flags correct sentences as incorrect, and incorrect ones as correct :/
I find it odd that you leave out one very big thing. Exchange only kicks butt if you can afford it. MS Enterprise features, while there are comparable open source variants, I'm using them, they only kick butt if you can afford it.
Want to do load balancing in MS SQL 2008 , great, it will only kick butt if you can afford it and even then not enough to warrant the exorbitant price they want.
Want to make sure you never run out of licenses when new users join your org, better make sure you spend between 4k - 8k on a processor license and that's just the OS. This stuff adds up quickly in large organizations. My job as an IT admin is not only to make sure things work, but also to make sure we aren't throwing money out the window if an alternative exists. So like the discussion at hand, while OoO doesn't offer all of the features in O7, there are features that exist in OoO that don't exist in O7. It all comes down to what your user base uses the software for. Your average office user at this point is definitely not using all of the features in O7 or OoO. So while it's great that O7 offers more, you could very well be throwing money out the door just to further the specs on your org's e-penis.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
I didn't say there weren't exceptions
I love Audacity.
I think it's easier for folks to come together on a SINGLE APPLICATION like that, and do a darn good job, versus on something that's comprised of many (like an Operating System, Office suite, etc).
I hated it at first too. You'll get used to it though, as long as you attack it when an open mind and not pre-conceived notions that you'll hate it.
Microsoft made this good for stupid users. If you can't find something, stop trying to think through the menu options of where it might be. Think "If I was one of my users that didn't know squat, where would I naturally look" and wa-la... There it is.
How long did you let them try it?
All the "veteran" users at my company hated it as well. I flat out refused to DOWNGRADE their Office version. Three weeks later? They love the thing and won't go back.
We're 100% Office 2007 now. Had some issues with the new format not opening in 2003 (The compatibility pack sucks IMO), finally moved everyone to it.
Lots of complaining at first, but I actually get asked less questions about Office than I did two months ago when we were on 2003.
I seriously don't think any end-user on earth would care. All that matters is the fact that it starts up quicker.
And for those making this argument that OO is slower, I've got one word: Vista.
You stick OO on Vista, and via Superfetch that'll open right up just as fast as Office 2007 would.
For YOU, that's fine. We're talking about the general population of consumers, and also your huge population of enterprise customers out there.
Some people flat out don't need Office 2007 enough to pay for it, and that's perfectly fine. Just because you don't need the additional features doesn't mean anybody else will.
Quite obviously, people would rather pay money for a product that has more plentiful and quality features versus a freebie product. If people looked at cost alone, Microsoft would be non existent.
Old saying, yet still applies in the software world: You get what you pay for.
Where it applies the auto-formatting it always sticks a little box.
It's quite obvious when you're typing along.
Once more... People would rather pay money to get a product that gives them lots of features.
We aren't talking about personal use here. POP or IMAP might be great for personal use, but when you're on Enterprise systems, it's worth the money to pay for the additional FUNCTIONALITY and features you get.
If you want to believe that then fine. I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't use Open source software and has an opinion on it. This BBS your using to type responses is open source btw. I wouldn't even be surprised if its powered by Apache.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Wow. Someone needs to be sent to a reading comprehension class:
And additionally, I use Linux for several border devices, and as one of my primary servers (I'd even rank it more critical than my Windows stuff) So STFU when you've got no idea.
Sure you have. ::rollseyes::
It's one thing to have a discussion it's another to curse at me because you can't be right. Would you like a kleenex for your tears?
Monkey34
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5,140
Lets see.......OO does what I need it to for $0...............MS Office for about $100
A no-brainer.
A no-brainer.
What's wrong with that. Those that feel they need MS Office or use a Office Suite enough to justify paying for it, and those that feel that OO meets it's needs or it's usage amount is offset by it being free.
I don't see why some people get off on calling a free piece of software junk just because it doesn't have every feature a pay piece of software does. OO is very capable and the fact that it's free makes it that much better.
I agree in large corporations I would recommend Office 07. For non profit or small business I wouldn't hesitate to offer OoO. It's a money versus compatibility issue. If you don't send a lot of word docs via email then there's little reason for small businesses to buy it if they are only looking for a full featured doc writer or spreadsheet application. Depends on the environment.
Agreed. I barely touch any of the features in MSO, and am quite content when I have to switch to OOo. I suspect most people would agree.
When I have to type of a document with good formatting I'll use LaTeΧ anyway.
MS wouldn't and couldn't sue OpenOffice.org for using the ribbon, simply because in the Apple vs MS case where Apple took MS to court over "stealing their UI" the court ruled you cannot patent/register a UI
THAT same ruling would be used to defent OOo if MS were stupid enough to take OOo to court. AND in the longshot that MS won on the grounds of the UI being "stolen" then Apple would take MS back to court and sue their ass off
so you are again wrong
you ask for something it didn't do, I responded (I see you didn't comment on PDF importing...) The fact is that is all the difference I am concerned with. Cant you understand. do you want to to type in capitals and bigger font?
Openoffice.org does what is needed by me, my wife and alot of people
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
The US legal system don't work that way...
So, those two things is all OO does that Microsoft Office doesn't? And again like I said: Plugins to Office would render this point useless anyway, unless you just count NATIVE support.
If so, I'd hardly try arguing the fact that OO does things that Office cannot.
KingPariah777
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,903
I use Google Docs for 99% of my spreadsheet/doc creation...if I need my content to look nicer (ie resume, etc) I'll set it up using my work laptop.
I keep open office around so I can open up files on my home computer, but I wouldn't feel comfortable editing a resume on it, I just can't be sure of the formatting compatibility.
