Linked by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 17:27 UTC
Features, Office OpenOffice 3.2 has been released featuring faster load times and a host of new features. The OpenOffice team have made version 3.2 of the open source office suite for Windows, Mac OS, Linux and Solaris available to download. It offers numerous enhancements over its predecessor which offer both stability and speed benefits.
Order by: Score:
Good enough for me...
by Mage66 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 17:53 UTC
Mage66
Member since:
2005-07-11

I've been finding OpenOffice to be fine for my daily use.

Since Microsoft changed the UI in Office 2007 and on, and doesn't provide a way to go back to the old UI... I've switched to OO and sold off my Office 2007.

I have a legal copy of Office 2003, but I'm not using it any more.

I've also been putting OO on my families computers and nobody has complained.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Good enough for me...
by umccullough on Fri 12th Feb 2010 19:05 UTC in reply to "Good enough for me..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I've also been putting OO on my families computers and nobody has complained.


I've been doing the same... with only minor complaints ;) (often times, I just have to help someone find where a certain feature/setting that matches what they're used to in MS Office)

For me, I use an office suite very seldom these days anyway. I will occasionally use a word processor, but I don't need very many features.

Spreadsheets are nice, but even Google Apps works in a pinch.

The other day I used OOo's presentation tool to create a poster...

All-in-all, it does the job. For me, it's a bit overkill, but since I use it so seldom, and my machine is reasonably fast, I don't mind so much.

Reply Score: 4

v Yawn
by pezzonovante on Fri 12th Feb 2010 19:01 UTC
RE: Yawn
by Peter Besenbruch on Fri 12th Feb 2010 19:31 UTC in reply to "Yawn"
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

Still no Ribbon? I'm sorry, this is 2010, not 1997. My Office 2010 is working like a charm.

I'm glad you like the ribbon interface, and it thrills me no end that Office 2010 "is working like a charm." One thing to keep in mind though, as Microsoft's EULA clearly states, it is not YOUR Office 2010. ;)

Reply Score: 27

v RE[2]: Yawn
by nt_jerkface on Fri 12th Feb 2010 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Yawn"
RE[3]: Yawn
by kwanbis on Fri 12th Feb 2010 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yawn"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly.

And I hate the ribon.

Sadly, Excel is still "smarter" than Calc.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Yawn
by tyrione on Sat 13th Feb 2010 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yawn"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Calc/To-Dos

Looks like OO 3.3 feature freeze end of March.

The pending patch list currently for Calc is large:

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_type=PATCH&compon...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yawn
by darknexus on Sun 14th Feb 2010 05:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yawn"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And I hate the ribon.


Here, here. A cold death in hell to whoever designed that awful thing. A keyboard user's nightmare.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Yawn
by TommyCarlier on Sun 14th Feb 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yawn"
TommyCarlier Member since:
2006-08-02

The Ribbon is not a keyboard user's nightmare. It is very accessible for keyboard users.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Yawn
by BluenoseJake on Mon 15th Feb 2010 10:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yawn"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

So I can modify it and distribute it in binary form? I can change all the branding to my own and sell it as my work?

Excellent! JakeOffice, here i come!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Yawn
by gustl on Tue 16th Feb 2010 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yawn"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Certainly.

You can modify it, and sell binaries under any brand you wish for any price you can get, as long as you do not violate the terms of the license by denying the recipients the rights they have under the license.

The LGPL nowhere forbids selling of binaries under a different name.

It just states, that any recipient of the software has the same rights as you have. Yust fair!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yawn
by righard on Sat 13th Feb 2010 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yawn"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Are you a real person, or are you playing a role? Because your comments seem too stupid to be real.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Yawn
by nt_jerkface on Sun 14th Feb 2010 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yawn"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What exactly is stupid? Please tell me how my statement is false in any way.

You don't own OpenOffice when you download a copy. It comes with a license that limits what you can do with it. Perhaps you are unaware of this?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Yawn
by righard on Sun 14th Feb 2010 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yawn"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

OpenOffice is licensed under LGPL, you do own the copy you download, and you can redistribute it in the way you seem fit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Yawn
by nt_jerkface on Sun 14th Feb 2010 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yawn"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Hmmm so I can make modifications, strip the license, call it "Professional OpenOffice" and charge $50 for it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Yawn
by robojerk on Sun 14th Feb 2010 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yawn"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Star Office

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Yawn
by righard on Sun 14th Feb 2010 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yawn"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

The software is yours not the name OpenOffice, you can call it Nt_jerkface' Professional Office and charge anything you'd like.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Yawn
by lemur2 on Sun 14th Feb 2010 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yawn"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hmmm so I can make modifications, strip the license, call it "Professional OpenOffice" and charge $50 for it?


You can't strip the license, but you can certainly make modifications, call it whatever you please (except Openoffice), distribute it as open source and charge whatever you want.

Or, you could embed its core libraries unchanged in your own commercial wrapper, call it whatever you please (except Openoffice), distribute it as a closed source binary executable only and charge whatever you want.

