Gonna be interesting to see which one is the fastest and most stable - This hack or NeoOffice with a native GUI.
I always found NeoOffice ungodly slow, i hated it. It was a HUGE install and it took forever. Now that I am thinking about it both OpenOffice and NeoOffice to an ungodly amount of time to load.
Gonna be interesting to see which one is the fastest and most stable - This hack or NeoOffice with a native GUI.
This is not a hack. This is the OpenOffice team working on a native version of OpenOffice for OS X. It's far from being done, but people are investing their time and effort to provide something to OS X free of any charge. Show some respect for their efforts at least, instead of bashing them with ill-conceived notions of grandeur.
This is not a hack. This is the OpenOffice team working on a native version of OpenOffice for OS X. It's far from being done, but people are investing their time and effort to provide something to OS X free of any charge. Show some respect for their efforts at least, instead of bashing them with ill-conceived notions of grandeur.
I would love OpenOffice on my Mac if it ran faster. I have a 1.33ghz G4 and 1 Gig of ram and right now it takes forever to open especially with having to run it through X11. I would love to see a native version.
I would love OpenOffice.org if it were, in any form whatsoever, a creative programming project. Sadly, it is little but a clone of the "I hate Microsoft"/"I am too cheap to buy an Office license"/"Open source is better LAWL" type.
I would love OpenOffice.org if it were, in any form whatsoever, a creative programming project. Sadly, it is little but a clone of the "I hate Microsoft"/"I am too cheap to buy an Office license"/"Open source is better LAWL" type.
I really do not see whats wrong with open office, they provide another alternative to software that I do not particularly like. You then could argue the difference between Windows and Linux and say that linux has no real purpose except for "I am too cheap to buy a Windows License".
Personally I like having the option of what I can download, I do not like being limited to one companies regardless if its Microsoft or not software.
Linux has a lot of software that isn't readily available on Windows, or only in form of ports. Typical Linux distributions also offer features Windows does not, such as a powerful Unix-style shell. The only thing I can think of that OpenOffice.org offers over MS Office is built-in PDF support, which is nice, but frankly something that any decent office suite should have had all along. (And part of the reason MS Office doesn't have it is not Microsoft's arrogance, but rather Adobe's.)
Linux also takes many unique cues in terms of what direction it wants to go to, often largely different from Windows or Mac OS X. The GNOME project has a lot of innovative ideas, and the Symphony OS project is quite radical in its concepts. Again, OOo has little or none of that.
Linux has a lot of software that isn't readily available on Windows, or only in form of ports. Typical Linux distributions also offer features Windows does not, such as a powerful Unix-style shell. The only thing I can think of that OpenOffice.org offers over MS Office is built-in PDF support, which is nice, but frankly something that any decent office suite should have had all along. (And part of the reason MS Office doesn't have it is not Microsoft's arrogance, but rather Adobe's.)
Linux also takes many unique cues in terms of what direction it wants to go to, often largely different from Windows or Mac OS X. The GNOME project has a lot of innovative ideas, and the Symphony OS project is quite radical in its concepts. Again, OOo has little or none of that.
I do see your point however, what would the different linux Distrobution use for an office tool them. I am not tyring to prove your wrong, my point is that I am glad to see that the Open Office team is trying to make there software more widely available. I do STRONGly agree with you on the concepts of Symphony OS, that is a hell of a project and I really like what they are going. I have been thinking about trying to triple boot my Mac and have a pure linux install also on my Macbook. I thought that might make thing really interesting.
I don't dislike the OpenOffice.org project. I recognize that it provides value for a lot of people. However, I don't feel it is anything at all beyond a MS Office clone.
There are alternatives, such as KOffice and GNOME Office.
I do see your point however, what would the different linux Distrobution use for an office tool them. I am not tyring to prove your wrong, my point is that I am glad to see that the Open Office team is trying to make there software more widely available. I do STRONGly agree with you on the concepts of Symphony OS, that is a hell of a project and I really like what they are going. I have been thinking about trying to triple boot my Mac and have a pure linux install also on my Macbook. I thought that might make thing really interesting.
-iGrant
One situation that I have not looked into yet is the fact that VB extentions will not be supported in the next Office for Mac. Making Windows office and Mac Office completed incompatible at least for Excel.
Is there an alternative product that might resolve this issue?
I. However, I don't feel it is anything at all beyond a MS Office clone.
Which is what it's stated purpose is. It's not like they're promising to be the end-all be-all of productivity software, and ended up being a clone of Office. They were clone of Office when SUN bought StarDivision, and they're a clone now that SUN has open sourced it.
And I'm kinda glad they are. People need alternatives, even if those alternatives are very similar to the "original" software.
Which is what it's stated purpose is. It's not like they're promising to be the end-all be-all of productivity software, and ended up being a clone of Office. They were clone of Office when SUN bought StarDivision, and they're a clone now that SUN has open sourced it.
