free microsoft office

asininity

anewhope wrote: »

What difference does it make if OO chose to distribute the source to their program and Microsoft don't? Microsoft are compatible with over 90% of the Office market share

It's being rolled out in SP2 which is coming in the next few months.

The difference is that M$ have had the opportunity to add compatibility easier and to date haven't bothered. Microsoft is about 90% of the office market you'd like to think they'd be compatible with themselves, which isn't always the case. And if the new compatibility isn't any good I bet you'd still blame OO.

Software doesn't get developed for free. Sun want businesses to use it so they can lock them into support agreements which offset the development costs. It's a commercial venture now, the same as Linux.

OpenOffice is not a Sun product, Sun offer surport for it & contributes substantially to its development. Linux and projects like OO give the software for free and offer suport which you need to pay for IF you want it which costs a lot less a year than those MS Licences. Linux and OO have cost me nothing.

Just because the software is provided for free, doesn't mean the support is the same. Licensing with MS is a very complicated matter, often large corporations and public bodies end up paying not a lot at all for Microsoft software.

MS are slowly realising their Licences arent the way ahead subscription based support is, which is how Linux makes its money. The software is free and free to use IF you want support you pay for the support, there is no need to pay for it.

Marty_J

anewhope wrote: »

Open Office has been around for years and hasn't made any significant impact into the market share of Office.

No significant impact?

Are you Steve Ballmer?

I'd call upwards of 135 million downloads pretty significant.

Somewhere between 10 and 20% of businesses are using Open Office, and governments around the world are switching to it.

It took quite a few years before MS Office became the de facto Office program (it was actually first released on the Mac, not Windows), so I imagine the same thing could happen with Open Office.

asininity

Are we on the same side here Marty???

Marty_J

I think so!

Shouldn't Proliant be here telling us all how great Microsoft is?

[Deleted User]

Marty_J wrote: »

No significant impact?

Are you Steve Ballmer?

I'd call upwards of 135 million downloads pretty significant.

Somewhere between 10 and 20% of businesses are using Open Office, and governments around the world are switching to it.

It took quite a few years before MS Office became the de facto Office program (it was actually first released on the Mac, not Windows), so I imagine the same thing could happen with Open Office.

I wish I had his bank balance

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, it's a massive achievement in getting that number of downloads and improving their product, but I still don't see how blaming Microsoft for OO's developers not making their product fully compatible with the core document formats used in Office when there's been vast resources on the formats released is justified.

randomtask_2

moneypooh wrote: »

Will there be an Office 2009 ??

MS Office 14 (working title) is in development and according to Steve Ballmer, will be released in 2010.

So short answer, no...

asininity

anewhope wrote: »

I wish I had his bank balance

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, it's a massive achievement in getting that number of downloads and improving their product, but I still don't see how blaming Microsoft for OO's developers not making their product fully compatible with the core document formats used in Office when there's been vast resources on the formats released is justified.

And I don't still see why its the OO devs fault? Their default format is ODT.

The developers have provided compatibility with M$ which is more than could be said the other way around, maybe its not perfect.

I think developing their product further is more important than providing 100% compatibility with MS which as far as I can see is only under MS's terms under the "Microsoft Open Specification Promise"(have you read it? I'm not a lawyer but it seems to say MS might or might not sue you if they decide you've used some of their patents while using stuff released under it ) of which these specs for office have only been available since February 15, 2008.

Shame on those devs for not jumping on this straight away instead of releasing OO3, and potentially getting sued. Not an over reaction by the way as evidenced by the FUD MS are throwing around about Linux breaking some of their patents.

clem28_2

Like MS office, but cant afford to buy the newish version as long term ill and off work.
perhaps i may get a copy off someone.

[Deleted User]

asininity wrote: »

And I don't still see why its the OO devs fault? Their default format is ODT.

If you want your product to be compatible with another, you have to make it. A group of Microsoft's SEs can't just walk into the offices of OO and say "here, pass us the keyboard and we'll do it for you"..

I think developing their product further is more important than providing 100% compatibility with MS

Debatable considering Microsoft Office is the most common suite of office applications used, but if the compatibility has been minimised to a level where it is not a significant obstance then I agree.

which as far as I can see is only under MS's terms under the "Microsoft Open Specification Promise"(have you read it? I'm not a lawyer but it seems to say MS might or might not sue you if they decide you've used some of their patents while using stuff released under it ) of which these specs for office have only been available since February 15, 2008.

Since 2008 they have been distibuted without the necessity for royalties. Don't forget, the core file formats aren't ISO standards so Microsoft can do as they see fit with them.

Not an over reaction by the way as evidenced by the FUD MS are throwing around about Linux breaking some of their patents.

If I'd got a patent for something and someone else started using it without permission, I'd not be happy either.

asininity

anewhope wrote: »

If you want your product to be compatible with another, you have to make it. A group of Microsoft's SEs can't just walk into the offices of OO and say "here, pass us the keyboard and we'll do it for you"..

They have provided compatibility how many times do I have to say it, they had to do it on their own. OO was developed before 2008. No one seems to moan so much about MS works. Baffles me!

anewhope wrote: »

Debatable considering Microsoft Office is the most common suite of office applications used, but if the compatibility has been minimised to a level where it is not a significant obstance then I agree.

In a purely business sense yes. Home users its debatable. I'm glad we agree that the first point of call is developing their product, the whole world doesn't revolve around microsoft.

anewhope wrote: »

Since 2008 they have been distibuted without the necessity for royalties. Don't forget, the core file formats aren't ISO standards so Microsoft can do as they see fit with them.

If I'd got a patent for something and someone else started using it without permission, I'd not be happy either.

The above is the problem with MS and why its MS's fault things like this aren't more compatible.

More compatibility or potentially sued mmmm difficult decission. I'm sure I'd rather not get sued at MS's whim (ie when they see that OO is a big threat, just likes happened with Linux) just to provide 100% compatibility.