Go right ahead. Good luck with that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Yawn
by unoengborg on Sun 14th Feb 2010 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yawn"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Just like the case of Microsoft Office, you down't own OpenOffice, you have a licenced copy. The difference is what these licences allows you to do.

In the case of OpenOffice it allows you to modify and redistribute it and even charge $50 for it provided you also make the source code available to the people who bought it.

However, you are not allowed to change the licensng terms unless you own the rights to the software in question.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Yawn
by Soulbender on Sun 14th Feb 2010 04:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yawn"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

you can redistribute it in the way you seem fit.


No. If it had been in the public domain that would have been true but since it's LGPL you have to follow the license. Granted it is more liberal than most commercial licenses but it's not a "any way you seem fit" license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Yawn
by nt_jerkface on Sun 14th Feb 2010 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yawn"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Sure it is more liberal but you still don't own the software when you download it. You still follow a license.

Thus I shouldn't have been modded down for pointing this out.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yawn
by Soulbender on Sat 13th Feb 2010 09:10 UTC in reply to "Yawn"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So it must have been 1997 up until 2007 for MS then, eh?.

Reply Score: 7

madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

... support for OTF fonts. With that problem fixed, people can finally be sure that if they've got a font installed on their computer, that it will work properly with OpenOffice. The speedups and the new spreadsheet features are nice too.

Edited 2010-02-12 19:03 UTC

Reply Score: 7

When you Need to get the Job Done
by Peter Besenbruch on Fri 12th Feb 2010 19:21 UTC
Peter Besenbruch
Member since:
2006-03-13

I can certainly vouch for the extra speed of 3.2. I can't vouch for the extra stability, as 3.1.1 was stable for me.

I work at a church, and it switched to OpenOffice over a year ago. The church officers have begun changing to OpenOffice from a mixture of Word (various vintages) and Works. OpenOffice is more than adequate for the kinds of work we do here.

I use Linux, and began using it when Star Office ruled the roost, and people were desperate to get Word Perfect ported to their particular distribution. Word Perfect never caught on, and Star Office became proprietary, so for a few months I remember there was no significant free office suite for Linux, until this thing called OpenOffice showed up in 2002.

I never liked the interface of Star Office, and Word Perfect's stability issues under Windows were such that I never trusted the Linux port. OpenOffice was slow, and a little klutzy, but it got the job done. People have criticized it for for not being Microsoft Office, for being bloated, for not being original, and for lacking features.

Over the years I have watched a bunch of rough edges smoothed and some features added. What we have now is a fast(er), capable, smooth program that still gets the job done. People may claim with some justification that Microsoft's product is smoother, or has certain features that OpenOffice lacks (The reverse is also true), but at churches, we are mindful of a certain word, "stewardship." Aside from its theological aspects, it also means you don't spend money when you don't need to.

OpenOffice eliminates one reason for spending money.

Reply Score: 11

ThomasSV Member since:
2010-02-12

Office suites have become a commodity.
I used OO,Lotus123, Wordperfect, Ami, Quartto, MS, etc,
etc for DOS/Windows/Os2/MacOS/BeOS/Linux for the past 30 years. They become interchangable with little downtime to learn. MS ribbons is a screwed up failure. Since OO is free! its a big motivation to use for new PCs at home especially netbooks which will grow in number.
Certainly a great product for educational/state/fed agencies to reduce costs without paying and ARM and leg to Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

Mac Version--
by iaefai on Fri 12th Feb 2010 19:31 UTC
iaefai
Member since:
2009-12-14

I am on a mac and I keep it installed incase I need to do something with it. But for the most part it doesn't feel 'right' here. It has subtle redraw issues, and the keyboard commands aren't consistent with the rest of the system in some cases (for example, CMD-Left doesn't go to the beginning of a line).

I usually end up using Pages and Numbers for most things. But of course they can't be used for all applications.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Mac Version--
by Elv13 on Sun 14th Feb 2010 03:42 UTC in reply to "Mac Version--"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

fn+left arrow does if your keyboard have an fn key, it feel consistant for me, as the fn+left = home key, fn + right = end, so it is as any text editor in any operating system, not just mac, but including mac.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mac Version--
by darknexus on Sun 14th Feb 2010 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac Version--"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

That's not consistent with OS X keyboard behavior. Home and end have different behaviors in OS X, they scroll the view to the top or bottom of a document respectively without moving your cursor. Cmd+left and cmd+right are beginning/end of line. OO on the Mac doesn't fit with these behaviors, instead keeping a more conventional behavior for the home and end keys and not responding to cmd+left/right at all.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 12th Feb 2010 19:34 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

And still with an update function so bad, most users will never see it.

Not met a single regular user has ever updated their version of OpenOffice.

Remember when downloading it from the website was like playing darts? (getfirefox.com changed that)

OpenOffice is a mess. A complete, unrepairable mess that’s barely good enough and only succeeds because it’s free (and Office is overpriced).

