SecretMethod70

Not long ago, this little document came to light from Microsoft. It is basically their marketing tool for explaining that MSOffice is way better than OpenOffice.

http://members.microsoft.com/partner...OpenOffice.pdf

Now, I suppose anyone with common sese that's familiar with computers can recognize a lot of the FUD in there, but let's face it: most business people know about money and not computers and have to rely on what other people tell them. If another company that has very successful business people (hey, MS is definitely successful as far as businesses are concerned, no matter what you think of their software) tells them things, they are more likely to believe it than if they're told by that "open source commie hacker guy."

So, released under the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GFDL</a> (GNU Free Documentation License) - meaning, and this is a rare one, I have every right to republish it here - is a nice little rebuttal by Taran Rampersad, an IT consultant in Trinidad.

Link: http://www.newsforge.com/software/04.../0134204.shtml

----------------------------------------------------------------

Microsoft displays fear, uncertainty, and doubt toward OpenOffice.org
Saturday March 27, 2004 - [ 09:32 AM GMT ]
By: Taran Rampersad

I came across this <a href="http://members.microsoft.com/partner/salesmarketing/opensource/discguides/OpenOffice.pdf">Microsoft OpenOffice 1.1 Competitive Guide</a> through a post on the <a href="http://www.ttlug/">TTLUG</a> mailing list, and decided to answer it fully in a <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">FDLed</a> response because it will save quite a few people from typing everything.

<center>The Basics</center>

According to the Microsoft document, the basic system requirements for <a href="http://www.openoffice.org">OpenOffice</a> are:

* Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) -- Pentium-compatible PC, 64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD; or
* Linux (x86, PowerPC) -- 64 MB RAM and 170 MB HD
* Solaris (x66, SPARC) -- 64 MB RAM and 240 MB HD; or
* MacOSX (beta); or
* FreeBSD

They did not, however, compare it to Office XP. We shall through <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/office/previous/xp/sysreqs.asp">Microsoft's own Office XP System requirements</a>:

* Computer with Pentium 133 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor; Pentium III recommended
* # Windows 98, or Windows 98 Second Edition 24 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Microsoft Word) running simultaneously
# Windows Me, or Microsoft Windows NT®
32 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
# Windows 2000 Professional
64 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously
# Windows XP Professional, or Windows XP Home Edition 128 MB of RAM plus an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Word) running simultaneously

* Hard disk space requirements will vary depending on configuration; custom installation choices may require more or less. Listed below are the minimum hard disk requirements for Office XP suites:

* Office XP Standard
210 MB of available hard disk space
* Office XP Professional and Professional Special Edition²
245 MB of available hard disk space

An additional 115 MB is required on the hard disk where the operating system is installed. Users without Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Me, or Office 2000 Service Release 1 (SR-1) require an extra 50 MB of hard disk space for System Files Update.

* Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6 (SP6) or later,³ Windows 2000, or Windows XP or later.

* CD-ROM drive

* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors

* Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft IntelliMouse®, or compatible pointing device

Please do not forget the key phrase in these Office XP requirements: "an additional 8 MB of RAM for each Office program (such as Microsoft Word) running simultaneously ." That said, <a href="http://www.openoffice.org">OpenOffice</a> more than holds its own, and does so in less disk space on more operating systems.

Being functional on more operating systems guarantees more cross compatibility between platforms, which allows users to change their operating systems, if they so decide, with a lower migration cost. So OpenOffice's customizability could actually decrease costs in the future; it is not reliant on one operating system.

The Minimum Office XP requirements state 'Pentium 133 MHz machine'. In translation, this would probably be a machine used by a Windows 98SE user, which would require them to have 24 - 56 Megabytes of RAM, 375 Megabytes of Hard disk space, etc.

The XP requirements for Office XP are much more interesting. 128-168 megabytes of memory and 325 megabytes of hard drive space.

Let's compare again with the OpenOffice requirements for XP and 98SE:

'Windows (98, NT, 2000, XP) – Pentium-compatible PC,64 MB RAM, 130 MB HD'.

Clear winner: <a href="http://www.openoffice.org">OpenOffice</a>.

Now we shall look at their 'Value Proposition And Response'.

<center>Value Proposition And Response</center>

Microsoft's document stresses that the licensing costs are not representative of the total costs of ownership, and this is a valid point. But let's compare, point by point:

* Installation and deployment: OpenOffice can be installed at no cost, and deployed easily. Microsoft Office XP, however, requires licensing costs and requires more hardware to run on (see above). It also requires that you run an operating system which must be licensed at cost. An international comparison of <a href="http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ghosh/index.html">cost per license of operating system and GDP</a> is revealing in this regard.

