OpenOffice 2.0 will likely put a hurt on Microsoft 13315
OpenOffice 2.0 will likely put a hurt on Microsoft 13320
Buford I don't see it as such. His answer to my question didn't make any sense...
Did you just lightning yourself? Should I call 911? (I've got 911 on
OpenOffice 2.0 will likely put a hurt on Microsoft 13319
Buford, Look at it this way. I think that OO is a pretty darn good app. And you certainly can't beat the price. I run it on one of my machines (dual-boot for both...
OpenOffice 2.0 will likely put a hurt on Microsoft 13316
Then the company can pick up StarOffice, which is still 1-10th the price of MS Office, and keep on going. Cool. So why is...
I think an equivalent argument can be made that the destination-future of OO is unknown. MSO has existed and been supported for over a decade. OO may live on or it might eventually wither away if the developers lose interest.
The price issue again.
The only reason MSO doesn't support OpenDoc is political. There is absolutely no technical reason this can't be added if they need to. It's actually available now with 3rd party plug-ins for MSO.
Can you name a single business that uses non-MS format documents with their customers and clients? (.doc and .xls are the de-facto standards) Is there any company that emails bids and proposals in a format the recipient may not be able to read?
Lame. Give me something real instead of the tired old argument of time wasted due to rebooting windows 4X a day. If this were still Windows 3.x or Win9x then you would have a valid point but not anymore.
OpenOffice 2.0 will likely put a hurt on Microsoft 13317
Which requires yet another change. Is it your position that Sun Microsystems (ala - Star Office) is less "destination...
Once the doc is saved in an XML format (with Word 2003) people can use the same tools on Win32 with Cygwin. See, same thing only different.
MS-Word-Office has had this capability for several years via WLL (Word Link Libraries). An example is the 3rd party plugin that gives MS-Word support for the OpenDocument file format.
I actually agree with you on price more than you think. I can make a good argument that viewed analytically, the upgrade every 3 years is only a small fraction of the overall cost. But in reality the upgrades tend to happen all at once. It's not like companies upgrade each employee on the employees 3-year anniversary date. They upgrade the entire company all at once. So now it's time to upgrade 5,000 seats at $200 a pop and suddenly they need to cut a check for a cool million. Mathematically it's only 0.008% or so of what they've already spent over the past 3 years but a million dollars pays for a lot of coffee!
To me most of the 7 reasons you posted are no-ops for most companies. I don't think companies worry very much about MSFT or MSO vanishing (desination unknown) and there isn't a big problem out there exchanging docs with non-MS customers.
There are a number of companies that have built work-flow, macros and custom applications for MS-Office. (You're more likely to see this with large companies.) These need to be re-written if OO is going to be used.
The larger problem IMO is that users are already familiar with MSO. Transitioning hundreds or thousands of users isn't easy. No matter how good, or how close OO is, changing isn't going to be without problems.
Linux Advocacy Newsgroups