I something else free crops up that does the job better and wipes OOo out because I’m sick of trying to explain its insane UI and quirks to people.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by SlackerJack on Fri 12th Feb 2010 19:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I put Linux Mint on my uncles friend's computer and they use OpenOffice a lot. That was over 6 months ago and I've not heard about a single problem.

I should probably file your statement under, usual knows what's best for users but really doesn't.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by SReilly on Fri 12th Feb 2010 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I should probably file your statement under, usual knows what's best for users but really doesn't.

Lol! Dude, that's nasty! Can't we all just get along? ;-D

Anyway, I'm not surprised update works fine with Linux as that really handy repository model makes updating applications a breeze. With OOo on windows, the updater suck big hairy man balls! Seriously, it's never worked for me. Everytime I run the bloody thing, and no matter the changes I make to firewall or any other security measure, it still come out with an error message.

Basically I have a choice here. I can regularly visit the OOo website and wait for an update or wait for OSNews to post about one.

So yeah, the interface may or may not be to your liking but until the bloody update mechanism starts working properly, OOo on windows is missing what for me is an essential part of the package.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Beachchairs on Sat 13th Feb 2010 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Beachchairs Member since:
2009-04-10

It has an updater on Windows? I didn't even notice it ;)

However anytime is see the OOo system icon tray, I kill it and try to make sure it doesn't autostart again. Why waste resources on something you use a couple times a month?

On another note, I wish KOffice would learn to handle .doc

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Morty on Sat 13th Feb 2010 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

On another note, I wish KOffice would learn to handle .doc

KOffice has handled .doc for years, in most circumstances fairly well and sometimes not so well or really bad all depending on the complexity of the .doc.

The quality has increased a lot the last year and it will continue to increase due to the combined effort of the KOffice developers and Nokia. Nokia has created a document viewer for the Maemo platform based on KOffice code.Part of the projects goals is to help KOffice mature its loading and rendering of MSOffice documents.
http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2009/09/17/office-viewer-for-maemo5...

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Beachchairs on Sun 14th Feb 2010 03:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Beachchairs Member since:
2009-04-10

This is a good thing.

Last I tried (2.0.0 I think), it didn't handle tables or something common like that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Elv13 on Sun 14th Feb 2010 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

It worked well in 1.6.*, but since 2.*, I never successfully opened any .doc document without segfault. I hope stability will come back, because once it work fine with .doc, I will uninstall OOo.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 12th Feb 2010 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Maybe it’s wonderful on Linux but OOo feels like something out of 1994 on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Sun 14th Feb 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Maybe it’s wonderful on Linux but OOo feels like something out of 1994 on Windows.


I guess that's an unacceptable opinion here since you were modded down. It seems that OSNews has picked up all the FOSS nutters from Slashdot that are now laughed at there.

Anyways I agree with you comment, OpenOffice looks like it is from the 90's, especially when compared to MS Office. It really needs a UI refresh.

OpenOffice is good for the price but if I had to work with office documents all day I would get tired of it pretty quickly. OpenOffice is good for non-profits that operate on shoestring budgets but the typical business shouldn't bother.

Edited 2010-02-14 00:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by unoengborg on Sun 14th Feb 2010 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I would say that the whole concept of an Office suit is so 1990:s or perhaps even 1890:s. It is very centred around documents and how documents look on paper. They are sort of computerized typewriters and adding machines.

With the increasing amount of information we handle today we need ways to tag,search, modify and manage information that goes cross document boundaries. We need ways to collaborate and work interactively with existing information system wide. This is something that current office suits are not very good at.

In a way the old 1970 unix "everyting is a file" , and usually a plain text file strategy would be more fruitful in the modern information landscape. Perhaps with the exception that we now have things like XML that could help us mark up our data. In this world there was an orthogonality between data and the tools that was used to handle them. The output of almost any tool/program could be piped to another tool to refine the result.

I would think that things like Google wave and Nepomuk would have a lot more to give when it comes to office work efficiency than the Microsoft Ribbon and other minor look and feel changes.

Edited 2010-02-14 15:27 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Kroc
by WereCatf on Fri 12th Feb 2010 20:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

And still with an update function so bad, most users will never see it.

Agreed. It'd be nice if there was something similar like under Linux; an application which downloads the list of available software from a repository and handles updating them all. OOo and other could just then instead bundle the installer for that with their main installer, install both and let it handle the updating in the future.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Lennie on Sat 13th Feb 2010 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

As I replied to Kroc, I use Abiword for wordprocessing and Gnumeric for my shreadsheet work, whenever I need it. I prefer nimple and smaller in size.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by pilotgi on Fri 12th Feb 2010 23:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
pilotgi Member since:
2005-07-06

In openSUSE, all you have to do is add their openoffice repo and updates are easy. They show up blue in YaST, just like every other package that has an update.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Sat 13th Feb 2010 12:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

OpenOffice is a mess. A complete, unrepairable mess that’s barely good enough


In your opinion ... an opinion apparently not at all shared by a significant number of bodies with considerably more combined credibility than a solitary Internet poster:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deplo...

http://www.solidoffice.com/openoffice/nyc/

OpenOffice is climbing slowly above 10% market share, and has reached as high as 20% in some countries.