* Data Migration and Testing: In migrating Microsoft Office documents to OpenOffice, some advanced formatting may be lost - and this is a problem, but it is unreasonable to demand this because of the fact that Microsoft does not make it's data formats public.

They make special note on the cost of migrating a Microsoft Access database to OpenOffice, but fail to mention the costs associated with upgrading a Microsoft Access database even with their own software. <a href="http://www.fsc.cc/taxonomy_menu/1/2/42">Free Software</a> and <a href="http://www.opensource.org/">Open Source</a> databases are typically available at no cost, so the money would be spent on the actual 'liberation' of the data. Microsoft will require you to purchase licensing for SQL Server, and businesses will still have to pay for the migration of the data.

* Document Conversion And Rewriting Macros: OpenOffice does not use Visual Basic for Applications, but has a macro language of it's own. It should be noted that Microsoft's macros are also incompatible with those of OpenOffice. Therefore, this is a valid point and would be part of a migration cost, yet one has to wonder at how complex such macros would be in a SMB.

* Training: OpenOffice is, for the most part, the same as Microsoft Office XP for a user, but there are things that they will need to learn how to do differently. All things being equal, if a company's staff need formal training for OpenOffice, then they probably need it for every new version of Microsoft Office. Therefore there is a cost on both sides, and they are at least equal.

* Email client: Microsoft notes that OpenOffice lacks an email client. This, however, would take us to <a href="http://www.mozilla.org">Mozilla</a>, which is a standalone web browser with more features than Internet Explorer (such as tabbed browsing), and is much more secure than Microsoft Outlook as a default.

* Collaboration: Microsoft makes it a point to discuss that collaboration is required. Yet OpenOffice runs on all major operating systems, and Microsoft Office does not. This certainly becomes an issue of collaboration.

They also mention that there is a need to assure mission critical data is impervious to virus attack -- and given the latest viruses, this does not bode well for them as all major attacks have taken advantages of flaws in Microsoft Operating Systems and even their Office software. This can lead down the path to security itself, in which ubiquity of Microsoft products probably has an effect.

*Support: Microsoft says that there is no dedicated team for the OpenOffice suite. What Microsoft fails to realize is that the 'dedicated team' are mainly the users; OpenOffice has a community whereas Microsoft users have support groups.

*Limited Compatibility: Microsoft properly asserts that OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with their product. Microsoft, however, has apparently decided not to support the OpenOffice formats either, for which they have no excuse: the standards for OpenOffice documents are publicly available, whereas Microsoft makes it a habit to sue people for reverse engineering their own formats. <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html">Richard Stallman wrote about this in 2002</a>.

<center>Total Value Of OpenOffice</center>

(1) Ease of Use: While computer users throughout the world (including this author) have become familiar with Microsoft's Office suites over the years, OpenOffice is not difficult to learn by simply using it. It's long been kept a secret, but no training in basic use of Office suites is needed; only advanced use of an Office suite may create a need for training -- regardless of which suite it is.

(2) Tailored Solutions: OpenOffice has the benefit of permitting more customized applications to interact with it due to ithe Freedom associated with the source code, which means it will allow more people to develop custom applications which interact with it. Microsoft products require more Microsoft products to interact with them, they come at a cost and limit what a developer can do since the source code is not available.

(3) Better and Faster Work: Such comparisons are inherently flawed, since they would have to have the same users doing the same work on different Office suites. Let's face it: Users just want to do what they have to with their software. In this regard, OpenOffice facilitates this just as Microsoft Office does, but has the benefit of having the source code available for allowing more applications to interact with it. This means more potential productivity when dealing with the business logic of a SMB.

(4) Seamless Data Exchange: Microsoft claims seamless data exchange within Microsoft Office - but it's only between people using Microsoft products. OpenOffice allows people who use a variety of operating systems and data formats to interact with each other. Microsoft Office does not.

(5) Easier Deployment and Maintenance: Installation for either package is very simple. OpenOffice does have a clear benefit here: Service packs are not something one has to constantly look for (at this time). Further, simply installing the latest version of OpenOffice over a later version takes less overall time than constantly updating via patches and service packs.

(6) Security: Microsoft is brave to bring viruses into its marketing strategy when it has been one of Microsoft's greatest problems, despite all the nice things their Marketing brochures have to say about how secure it is. Where the rubber meets the road, Microsoft Office loses.