And I'm kinda glad they are. People need alternatives, even if those alternatives are very similar to the "original" software.
As I said:
Quote:
I recognize that [the project] provides value for a lot of people.
However, I'm personally only interested in software that strives to experiment, invent and innovate. iWork frequently does with its limited, but simple user interface, MS Office occasionally does, such as with the ribbon; OpenOffice.org almost never has. I fully recognize that it's a lot more feasible for the mainstream to go with something established; it just doesn't intrigue me in the least.
You mean the ribbon that they're pulling back from based on user feedback?
I recognize the market for an Office clone - I just don't, personally, want one. File compatibility, absolutely - that's the first step towards breaking the monopoly. But a UI clone?? *shudder* Why copy a monstrosity if you don't have to?
For god's sake, I would have thought that the general OSS community could have come up with something better. It's... disappointing. (Seriously, if anyone has a pointer to a good UI + Office file compatibility, I'm all ears... I haven't seen a decent one yet.)
You mean the ribbon that they're pulling back from based on user feedback?
I didn't call it good. I called it experimental, which can have a good or bad outcome, but the willingness to experiment is invariably a good trait.
Quote:
I recognize the market for an Office clone - I just don't, personally, want one. File compatibility, absolutely - that's the first step towards breaking the monopoly. But a UI clone?? *shudder* Why copy a monstrosity if you don't have to?
Agreed.
Quote:
For god's sake, I would have thought that the general OSS community could have come up with something better. It's... disappointing. (Seriously, if anyone has a pointer to a good UI + Office file compatibility, I'm all ears... I haven't seen a decent one yet.)
iWork frequently does with its limited, but simple user interface,
iWork frequently does experiment - and fail - badly. There's nothing innovative behind iWork. Hence it's very poor penetration of the market.
Quote:
MS Office occasionally does, such as with the ribbon
True.
Quote:
OpenOffice.org almost never has.
Because it didn't want to. That's the key thing to remember. If their goal was to experiment with different UIs, I'm sure they'd come up with something new. Great? Maybe, maybe not. But they would come up with something.
Quote:
I fully recognize that it's a lot more feasible for the mainstream to go with something established; it just doesn't intrigue me in the least.
And that's just fine. But to say that it's "I'm too cheap to buy Office" is overstating it a bit.
]Nevermind OpenOffice, OpenDocument Format is the real Office-killer, and it looks like it'll be baked right into Leopard. That's a major kick in the stones for Microsoft, and a bit of a reversal after Apple and Microsoft teamed up to promote MSFT's XML alternative format.
Comments
Gonna be interesting to see which one is the fastest and most stable - This hack or NeoOffice with a native GUI.
I always found NeoOffice ungodly slow, i hated it. It was a HUGE install and it took forever. Now that I am thinking about it both OpenOffice and NeoOffice to an ungodly amount of time to load.
Gonna be interesting to see which one is the fastest and most stable - This hack or NeoOffice with a native GUI.
This is not a hack. This is the OpenOffice team working on a native version of OpenOffice for OS X. It's far from being done, but people are investing their time and effort to provide something to OS X free of any charge. Show some respect for their efforts at least, instead of bashing them with ill-conceived notions of grandeur.
This is not a hack. This is the OpenOffice team working on a native version of OpenOffice for OS X. It's far from being done, but people are investing their time and effort to provide something to OS X free of any charge. Show some respect for their efforts at least, instead of bashing them with ill-conceived notions of grandeur.
I would love OpenOffice on my Mac if it ran faster. I have a 1.33ghz G4 and 1 Gig of ram and right now it takes forever to open especially with having to run it through X11. I would love to see a native version.
-iGrant
I would love OpenOffice.org if it were, in any form whatsoever, a creative programming project. Sadly, it is little but a clone of the "I hate Microsoft"/"I am too cheap to buy an Office license"/"Open source is better LAWL" type.
I really do not see whats wrong with open office, they provide another alternative to software that I do not particularly like. You then could argue the difference between Windows and Linux and say that linux has no real purpose except for "I am too cheap to buy a Windows License".
Personally I like having the option of what I can download, I do not like being limited to one companies regardless if its Microsoft or not software.
Linux has a lot of software that isn't readily available on Windows, or only in form of ports. Typical Linux distributions also offer features Windows does not, such as a powerful Unix-style shell. The only thing I can think of that OpenOffice.org offers over MS Office is built-in PDF support, which is nice, but frankly something that any decent office suite should have had all along. (And part of the reason MS Office doesn't have it is not Microsoft's arrogance, but rather Adobe's.)
Linux also takes many unique cues in terms of what direction it wants to go to, often largely different from Windows or Mac OS X. The GNOME project has a lot of innovative ideas, and the Symphony OS project is quite radical in its concepts. Again, OOo has little or none of that.
The comparison doesn't work.