That represents a very large number of users, probably well over 40 million and maybe as many as 100 million, who apparently don't believe it is any kind of a mess at all.

Edited 2010-02-13 12:33 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by bobi on Sat 13th Feb 2010 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
bobi Member since:
2005-11-14

how many people use windows, internet explorer, insert ur commonly hated software here, and believe its a mess?
same thing for open office.

Get real.
for home use its ok. when you start to really get stuff done, it sucks. the update is just one thing among others.

It doesn't feel at all in the spirit of the usual opensource competition and way of doing things right, probably because no decent programmer has any interest into coding a damn office suite. (we use Latex and VIM)

most are forced to use Ooo at work, because it was much cheaper than MS office, btw. Not really a choice or smth like that. And at home, why buy the so expensive MS suite to write school docs ? openoffice shines here too.. but it doesn't make it technically good. Far from it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Sun 14th Feb 2010 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


It doesn't feel at all in the spirit of the usual opensource competition and way of doing things right, probably because no decent programmer has any interest into coding a damn office suite. (we use Latex and VIM)


Most programmers use MS Office just like most professionals.

The real problem is that it takes more than a decent programmer to create an office suite. It takes a team of them with someone at the top who has a good plan.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by bobi on Sat 13th Feb 2010 13:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
bobi Member since:
2005-11-14

if i could mod up 10 times i'd do it.
it's time people wake up and fix this horrible office suite

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by NathanHill on Sun 14th Feb 2010 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
NathanHill Member since:
2006-10-06

Add another voice that says OpenOffice is a mess.

I tried to abandon Microsoft Office 2004 on the Mac, and I have for the most part... but not to OpenOffice. I use Mellel and Pages for my major word processing/basic layout needs.

Ideally, the open source world would wake up to the reality of Bean, probably the greatest open source word processing app ever made. It's awesome. I use it a lot. Fast, growing feature set, beautifully designed, small, focused. It is not robust enough to do a massive term paper, but it is making steady progress.

I've always thought Open Office might instantly improve if they just split 'em up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Seth Quarrier on Sun 14th Feb 2010 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Seth Quarrier Member since:
2005-11-13

As for Bean, I had never heard of it, but a quick google, says that it is not cross platform and fairly limited, which puts it in a different market than Office and OO.o.

I am sure that for macro writing business users there are compelling reasons to stay with Office (if only momentum), but it wasn't too long ago that most home users I know had a copy of Office on their home PC, and I seriously doubt that an Office license would be worth while for many of them with OO.o as an alternative today.

Also, for me anyway, I don't find that OO.o really competes with LaTeX for my use, they both do different things well and complement each other, much as one does not think of typewriters and printing presses competing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Laurence on Sat 13th Feb 2010 17:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


OpenOffice is a mess. A complete, unrepairable mess that’s barely good enough and only succeeds because it’s free (and Office is overpriced).

I something else free crops up that does the job better and wipes OOo out because I’m sick of trying to explain its insane UI and quirks to people.


A touch over-board mate.
Particularly the point about OOo's UI given it's a clone of MSOffice's pre-ribbon UI.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Lennie on Sat 13th Feb 2010 21:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I use Abiword for wordprocessing and Gnumeric for my shreadsheet work, whenever I need it. I prefer nimple and smaller in size.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by bnolsen on Sun 14th Feb 2010 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Abiwoed, gnumeric and you left out lyx which is for anyone who's truly serious about publishing.

oowriter handles reading others' docs better (with revision tracking especially) and there's not really a replacement for ooimpress for viewing slides.

That being said I'm surprised about all the whining about openoffice's UI. People spend most of their time using a web browser and writing email. Office suite software...not so much.

The time of big innovation for office suites is long gone. Most all meaningful innovation was during the wordstar/appleworks to office95 transition. In comparison the last 15 years has just been tweaking, some of that of questionable value.

I'm still amazed anyone can charge more than $100 for such ancient technology and still be in business.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by bannor99 on Mon 15th Feb 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15


OpenOffice is a mess. A complete, unrepairable mess that’s barely good enough and only succeeds because it’s free (and Office is overpriced).

I something else free crops up that does the job better and wipes OOo out because I’m sick of trying to explain its insane UI and quirks to people.


Hmm, you must know a lot of stupid or hard-headed people.
I installed OpenOffice on several computers all belonging to the same family 4 years ago and I do keep them updated.
Guess what they've never asked me to do - install MS Office. And these aren't techy people - Dad's a 70 yr old pharmacist, Mom's lifelong homemaker with a highschool education who runs a small import clothing sideline, Mimi's a single mom of 2 boys who holds down several part-time jobs.
Their newest PC is a P4 and they are quite surprised that the updates get better on the same aging hardware.

It's true that their needs aren't complicated but, it does show that OpenOffice is good enough for some (really) average users, and, if so, why should they pay for Microsoft Office bloatware when good-enough is free.