(7) Investment You Can Trust: Using OpenOffice is an investment of your time, your energy and your future of being able to interoperate with people around the world, without worrying about what operating system that they use. Microsoft Office is an investment in Microsoft's time, energy and future.

<center>Final Words</center>

Microsoft used to have an advertisement asking where you wanted to go today; this is more true of <a href="http://www.openoffice.org">OpenOffice</a> since it allows you more control of your data through vendors and even inhouse staff who can help with it. Microsoft is dictating a future; this is why they do not allow Open Standards.

This is also why Microsoft spends so much time in courts around the world.

Copyright (c) 2004, Taran Rampersad.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License" on the <a href="http://www.gnu.org">GNU</a> website.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I encourage one to also follow the link to the article at NewsForge as there is some good discussion of it there with good points and counterpoints.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Macheath

I use Open Office but I'm not a power user. One day I might read the manual but I don't need to do anything more than the basic stuff at this stage and it's all good.

My only concern has always been that the (bloated and insidious) ".doc" format look exactly the same in both applications and Open Office seems to be making progress on that front.

I do remember when I went to install open office on a Mac running Panther, it required that <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/">X11</a> be installed

Mac users installing Panther for the first time could opt in to install X11 from the get go and save themselves the trouble later when they go to install Open office.

SecretMethod70

tell me about it. The same document with all the same formatting is 3 times as large in .doc than in OpenOffice's native format!

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

absorbentishe

I've downloaded it, and until my new PC arrives, should be tomorrow, I haven't tried it yet. This read was informative.

fracturedmind

I find Office a lot faster, and its like 14 bucks for students.

OpenOffice was always shotty and annoying in more ways than 800, imo.

__________________
It won't give up, it wants me dead, god damn this voice inside my head.

Holo

thing is if you have more money to burn than time to migrate MS will always be in business. You pay for the right to point a finger, for professional tech support, and you can't afford to be a rogue and move over to something taht in the longer term may not be usable. This is exactly why MS doesn't make their formats public...obfuscation is over 50% of their business. If they make compatibility too easy they'll lose ground they desperately need to keep. I myself have no need for an office suite, but If I did I would get OO becuase it's free. A business can't risk it in case it doesn't work the exact same or they have format problems with other businesses. Easier to bite the bullet and pay up. When OO can match this single point it will take over.

__________________
I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

Speed_Gibson

Reason(s) I prefer OpenOffice.org over MSoffice:
0) more logical interface, things are located where they fit. 'Format' strikes me as a much more appropriate place for Fonts/page layout/etc than 'File'
1) more effecient file formats
-other reasons that do not directly affect me if at all-
2) runs better on slower systems from what I have read.
my slowest is PIII 650 that just plays server so no real experience on recent builds on anything less then 1.4 Ghz systems.
3) easy to translate into your language of choice. This is especially important in African countries/other remote countries with local dialects that Microsoft has very little financial incentive to provide with SW in their native tongue.
4) The price - in many poorer parts of the world MS Office costs a huge percentage of the area's mean annual income.

Why I still have MS Word installed:
TABLES - OO has the deplorably weak method of Word 6.0 and earlier where creating or editing tables is involved. If/When the simple flexible table creation of Word 97 is added, then I can completely remove MS word.

__________________
Started talking to yourself I see.
Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation.

Black Adder

SecretMethod70

Aside for the fact this ignores that Office ISN'T $14 for the majority of people out there, it seems to me by your passive tense that it's been awhile since you've tried OpenOffice. A LOT changes in open source projects in short periods of time.

While this is a valid point to certain degrees, I strongly disagre with the concept of something not being usable in the long term. That's directly due to the nature of open source. Microsoft, due to their great control, can simply say "we're not gonna support Office 7 anymore and were gonna make it so that it doesn't work well with our new OS." You simply CAN'T do that with OSS. Only way I would see OpenOffice becoming "unusable" is if something better came along. This is assumign of course, that people use it and there is demand and interest. The biggest problem with OpenOffice has very little to do with OpenOffice itself but with people's reluctance to use it. For example, if people used open document formats (especially something other than the horrendous .doc format) then there would be no issues of compatablility in documents. Nice and simple.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Prince

The last time I tried OO was a couple of years ago. I wasn't impressed....but like SM said, a lot can happen in two years, so I figure I'll take a look.

