Version 2.4 of the OpenOffice productivity suite was released on Thursday, boasting enhancements to all its core components. Possibly the most significant alteration in the new version of the free suite is in the description of file types. The 'OpenDocument' description has been replaced by 'ODF', which stands for 'OpenDocument Format' and is becoming a well-known acronym thanks to rivalry with Microsoft's controversial OOXML format.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
1. They are not paying me. Their employers are. And they appreciate not having to shell out for 60+ MS Office licenses + upgrades.
2. The other 60 some odd users have no problems or complaints about using OO.o and are able to do their jobs just fine. The one employee in question is also quite able to do her job with the current tools available. Drag 'n Drop column rearrangement, available in 2.4, is a nice convenience, but the lack in 2.3 is simply not a show stopper.
Nice try, but my professional conscience is quite clear.
Edited 2008-03-30 02:10 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
i think its mostly "mental muscle" pains thats being complained about.
as in, being able to do something is a way builds up muscle memory, and when that memory and reality no longer match, some people will complain, quite vocally often, but will (hopefully) keep on doing what they are paid to do.
this is one reason why we have "tech inertia"...
Member since:2005-07-06
I use OpenOffice at home. Its is getting better, but its a long way from being at the point where I would prefer it over MS Office. For a business the money is well worth it and my when I purchase my next notebook I will be purchasing Office 2007.
I always find it hard to comprehend. Businesses spend obscene amounts of money on their employees salaries, medical, etc and then they get them some old computer with cheap peripherals. In the case of your company they give a fraction on software of the employee's total cost to company and in doing so give them an inferior product.
If you value you're time and want the best then MS Office is the only competitor right now and I have tried most if not all except the latest version of iWork but that does not run on Windows or Linux so I can't use it anyway.
Member since:2005-07-07
At the end of the day, I think it depends on the kind of job that is being done. For example, if you're working as a quant in some big financial firm, no employer is going to begrudge you the software you need. The amount of money you make each day for the company is easily enough to cover the cost of a license. On the other hand, if you're working in a small business where the turnover is considerably smaller, the price of an MS Office site license can be prohibitive. Shelling out $500 for just one staff member can be quite an expensive prospect.
So the question that really needs to be answered is whether the switch to MS office will increase productivity enough to justify the price of a license?
Member since:2005-07-24
Don't forget the additional administrative costs and consulting fees. In our case, OO.o is centrally hosted on our XDMCP/NX server, and all management is centralized. The 60-70 (complete) desktops that we run require relatively little time to support and administer. A one-off MSO installation on Windows has to be maintained separately, and has a very real per user cost that, over time, exceeds any initial licensing fees. Especially when it is at a branch office which is 220 miles from my location.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Damn those whining users that you're being paid to support and help to do their job. Always whining and not using *my* preferred software.