That said, I wish the OOo devs would find or fix the problem with large spreadsheets that George Ou reported - it's now been several years and Gnumeric can work with the same sheets much better and stably than Calc.

Reply Score: 1

Impressive Speed
by OSGuy on Fri 12th Feb 2010 21:30 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

I never thought I've ever say this but the OOo team has truly made an improvement in start-up times without the need for a start-up agent. Literally OOo Writer and OOo Calc "nearly" match MS Office start-up times and I have them both installed. Next thing to work on is their GUI.

Reply Score: 5

OpenOffice 3.2 Speed Improvements
by TusharG on Fri 12th Feb 2010 23:39 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

I installed OpenOffice 3.2 on my new laptop and it is surprisingly fast on Windows 7. Way to go OpenOffice community. Thank you for speed improvements.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 13th Feb 2010 00:00 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Just another piece of information relating to this would be the release of Lotus Symphony Beta 2:

http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/SymphonyBetaHome....

I'm running it on my Mac and it is absolutely gorgeous. If OpenOffice.org developers want a new UI for the next version then they should look no further than what IBM has done in Lotus Symphony.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/kawaiigardiner/SymphonyMacO...

As for OpenOffice.org 3.2 - I've tried it out on OpenSolaris, Linux, Windows and Mac; it is definitely a massive leap forward in terms of performance and reliability but I am disappointed that there is a bibliographical facility and yet the problem is there is no way to insert the information into the document and select the style of citation one wishes to use. For me at university I use the Chicago style and there is no way to specify the style or even setup a rule/macro that automatically styles it the way I want it. I do hope in the future that they do address this short coming because it is really the only reason I hold onto Microsoft Office - if they finally sorted the bibliographical feature out I'd happy move to OpenOffice.org.

Edited 2010-02-13 00:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by iaefai on Sat 13th Feb 2010 00:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
iaefai Member since:
2009-12-14

Symphony looks nicer on the mac, but is definitely slower. They seem to be using eclipse as a base instead of ooo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 13th Feb 2010 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Symphony looks nicer on the mac, but is definitely slower. They seem to be using eclipse as a base instead of ooo.


They're using a combination of an old fork of ooo and eclipse together; I personally don't find the performance too bad when compared to OpenOffice.org and one also has to realise that it is a beta version of Symphony which I provided a link to. I don't want the ooo developers to embrace Symphony whole sale but I see nothing wrong with them at least embracing the UI and recreating it on OpenOffice.org.

Reply Score: 4

Slight peeve
by orfanum on Sat 13th Feb 2010 07:13 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

I use OpenOffice all the time for work on my Intel Mac. Writer is good and it translates Word docments well - except, visually, bullets, but actually not as logically or as cleanly as I have found Pages to do, which gives me page breaks and other formatting information immediately, so that I can have an overview of what's really going on in the document. It also has some (for me) weird defaults (automatic numbering for one - which I generally dislike in any application); Calc has had some serious issues in the recent past with certain calculations not showing on print, which is seriously bad for a business environment. Indeed, on the whole, I only return to the Microsft Office suite at all for Excel.

But the biggest peeve of all is the fact that there's no British English download seemingly of 3.2 for Intel Mac. C'mon, not all Anglophones speak or write American English, guys....You manage this distinction for Windows and Linux, and even Portuguese on Intel Mac: why no British English (or English, as I prefer to call it)...?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slight peeve
by Phase Angle on Sat 13th Feb 2010 12:10 UTC in reply to "Slight peeve"
Phase Angle Member since:
2006-06-28

Here a complete list of available mac downloads.

http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/MacOSX/

They are listed as RC because some like PPC versions haven't had enough testing but the latest RC is the final release.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Slight peeve
by orfanum on Sat 13th Feb 2010 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Slight peeve"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

OK, saw these and the RC status, and wasn't certain of what that meant regarding "completeness" in real life terms: thanks very much for the clarification.

Reply Score: 2

300,000,000 Downloads
by lemur2 on Sat 13th Feb 2010 10:45 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/11/openoffice/

300,000,000 Downloads is not to be sneezed at. Microsoft estimate an installed base of Office (all versions) at 400,000,000.

With OpenOffice now estimated as being installed on somewhere between 10% and 20% (call it an even 15%) of PCs worldwide, OpenOffice is now starting to get into the same market share territory where Firefox began to hurt IE.

The rate of increase of uptake of OpenOffice hasn't been anywhere near that of Firefox, but nevertheless it may still be a case of slow and steady wins the race here.

I'm wondering when the tipping point will be reached when Office will need to achieve correct compatibility with ODF, similar to the way that IE has slowly started to get compatibility with W3C web standards.

