Microsoft Running Scared Of OpenOffice

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 13, 2010.

  1. The FUD is strong in this one
    <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-launches-attack-on-openoffice/9954>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 13, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Oct 14, 11:32 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > The FUD is strong in this one
    > <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-launches-attack-on-openo...>.


    I still use an old version of MSOffice - about 8 years old. It is
    much, much better than OpenOffice3.x.
    JohnO, Oct 13, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    On 14/10/10 11:59 AM, JohnO wrote:
    > On Oct 14, 11:32 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> The FUD is strong in this one
    >> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-launches-attack-on-openo...>.

    >
    > I still use an old version of MSOffice - about 8 years old. It is
    > much, much better than OpenOffice3.x.


    ha ha, it's funny because it's true
    Another Me, Oct 14, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:59:13 -0700, JohnO wrote:

    > On Oct 14, 11:32 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> The FUD is strong in this one
    >> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-launches-attack-on-

    openo...>.
    >
    > I still use an old version of MSOffice - about 8 years old. It is much,
    > much better than OpenOffice3.x.


    Would you care to elaborate on the way(s) in which you think Microsoft
    Office XP (AKA Microsoft Office 10, AKA Microsoft Office 2002) is "much,
    much better" than Oracle Office 3.2.1?

    This is no real surprise given that OpenOffice.org 1.0 did not exist when
    MS Office 10 was released. Even now OOo is only at version 3.2 while MS
    Office is at version 13!

    Given comparative version numbers, OOo is significantly further advanced
    than Microsoft Office in both feature set and in quality of code.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Oct 14, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Squiggle Guest

    On 14/10/2010 11:59 a.m., JohnO threw some characters down the intarwebs:
    > On Oct 14, 11:32 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> The FUD is strong in this one
    >> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-launches-attack-on-openo...>.

    >
    > I still use an old version of MSOffice - about 8 years old. It is
    > much, much better than OpenOffice3.x.


    Personally i think openoffice 3.2 and office XP are basically
    equivalent, a couple of things that MS office does better (Excel solver
    and some charting functions being the ones that come to mind), and a
    couple that open office does better (formula editor being the one that I
    use the most).
    Squiggle, Oct 14, 2010
    #5
  6. In message <4cb6a917$>, Squiggle wrote:

    > Personally i think openoffice 3.2 and office XP are basically
    > equivalent, a couple of things that MS office does better (Excel solver
    > and some charting functions being the ones that come to mind), and a
    > couple that open office does better (formula editor being the one that I
    > use the most).


    People seem to be sticking with older versions of Microsoft Office, because
    of upgrade hassles
    <http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/office_2007_migration_problems/>
    and increased costs
    <http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/06/16/office_2010_no_upgrade/>.

    I read somewhere a few years ago that OpenOffice.org had as much as 15% of
    the office-suite market. Given the trends, that’s probably even higher now.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 14, 2010
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Oct 14, 8:03 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Squiggle wrote:
    >
    > > Personally i think openoffice 3.2  and office XP are basically
    > > equivalent, a couple of things that MS office does better (Excel solver
    > > and some charting functions being the ones that come to mind), and a
    > > couple that open office does better (formula editor being the one that I
    > > use the most).

    >
    > People seem to be sticking with older versions of Microsoft Office, because
    > of upgrade hassles
    > <http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/office_2007_migration_pro...>
    > and increased costs
    > <http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/06/16/office_2010_no_upgrade/>.
    >


    Neither in my case. I just like office XP's feel, and don't see the
    cost/benefit in spending the time to get familiar with the ew look and
    feel of later versions.

    > I read somewhere a few years ago that OpenOffice.org had as much as 15% of
    > the office-suite market. Given the trends, that’s probably even higher now.


    This is a real problem for you Larry. You need to be more
    discriminating when reading, and learn to believe what is true rather
    than what you would like to be true.
    JohnO, Oct 14, 2010
    #7
  8. In message <i95c16$c3i$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > The FUD is strong in this one
    > <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-launches-attack-on-openoffice/9954>.