In the article quoted in the original post in this thread, the author said that with OO there is no tedious updating by applying patches, simply download and install a new version... I've to disagree, to me this is more tedious than using OfficeOnline, since I'm on dial-up; downloading an OO installation file that's over 60 MB in size each time I want to update the suite is what I'd call tedious.

Also, I'm a big fan of OfficeOnline. Recently downloaded a free add-on for Outlook that allows me to easily record a video message and include it in an email with but a few clicks. I also like using OfficeOnline to download templates and themes for Outlook and Word, and using Internet Explorer these themes and templates are automatically installed and made available...

Where is OO's integrated email client?

__________________
Who is John Galt?

SecretMethod70

Even if I didn't dislike Microsoft's business practices and even if I didn't like open source software, I wouldn't touch Outlook with a 10 foot pole. WAY too insecure.

Not to mention, OpenOffice is different than a lot of open source projects because it is not modular. Nonetheless, E-Mail is not really an office app, and thus is not included. There's a huge likelihood that someone using OpenOffice may want to use a different e-mail client. There's far less likelihood that they'll want to use OpenOffice's word procesor and not the spreadsheet program.

As for downloading, I'll give you that. But no one's trying to convert you specifically. Most businesses have high speed connections. If something's not right for you, don't use it. So, with a dial-up connection, perhaps OO.o isn't right for you. I would ask though, what's worse, waiting an hour for a free, fully functional office suite for personal use, or paying hundreds of dollars for it simply for the convenience of saving an hour?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Fallon

Tonight, depending on if I need to dl somethin else, I suppose I'll dl it and install it tomorrow.
I remember tryin it awhile back, but I stopped because I was using my linux comp, and I didn't have a printer attached and it was just harder to do things. Still don't have a printer attached, but I'll probably hook up to my fiancee's thru mine sometime in the near future.
Thanks for the info though, SM.

laconic1

I like OpenOffice for the most part. Some things are easier to do than in Office, some things are harder to do than in Office. For some reason I have never been able to get an envelope to print properly in OpenOffice.

Also, if you need tech support and want someone to complain to then just spend the 80 dollars on StarOffice, which is Sun Microsystems version of it. It is cheaper than Microsoft Works and you still get more functionality.

As far as the email suite, in addition to Mozilla (which is my favorite) there are other free or lower cost alternatives to Outlook that work just as well, without as many security problems.

ChistledStone

Haha what an absolute crock of bullsh*t. It gets easier with each version, and you can even stay with the earlier versions as they work decent enough. When I went to OO I really disliked it, and I (if in a office with commerical demands) would have needed training.

__________________
A.minor.fall.then.a.major.lift

feelgood

Before I bother reading anything about OpenOffice, I just have one question for those who use it, are the files usable by Microsoft Office users?

Sorry, I'm a avid MSOffice user and most businesses uses it and I work in a place where file transfer frequently occurs via messenger or emails and the fact that if I were an OpenOffice user and the other person is not, that would not bold well, especially with customers.

Call me when Microsoft and OpenOffice decide to cooperate when it comes to ability to collaborate.

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

connyosis

Why not bitch at Microsoft for refusing to cooperate, since this is the case?
It's not developers of OpenOffice holding this back...

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

feelgood

I don't give a shit whose fault it is, all I give a shit about is having a program that works for me and right now, Microsoft Office works for me.

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

vox_rox

The real fact of the matter is that one office suite is not better or worse than another - just different.

I am very biased towards open source everything for a number of reasons that I'm not going to get into here. However, I know people who have used MS Office for a decade or more, and they know these products inside-out, know how to use and power-use them, and are completely productive when using them. I would not tell these people that they are doing the wrong thing, they are simply doing what works for them.

Having said that, I think that most casual users of MS Office products would be pleasantly suprised to find that OpenOffice is a complete and powerful office suite that does not add tremendous amounts of unwanted/unused features and program additions, is always free, and uses open standards so that you will ALWAYS be able to access your documents.

So, even though I use GNU/Linux and open source software 80 per cent of the time, and even though I believe in the superiority of FOSS (Free & Open Source Software), I still believe weveryone should use what they are most comfortable with. Still, it sure wouldn't hurt for everyone to think outside the box once in a while a check out what else is available.

The path less travelled can be easily walked, even by the timid, and the rewards may very well be worth it.

Peace,

Pierre

__________________
---
There is no such thing as strong coffee - only weak people.
---

MontanaXVI

I have been an MS Office user for a long time, I do not see the need to change over to OO right now, but is an option for the future if I feel the need to streamline things a bit and get rid of some of the bloat.