If a few more governments start to insist on open standard formats which are not limited to a single source supplier, that tipping point may not be that far off.

http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/microsofts_odf_suppo...

http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2010/02/odf-format-for-danish-governmen...
http://jan.wildeboer.net/2010/01/denmark-goes-odf-only-odf-sorry-oo...
http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/odf_brazil_workshop/
http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/new_odf_interoperabi...
http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/odf_ukgovoss/

Reply Score: 8

v RE: 300,000,000 Downloads
by smashIt on Sat 13th Feb 2010 12:07 UTC in reply to "300,000,000 Downloads"
RE[2]: 300,000,000 Downloads
by lemur2 on Sat 13th Feb 2010 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: 300,000,000 Downloads"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I'm wondering when the tipping point will be reached when Office will need to achieve correct compatibility with ODF


office 2k7 to my knwoledge has correct odf support
the problem just is that the odf-standard is so incomplete that it leads to all kinds of problems
"

Not at all. All of the other programs that implement ODF achieve far, far better interoperability than MS Office does. Even the Sun plugin for MS Office, and the newage plugin for MS Office, both achieve a far better result. By miles.

Everyone else seems to be able to implement ODF and achieve good interoperability, even when implementing it in conjunction with MS Office legacy interoperability, even when implementing it as a plugin for MS Office. Why can't Microsoft? Why is it that only Microsoft's ODF implementation is utterly borked?

BTW ... ODF has compliance tests. You know, checks that can assess if a software product is actually producing correct ODF files. Yes, it is indeed Microsoft's implementation of ODF that is borked, and not everyone else's.

"If a few more governments start to insist on open standard formats which are not limited to a single source supplier, that tipping point may not be that far off.


ooxml is an open standard too ;)
"

However, everything that OOXML references (e.g. sub-formats used by OOXML, such as WMF for scalable vector graphics) is Microsoft proprietary.

The result is a perfectly open specification specifying perfectly closed, proprietary, obscured-format office files (which is why governments around the world are rejecting OOXML in favour of ODF).

Another observation to make here is that OpenOffice achieves immensely better interoperability (even with other MS Office versions) that MS Office does.

http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.2/#general_file

Edited 2010-02-13 12:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: 300,000,000 Downloads
by smashIt on Sat 13th Feb 2010 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 300,000,000 Downloads"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Not at all. All of the other programs that implement ODF achieve far, far better interoperability than MS Office does.


ineroperability and standards-compliance are 2 different things when the standard is lousy
iirc oasis even admitted that odf 1.2 is f--ked up and most of the incompatibilities will be dealt with in 1.3

maybe in 5 years odf will be at a somewhal useable level...

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: 300,000,000 Downloads
by bobi on Sat 13th Feb 2010 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 300,000,000 Downloads"
RE[4]: 300,000,000 Downloads
by gustl on Tue 16th Feb 2010 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 300,000,000 Downloads"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

ODF is underspecified, if it needs to deal with an implementor whose explicit goal is to have as LITTLE interoperability as possible: Microsoft.

For players who actually want to interoperate it is good enough, and becomes even better with ODF 1.2.

So the only thing for which Microsoft is useful in the ODF landscape ist detection of underspecified stuff in ODF.

I hope OpenOffice gets beyond 50% soon, as this would definitely help with Microsoft's interoperability work.

You can compete with "bad and gratis", but you can't compete with "good and gratis", if your business needs licensing fees for survival.

Inertia and lock-in will keep Microsoft Office going for a long time to come, but eventually it will go the way of WordPerfect.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 300,000,000 Downloads
by lemur2 on Wed 17th Feb 2010 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 300,000,000 Downloads"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

ODF is underspecified, if it needs to deal with an implementor whose explicit goal is to have as LITTLE interoperability as possible: Microsoft. For players who actually want to interoperate it is good enough, and becomes even better with ODF 1.2. So the only thing for which Microsoft is useful in the ODF landscape ist detection of underspecified stuff in ODF. I hope OpenOffice gets beyond 50% soon, as this would definitely help with Microsoft's interoperability work.


With the momentum that ODF is gathering, with some 600 companies as members of the OpenDocument Foundation and with governments around the world beginning to opt for (and sometimes even mandate) ODF, it is not ODF that will need to deal with Microsoft, but rather it is Microsoft that will need to deal properly with ODF.

You can compete with "bad and gratis", but you can't compete with "good and gratis", if your business needs licensing fees for survival. Inertia and lock-in will keep Microsoft Office going for a long time to come, but eventually it will go the way of WordPerfect.


OpenOffice now has a significant market share, perhaps between 10% and 20% of the market (and growing), with MS Office for all practical purposes having about 70%. Other Office suites of any note perhaps have only approximately 1% each of the remaining 10%-15%.

http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-ope...

MS Office is only available really for one desktop platform, and partially for another. Both platforms are x86 only. OpenOffice is available on virtaully any platform or device.

So right now, today, there are effectively two main Office suites. Only one of them can currently deal adequately with the other's format. OpenOffice can also deal properly with all the other minor players formats.

You do the math.

Edited 2010-02-17 01:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

OpenOffice is not a perfect ODF reader
by jrincayc on Sun 14th Feb 2010 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE: 300,000,000 Downloads"
jrincayc Member since:
2007-07-24

I agree, for the mistakes I found in OpenOffice's reading Microsoft Word ODT's are OpenOffice's fault, not Microsoft's. For example here is one that has not yet been fixed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533318

Basically, OpenOffice cheated.