    Wonder why they’ve got comments disabled on that YouTube page. Is it because
    they’re afraid of seeing the sort of opprobrium they’re getting in places
    like this
    <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/microsoft-ad-trashes-openofficeorg>?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 15, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    On 14/10/2010 7:49 p.m., Sweetpea wrote:
    > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:59:13 -0700, JohnO wrote:
    >
    >> On Oct 14, 11:32 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    >> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>> The FUD is strong in this one
    >>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-launches-attack-on-

    > openo...>.
    >>
    >> I still use an old version of MSOffice - about 8 years old. It is much,
    >> much better than OpenOffice3.x.

    >
    > Would you care to elaborate on the way(s) in which you think Microsoft
    > Office XP (AKA Microsoft Office 10, AKA Microsoft Office 2002) is "much,
    > much better" than Oracle Office 3.2.1?
    >
    > This is no real surprise given that OpenOffice.org 1.0 did not exist when
    > MS Office 10 was released. Even now OOo is only at version 3.2 while MS
    > Office is at version 13!
    >
    > Given comparative version numbers, OOo is significantly further advanced
    > than Microsoft Office in both feature set and in quality of code.


    When I tried openoffice it was unable to do page numbering the way I
    needed, couldnt mix landscape and portrait in the one document.

    I seem to recal it was unable to handle making sub tables of contents
    too, but it was such a long time ago I tried it.

    With office home and student being so cheap I cant see any reason to
    bother with free.
    Richard, Oct 15, 2010
    #9
  10. In message <i98fog$ur5$>, Richard wrote:

    > When I tried openoffice it was unable to do page numbering the way I
    > needed, couldnt mix landscape and portrait in the one document.


    I just created a three-page document with the middle one in landscape and
    the other two in portrait. It was just a matter of choosing the right Style
    when inserting the page break.

    How did you want page numbering to look?

    > I seem to recal it was unable to handle making sub tables of contents
    > too, but it was such a long time ago I tried it.


    I just looked at the Index/Table options, and there were seven types it
    could create: Table of Contents, Alphabetical Index, Illustration Index,
    Index of Tables, User-Defined, Table of Objects and Bibliography. And then
    there’s the choice of where to get the info from, and how to format the
    various entry levels.

    And this is before we get into scriptability for custom document
    manipulation, using a modern language like Python.

    Maybe you should try keeping your opinions based on up-to-date facts, at
    least?

    > With office home and student being so cheap I cant see any reason to
    > bother with free.


    Except there are restrictions on what use you’re allowed to make of
    Microsoft Office, in return for the low price. Like “non-commercial useâ€:
    but if you use it to write a CV and get a job, does that count as
    “commercial†use?

    And so you find, as is typical with proprietary software, that you have to
    fudge your interpretation of the licence agreement, otherwise you couldn’t
    make use of it on a day-to-day basis...
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 15, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Oct 15, 5:51 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    > Except there are restrictions on what use you’re allowed to make of
    > Microsoft Office, in return for the low price. Like “non-commercial use”:
    > but if you use it to write a CV and get a job, does that count as
    > “commercial” use?


    No.
    Simon, Oct 15, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Richard <> wrote:

    > When I tried openoffice it was unable to do page numbering the way I
    > needed, couldnt mix landscape and portrait in the one document.


    The latest versions can certainly do that, but IMO it's rather
    cumbersome compared to Microsoft Office. I'm sure they'll get it right
    in the next release though.
    Simon, Oct 15, 2010
    #12
  13. In message
    <>, Simon
    wrote:

    > On Oct 15, 5:51 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Except there are restrictions on what use you’re allowed to make of
    >> Microsoft Office, in return for the low price. Like “non-commercial useâ€:
    >> but if you use it to write a CV and get a job, does that count as
    >> “commercial†use?

    >
    > No.


    And so you find, as is typical with proprietary software, that you have to
    fudge your interpretation of the licence agreement, otherwise you couldn’t
    make use of it on a day-to-day basis...
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 15, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:54:08 +1300, Richard wrote:

    >>> I still use an old version of MSOffice - about 8 years old. It is
    >>> much, much better than OpenOffice3.x.