I do very much like the idea of the software and would try it in a minute if I did not already have an up to date version of MS Office installed.

One question I do have is for the poster above who stated that MS is only $14 for students, mind letting some of us other students in on this deal? While my gf does not go to a big school, I still had to drop $150 to get her copy of MS Office for students and teachers (wish I knew of OO then )

__________________
Spank you very much

muckluck

I've been an Windows office user since I ever used any office software. I'm just really familair with everything in Office and don't see the need in changing. As you all said you can't tell the difference between the two when it comes to their native file types besides the size. So there really is no purpose in changing to Open Office. The only time I use Open Office is when I need to type up a quick text document and I'm in a Linux OS and don't feel like getting on Windows just to use Office. If all you do is type text documents then you really wouldn't notice too much of a difference between the two and should go for the one that is most easily obtainable. Alot of schools have agreements with Microsoft to give them their software at a really discounted price or for free, so it is easy for students to get, and I'm sure alot of buisness supply their employees with the software. Some people also don't have a fast internet connection so they can't download the 80 MB files easily.

Compatability is another issue. Since Microsoft dosen't support OpenOffice's native format you would have to save files under MS Office's format if you have to print them where they don't have OpenOffice, or give documents to a company/person that dosen't have OpenOffice.

Perasonally, I wouldn't spend the money to buy MSoffice and use OpenOffice. If I were to get MSoffice for free, I would use it over Openoffice.

__________________

billys

Since when? It's the app I use MOST in the office.

Tirian

Just wanted to add, when my office computer needed to be rebuilt from the ground up (I run a lot of "tests" on it), I decided to run an experiment. I do have a license for MS Office etc, and had to use the e-mail client since we have big corporate exchange server etc, but did not install word, access, excel, or powerpoint.

I have been using OO as my office suite for 3 or 4 months now, and exchange documents with co-workers all the time etc. So far no-one has noticed that I am doing anything different.

I am not a heavy office user, so my experience may not apply to all, but it has been fun and working for me.

PS one really nice feature (IMHO) about MS office is the clipart system. This is a system that OO has yet to achieve as well. There is however work being done in the open source community in the area of clipart. OO is working on implementing import for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) files, and the resources for this open standard are improving and increasing.

Check out this link for clipart resources.

<a href="http://www.openclipart.org" title="Open Clip Art Library">Clip Art</a>

Notice there is a place to request specific images, so the library is continually growing, and providing needed images. All placed in the public domain.

WillyPete

I think a lot of folks miss the important issues.

Money.

Having worked in a Legal firm, I can tell you that their income is determined mainly by the amount of paperwork done.
These documents are prepared by well trained secretaries and paralegals who have grown up with a certain set of tools. To retrain them is expensive and time consuming.
When you are paying £600 and hour to your lawyer, you don't want them getting used to new software on YOUR time.

Most documents versioning and archiving systems are aimed at MS products, for typical reasons. I don't know enough about OO to claim that there isn't one for it.

Formatting is a big issue, predictably when passing docs back and forth between law firms who have their own strandards and software versions.
After a number of to-and-fros, enough formatting problems arise that the document will corrupt and it's spawned an entire industry of document formatting software that will strip formats and re-jig a ddcument to a companies standards.
Add in that OO is just another such formatting deviation, then it's not surprising all these firms dance to the same tune without being told.

Now, the companies that make money from producing documents, they spawn a reliance on the same software for any other company that wants their money.
The smaller co.s that can't get stockholder money, that's their market and whatever the big boys play with, that's what they want to use too. Remember when someone would call up and ask you to send your Lotus Notes doc in a word or text compatible version and you lost all that hard work with the pretty borders? No wonder everyone jumped ship. It's peer pressure.

And as for keeping their formating under wraps, that's what got them their in the first place. Everyone did the same: Notes, Word Perfect. It's just that now, MS is the only one left that everyone thinks it's a conspiracy.
So a group of well-intentioned people decide to set up standards to avoid this in the future with ideas like xml standards for documents and the evangelists suddenly grab this flag and wave it as evidence that MS is guilty of non-compliance.

That's like you americans telling us brits that we drive on the wrong side of the road.
Our rule comes in from the ancient practise of keeping passing horsemen and pedestrians to your right so that you could draw your sword if they decided to attack. (Most people being right-handed)
Would we be considered non-compliant for keeping with an outdated idea?