As for OOXML versus ODF, having looked at both the specs, ODF is a much better spec since it is more self consistent, and easier to read.

I am curious to see what happens when ODF 1.2 comes out and finally specifies a spreadsheet formulas.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I agree, for the mistakes I found in OpenOffice's reading Microsoft Word ODT's are OpenOffice's fault, not Microsoft's. For example here is one that has not yet been fixed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533318 Basically, OpenOffice cheated. As for OOXML versus ODF, having looked at both the specs, ODF is a much better spec since it is more self consistent, and easier to read. I am curious to see what happens when ODF 1.2 comes out and finally specifies a spreadsheet formulas.


The errors in Microsoft's output when writing ODF files are far, far more fundamental than that. And yes, they are Microsft's errors, unique to Microsoft of all implementations of production of ODF documents. Thisngs as fundamental as cell references in spreadsheets not having required surrounding square braces (e.g. A7 instead of [A7]).

Only Microsoft, of all ODF producers, make these errors.

One would suspect that this is deliberate by Microsoft, in order to create deliberately non-interoperable "supposed-to-be ODF" documents ... so that Microsoft could then claim that ODF was not interoperable. In other words, sabotage.

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-od...

http://homembit.com/2009/05/microsoft-now-attempt-to-fragment-odf.h...

Reply Score: 3

jrincayc Member since:
2007-07-24

I agree with you that Microsoft did a poor job on their spreadsheet implementation (to the point of being deliberate bad). On the other hand about the only thing ODF specifies is how to do cell references in ODF version 1.1 and before. I am curious if Microsoft will fix their spreadsheet ODF implementation when version 1.2 is finished which does specify spreadsheet formulas.

As for word processor documents, I have had much better luck with Microsoft Word 2007's reading ODF files with equations from OpenOffice than I ever had with OpenOffice's Word Document saving. And every single bug I found going the other way was OpenOffice 3.1's fault so far as I could tell. I think most of them are fixed in 3.2, with the possible exception of the one I mentioned before, but I have not tried yet.

Reply Score: 1

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Thisngs as fundamental as cell references in spreadsheets not having required surrounding square braces (e.g. A7 instead of [A7]).


sorry to burst your bubble again, but microsofts code is correct
ms is encoding it as table:formula="msoxl:=A1+A2+A3" and not as table:formula="=A1+A2+A3"
completely valid and showing how f--ked up odf is in it's current state...

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Thisngs as fundamental as cell references in spreadsheets not having required surrounding square braces (e.g. A7 instead of [A7]).
sorry to burst your bubble again, but microsofts code is correct ms is encoding it as table:formula="msoxl:=A1+A2+A3" and not as table:formula="=A1+A2+A3" completely valid and showing how f--ked up odf is in it's current state... "

Please desist with your unwarranted FUD.

Microsoft's coding is not at all correct according to the standard and according to the body that sets the standard. It is entirely wrong.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office

No other implementation of ODF has anywhere near the level of non-compliance that Microsoft's implementation does. Microsoft's implementation of ODF is borked, not the standard itself.

These are the valid criticisms of ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Criticism

These criticisms are addressed in ODF 1.2. The criticisms do not include any valid excuse for Microsoft getting ODF so utterly wrong.

Over 600 companies support OpenDocument via the OpenDocument Format Alliance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_Format_Alliance

Only Microsoft effectively stands in opposition.

Worldwide official support for OpenDocument is growing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_adoption

You can test for yourself how correct, or otherwise, any given ODF file actually is:
http://opendocumentfellowship.com/validator

ODF files produced by Microsoft Office software are borked ... correction: Microsoft claims these are ODF files, but according to the standard itself, and according to the ODF validators, they aren't really ODF files at all.

Edited 2010-02-16 02:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Please desist with your unwarranted FUD.


you can post as much links as you like, but maybe you should take a look at the official standart

download the pdf for odf 1.0 and scroll to page 184
there you will find:
Every formula should begin with a
namespace prefix specifying the syntax and semantics used within the formula. Typically, the
formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components:


and now take a guess what "msoxl:" is and how "=A1+A2+A3" is encoded

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" Please desist with your unwarranted FUD.
you can post as much links as you like, but maybe you should take a look at the official standart download the pdf for odf 1.0 and scroll to page 184 there you will find:
Every formula should begin with a namespace prefix specifying the syntax and semantics used within the formula. Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components:
and now take a guess what "msoxl:" is and how "=A1+A2+A3" is encoded
"

So you are trying to say, in effect, that Microsoft are clever to have found an oblique way to interpret the text and to get it wrong according to everyone else's interpretation? Clap, clap, my my, how very clever of them. I think both you and they have, once again, entirely missed the very idea of a "standard". The idea is to be interoperable, the idea is not to find "clever" ways to stuff it up.