    >>
    >> Would you care to elaborate on the way(s) in which you think Microsoft
    >> Office XP (AKA Microsoft Office 10, AKA Microsoft Office 2002) is
    >> "much, much better" than Oracle Office 3.2.1?
    >>
    >> This is no real surprise given that OpenOffice.org 1.0 did not exist
    >> when MS Office 10 was released. Even now OOo is only at version 3.2
    >> while MS Office is at version 13!
    >>
    >> Given comparative version numbers, OOo is significantly further
    >> advanced than Microsoft Office in both feature set and in quality of
    >> code.

    >
    > When I tried openoffice it was unable to do page numbering the way I
    > needed, couldnt mix landscape and portrait in the one document.
    >
    > I seem to recal it was unable to handle making sub tables of contents
    > too, but it was such a long time ago I tried it.


    The wording of your post is suggestive of having tested OOo a long time
    ago.

    How long ago is it since you last tested OOo 3.2.1?


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Oct 15, 2010
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    On 16/10/2010 11:09 a.m., Sweetpea wrote:

    > The wording of your post is suggestive of having tested OOo a long time
    > ago.
    >
    > How long ago is it since you last tested OOo 3.2.1?


    It was when I had just moved to vista, which was soon after its release.

    Have no interest in trying it again, as the cost of office IMO is
    immaterial, and if the best feature of something is that it doesnt cost
    then its not really very compelling.
    Richard, Oct 16, 2010
    #15
  16. In message <i9bt00$v1o$>, Richard wrote:

    > Have no interest in trying it again, as the cost of office IMO is
    > immaterial ...


    It’s not a cheap package, especially now Microsoft is no longer offering
    “upgrade†pricing.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Oct 15, 7:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    > And so you find, as is typical with proprietary software, that you have to
    > fudge your interpretation of the licence agreement, otherwise you couldn’t
    > make use of it on a day-to-day basis...


    That's not an indictment on proprietary software, it's an indictment
    on the quality of the license agreement.
    Simon, Oct 17, 2010
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Oct 16, 11:33 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <i9bt00$>, Richard wrote:
    >
    > > Have no interest in trying it again, as the cost of office IMO is
    > > immaterial ...

    >
    > It’s not a cheap package, especially now Microsoft is no longer offering
    > “upgrade” pricing.


    For an enterprise class customer, the situation is entirely different.
    Simon, Oct 17, 2010
    #18
  19. In message
    <>, Simon
    wrote:

    > On Oct 16, 11:33 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message <i9bt00$>, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Have no interest in trying it again, as the cost of office IMO is
    >>> immaterial ...

    >>
    >> It’s not a cheap package, especially now Microsoft is no longer offering
    >> “upgrade†pricing.

    >
    > For an enterprise class customer, the situation is entirely different.


    “Enterprise-class†customers are not known for their nimbleness in the
    marketplace. Most of the world’s GDP (and, I would argue, innovation), comes
    from small businesses, not large ones.

    And small businesses can’t afford to shell out large sums on proprietary
    software just because it’s the only thing their IT department understands.
    Cheaper to replace those obdurate IT staff with imaginative ones who can put
    together flexible systems that look forward rather than backward.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 17, 2010
    #19
  20. In message
    <>, Simon
    wrote:

    > On Oct 15, 7:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> And so you find, as is typical with proprietary software, that you have
    >> to fudge your interpretation of the licence agreement, otherwise you
    >> couldn’t make use of it on a day-to-day basis...

    >
    > That's not an indictment on proprietary software, it's an indictment
    > on the quality of the license agreement.


    To prove your point, all you have to do is find one piece of proprietary
    software that doesn’t have such a one-sided licence agreement.

    Go on, then.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 17, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Raymond Munyan
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,140
    =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE?=
    Dec 1, 2004
  2. Jj
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    411
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    694
    DVD Verdict
    Jun 12, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    557
    chrisv
    Sep 23, 2007
  5. peterwn
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    353
    peterwn
    Oct 3, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page