Linux has a lot of software that isn't readily available on Windows, or only in form of ports. Typical Linux distributions also offer features Windows does not, such as a powerful Unix-style shell. The only thing I can think of that OpenOffice.org offers over MS Office is built-in PDF support, which is nice, but frankly something that any decent office suite should have had all along. (And part of the reason MS Office doesn't have it is not Microsoft's arrogance, but rather Adobe's.)
Linux also takes many unique cues in terms of what direction it wants to go to, often largely different from Windows or Mac OS X. The GNOME project has a lot of innovative ideas, and the Symphony OS project is quite radical in its concepts. Again, OOo has little or none of that.
I do see your point however, what would the different linux Distrobution use for an office tool them. I am not tyring to prove your wrong, my point is that I am glad to see that the Open Office team is trying to make there software more widely available. I do STRONGly agree with you on the concepts of Symphony OS, that is a hell of a project and I really like what they are going. I have been thinking about trying to triple boot my Mac and have a pure linux install also on my Macbook. I thought that might make thing really interesting.
-iGrant
There are alternatives, such as KOffice and GNOME Office.
I do see your point however, what would the different linux Distrobution use for an office tool them. I am not tyring to prove your wrong, my point is that I am glad to see that the Open Office team is trying to make there software more widely available. I do STRONGly agree with you on the concepts of Symphony OS, that is a hell of a project and I really like what they are going. I have been thinking about trying to triple boot my Mac and have a pure linux install also on my Macbook. I thought that might make thing really interesting.
-iGrant
One situation that I have not looked into yet is the fact that VB extentions will not be supported in the next Office for Mac. Making Windows office and Mac Office completed incompatible at least for Excel.
Is there an alternative product that might resolve this issue?
I. However, I don't feel it is anything at all beyond a MS Office clone.
Which is what it's stated purpose is. It's not like they're promising to be the end-all be-all of productivity software, and ended up being a clone of Office. They were clone of Office when SUN bought StarDivision, and they're a clone now that SUN has open sourced it.
And I'm kinda glad they are. People need alternatives, even if those alternatives are very similar to the "original" software.
Which is what it's stated purpose is. It's not like they're promising to be the end-all be-all of productivity software, and ended up being a clone of Office. They were clone of Office when SUN bought StarDivision, and they're a clone now that SUN has open sourced it.
And I'm kinda glad they are. People need alternatives, even if those alternatives are very similar to the "original" software.
As I said:
I recognize that [the project] provides value for a lot of people.
However, I'm personally only interested in software that strives to experiment, invent and innovate. iWork frequently does with its limited, but simple user interface, MS Office occasionally does, such as with the ribbon; OpenOffice.org almost never has. I fully recognize that it's a lot more feasible for the mainstream to go with something established; it just doesn't intrigue me in the least.
I recognize the market for an Office clone - I just don't, personally, want one. File compatibility, absolutely - that's the first step towards breaking the monopoly. But a UI clone?? *shudder* Why copy a monstrosity if you don't have to?
For god's sake, I would have thought that the general OSS community could have come up with something better. It's... disappointing. (Seriously, if anyone has a pointer to a good UI + Office file compatibility, I'm all ears... I haven't seen a decent one yet.)
You mean the ribbon that they're pulling back from based on user feedback?
I didn't call it good. I called it experimental, which can have a good or bad outcome, but the willingness to experiment is invariably a good trait.
I recognize the market for an Office clone - I just don't, personally, want one. File compatibility, absolutely - that's the first step towards breaking the monopoly. But a UI clone?? *shudder* Why copy a monstrosity if you don't have to?
Agreed.
For god's sake, I would have thought that the general OSS community could have come up with something better. It's... disappointing. (Seriously, if anyone has a pointer to a good UI + Office file compatibility, I'm all ears... I haven't seen a decent one yet.)
iWork
I didn't call it good. I called it experimental, which can have a good or bad outcome, but the willingness to experiment is invariably a good trait.
Well yeah, but *successful* experimentation is when you bury the failures in the back yard with a shovel.
Well yeah, but *successful* experimentation is when you bury the failures in the back yard with a shovel.
Can I bury people in the back yard with a shovel?
As I said:
iWork frequently does with its limited, but simple user interface,
iWork frequently does experiment - and fail - badly. There's nothing innovative behind iWork. Hence it's very poor penetration of the market.
MS Office occasionally does, such as with the ribbon
True.
OpenOffice.org almost never has.
Because it didn't want to. That's the key thing to remember. If their goal was to experiment with different UIs, I'm sure they'd come up with something new. Great? Maybe, maybe not. But they would come up with something.
I fully recognize that it's a lot more feasible for the mainstream to go with something established; it just doesn't intrigue me in the least.
And that's just fine. But to say that it's "I'm too cheap to buy Office" is overstating it a bit.
iWork frequently does experiment - and fail - badly. There's nothing innovative behind iWork.
Pages's flowing of graphics over text is implemented a lot better than any other alternative I've seen.
And that's just fine. But to say that it's "I'm too cheap to buy Office" is overstating it a bit.
Is it really?