Rant all you like: put it through the ODF validator, and it will quickly show you that msoxl is not a valid ODF namespace. Microsoft do not get to say what is, and what is not valid ODF ... the OASIS Technical Committee does. (PS: Microsoft were offered a seat on the OASIS Technical Committee for ODF from the outset, but they declined to participate).

What would it kill Microsoft to actually include the required square brackets ( as in ="msoxl:=[A1]+[A2]+[A3]" ) for the cell references?

Edited 2010-02-16 03:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 300,000,000 Downloads
by Mellin on Wed 17th Feb 2010 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: 300,000,000 Downloads"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

the iso ooxml standard isn't used by anyone at the moment because microsoft isn't using it and there's a big chance that they'll never use it.

Edited 2010-02-17 20:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by porcel
by porcel on Sat 13th Feb 2010 21:10 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Two things to note:

1) Openoffice 3.2 flies. It´s performance is absolutely great on this small atom 1.6ghz netbook.

2) Here´s one of the best guides I have read on getting the most out of Openoffice´s writer app:

http://linuxbeacon.com/doku.php/articles:writertips

Reply Score: 2

Just on speed of openOffice 3.2
by lemur2 on Sun 14th Feb 2010 07:28 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

A quick observation on what is achievable now:

On my current system, using Arch Linux and KDE SC 4.4, I get the following result when launching OpenOffice Writer 3.2 from the desktop panel shortcut:

2 seconds flat. Writer loads, and is ready to use, just two seconds after clicking the icon.

This is considerably faster than previous versions on this same machine.

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+
Radeon HD 4350 graphic card
OpenGL 1.5 Mesa 7.7
3GB RAM.

In oreder to obtain this result, I note that I am also running the preload daemon, which is the Linux equivalent of Superfetch of Windows 7 and Vista.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfetch#SuperFetch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preload_%28software%29

Reply Score: 2

Oh OpenOffice
by abraxas on Sun 14th Feb 2010 12:03 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

I never use OO. It's now on my machine just to open excel spreadsheets, word docs, and the occasional powerpoint presentation that are sent my way. The few documents I need to create end up being done with LaTeX.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

The latest status of ODF 1.2 is here:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/01/odf-1-2-part-1-public-review.ht...

There is still work to be done, but we are certainly in the endgame now.


Public review stage. Despite interference, delay and nay-saying from Microsoft, as evidenced here:

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/02/19/building-consensus...

For those using MS Office 2000/XP/2003/2007 (including Service Pack 2), in order to be correctly interoperable with other ODF-compliant suites (and in particular, inter-operable with OpenOffice 3.2) one should install a compatible ODF plugin such as this one:

http://sun.systemnews.com/articles/137/2/Windows/21981

This plugin now "Allows Microsoft Users to Make ODF their Default File Format".

From the description "Sun ODF Plug-in 3.1 offers support for MS Office 2000/XP/2003/2007 (including Service Pack 2) and support for Word, Excel and Powerpoint. The Sun product is compatible with ODF 1.2 as well as older 1.x versions."

Do NOT use the so-claimed ODF support in MS Office 2007 SP2, as that will produce totally invalid ODF output.

PS: Microsoft explicitly states that they DO NOT implement ODF 1.2. Nor do they achieve even partial interoperability with ODF 1.1 or 1.0.

Edited 2010-02-16 10:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by twitterfire
by twitterfire on Wed 17th Feb 2010 17:41 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Sadly, Open Office still breaks MS .doc and .docx and does a rather lousy job at exporting anything but trivial documents. Things like this makes OO rather unusable for me and for many others who exchange documents in MS formats.

Maybe in 10 years we will see better compatibility with MS Office.

2130 will be the year of linux desktop and 2150 will be the year of Open Office.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by twitterfire
by lemur2 on Wed 17th Feb 2010 22:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by twitterfire"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Sadly, Open Office still breaks MS .doc and .docx and does a rather lousy job at exporting anything but trivial documents. Things like this makes OO rather unusable for me and for many others who exchange documents in MS formats.


However, MS Office is far worse in that it natively deliberately corrupts and mis-handles OpenOffice documents. At least with OpenOffice there is some chance at interoperability.

Microsoft's monopoly in the Office suite market is slowly dissipating. There are now two main Office suites in common use, and only one of them (OpenOffice) makes even a half-way decent attempt at handling the formats of the other.

Happily, there is a reasonable solution even if you do use MS Office. The solution is to download the Sun Plugin for MS Office, and exchange your documents in ODF format using this plugin.

http://sun.systemnews.com/articles/137/2/Windows/21981
The plugin will even let you set ODF as the default format for your Office files.

Voila!

Maybe in 10 years we will see better compatibility with MS Office. 2130 will be the year of linux desktop and 2150 will be the year of Open Office.


The tipping point may well be much closer than you imagine. OpenOffice already has sufficient market share that Microsoft cannot simply ignore it any longer, and the utter inability of MS Office to properly handle ODF format is becoming a major deficiency of MS Office. This is why Microsoft have now taken up a seat on the OASIS OpenDocument Technical Committee.

Edited 2010-02-17 22:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2