I keep open office around so I can open up files on my home computer, but I wouldn't feel comfortable editing a resume on it, I just can't be sure of the formatting compatibility.
It is a common-law legal system just like the UK's IF MS was sooo foolish enough to go after OOo *IF* it went and used the "ribbon interface", Apple would have a field day. Likewise THAT case put a precedence of court cases w.r.t. UI. Ergo a US judge would throw such a case straight out
Plus anyway you are assuming that everyone loves the ribbon interface, which they don't. It has taken a 3rd party to provide a means to go back to "classical menu's"
PlusPlus There is already a tweaked version of OOo that has a "ribbon" like interface AND yet no litigation from MS...
AND again you are NOT getting it are you...
ITS not what is different that matters THAT is NOT what you want from different applications THAT you want to be compatible.
ITS WHATS THE FUCKING SAME!!!!
and guess what! the VAST majority of features in MSO is in OOo.
In fact short of the ribbon I have not come across ANYTHING that MSO-07 does that I cannot do in OOo
IF you really want to go along the differences route (even tho you know the mess "differences" make *cough* IE w.r.t. to "their" different webstandard...) Then here is a BIG fat difference
Linux support
I love OpenOffice.org, but unfortunately I'm one of those Microsoft Office "power users." I need the advance features, especially in Excel, to do my engineering course/job work. It is also for the most part the standard in our industry. So I'm stuck with it (not that it is a bad thing).
What? I actually prefer it to microsofts products such as word, powerpoint, and excel.
Plus its free. It does the same thing as the microsoft programs but is free of charge so i cant complain
.What features do you use not present in OoO in Excel?
One example, I use Excel plugins that generate physical properties of many compounds, such as the thermodynamic properties of water at specific conditions. I'm not suggesting that this kind of capability isn't available in OOo (I have no clue), but the engineering (chemicals/oil/gas/etc) companies, at least in my experience, has already established itself with these tools. There are also statistical, regression, and solving tools that we use a lot that don't come with OOo (last I check; years ago), but I've read these features are now available via third parties (I can't attest to how well they work). I also do a lot of team based assignments, so it isn't uncommon to share with my colleagues on how calculations were done on Excel. It is a heck a lot easier to explain the methods done using the tools everyone else uses, especially to the old timers
Just to reiterate from my last post, I like OpenOffice, it just has no presence with the work I'm involved with.
One example, I use Excel plugins that generate physical properties of many compounds, such as the thermodynamic properties of water at specific conditions. I'm not suggesting that this kind of capability isn't available in OOo (I have no clue), but the engineering (chemicals/oil/gas/etc) companies, at least in my experience, has already established itself with these tools. There are also statistical, regression, and solving tools that we use a lot that don't come with OOo (last I check; years ago), but I've read these features are now available via third parties (I can't attest to how well they work). I also do a lot of team based assignments, so it isn't uncommon to share with my colleagues on how calculations were done on Excel. It is a heck a lot easier to explain the methods done using the tools everyone else uses, especially to the old timers
Just to reiterate from my last post, I like OpenOffice, it just has no presence with the work I'm involved with.
That's a fair response. There are a lot of plug ins that cover what you are trying to do. But I respect that you at least a) know that b) at least tried to use it before making a comment. So that's fair. Thanks.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Apparently, you don't get it. The US's legal system is not "just like the UK's".
You can't be tried for the same thing over and over again.
Sorry, but you totally fail at English and I cannot comprehend any of this mess.
ordovician
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,625
One example, I use Excel plugins that generate physical properties of many compounds, such as the thermodynamic properties of water at specific conditions. I'm not suggesting that this kind of capability isn't available in OOo (I have no clue), but the engineering (chemicals/oil/gas/etc) companies, at least in my experience, has already established itself with these tools. There are also statistical, regression, and solving tools that we use a lot that don't come with OOo (last I check; years ago), but I've read these features are now available via third parties (I can't attest to how well they work). I also do a lot of team based assignments, so it isn't uncommon to share with my colleagues on how calculations were done on Excel. It is a heck a lot easier to explain the methods done using the tools everyone else uses, especially to the old timers
Just to reiterate from my last post, I like OpenOffice, it just has no presence with the work I'm involved with.
I'm in the same boat. Open Office is great, but it just doesn't have the compatibility with "the rest of the world" that is required for my work. I also think Excel is easier to use and more intuitive than the OpenOffice equivalent.
I suggest you go have a look what a common law system is about. A case exists where a precedence has been set where a UI cannot be defended.
ERGO noone can be taken to court because they "copied" a UI scheme
ERGO MS cannot take OOo or ANYONE else to court because they copied any part of of any MS's products UI scheme.
Yes you are right that the original case between Apple and MS couldn't be re-opened BUT there have been more products since that case in the 90's, Aero for starters.
But that doesn't matter because MS would not win a UI copy case against anyone that would give Apple the precedence to then sui MS
Ahh the sign of someone who has run out of sound technical criticism
Answer me this, since you seem so focused on differences, what use would OOo be in a world dominated by MSO if it did everything different? if it couldn't open or save files in an MSO format what use is it?
THE fact that it can save valid MSO files and load in MSO files is proof enough that they do pretty much the same thing
QED
Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases. Civil cases on the other hand rely heavily on precedence, especially decisions by higher courts (circuit and appellate courts).
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
I don't think so. If I'm wrong, so be it, but please show me where.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
O.J Simpson? ...first case was criminal, second was civil.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
I don't disagree with that...
My point was, in conjunction with Double Jeopardy, Res Judicata prevents a course from taking an issue back to litigation when it's already been decided once.