On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 07:48 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > On 10/18/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip great deal of information about resources used per office suite> > > Still want to claim that OOo uses less resources? > > > OOo uses a lot more resources - and it's slower. No questions there. It > amazes me how open source promoters talk about MS Bloat, when MS Office is > smaller, lighter, and faster than OOo.
These things are relative. KOffice and Abiword are a lot less bloated. As I have said before, other things I have used have been a lot less bloated still. I don't think anyone claims OOo isn't bloated. With ODF we set a scenario for competition to make the most efficient software to operate on these files. In such competition I'd expect MSO and OOo to have to improve their code efficiency. > What I think is unfair about comparing OOo to MSO 97 is when you talk about > innovation or security features. OOo has had the benefit of 8 years of > technology and creativity that MSO didn't have. But MS had 100s of times the resources of OOo, even back then and a lot of people still use MSO97 so a comparison to pursuade someone to upgrade to OOo20 seems perfectly valid. > I mean, this is the year > 2005, and OOo doesn't have something as common as a Grammar checker - > something WordPerfect had in 1993 - if not eariler. What's not fair is > saying "Windows sucks!" Given the resources available for development, Windows should be nigh on perfect. It isn't anywhere near. So in terms of value for money it does suck. > "What sucks about it?" Its expensive given the economy of scale. That of course is going to be less and less sustainable as hardware prices fall and the range of other devices start to provide more competition. Its taken a long time to get to a product that is remotely secure and stable. Yes the latest versions have improved but there has been a lot of expensive pain to get there. Windows is very tied to PC hardware - well sort of depends on what you mean by Windows I suppose. WinCE (Aptly named :-) ) Does run on ARM but its really a different product entirely from XP. The distinction between XP home and Pro causes unnecessary confusion and is simply there to optimise MS profits. You have complications installing it with license keys etc. We had an engineer on site ready to install XP and the license keys got delayed. The distributor said they couldn't do anything about it and MS basically couldn't be bothered depite the fact it was urgent. All it needed was an E-mail. That meant an engineer was sitting around for a day unable to work. TCO? Add $1000 for time wasted messing about with licensing keys. Then there are numerous user interface things that operating systems that are 15 years old did better. I won't bore you by listing them all as we have been through it before. > I agree, to a certain extent. If you are marketing it to businesses (as this > thread is discussing), then, you're right - don't bring up money. You get > what you pay for is common thinking. Tell you what Chad I'll sell you a mouse for $100. It must be a good mouse because I'm asking $100 for it. After all you get what you pay for ;-) Sounds like a suckers charter to get ripped off. If it was universally true, why bother with competitive tendering? > If you can't think of anything good about OOo to say other than "It's free!" > then you might want to volunteer somewhere other than the marketing > department. That, or focus on marketing to college students whos concensus > is bothering them about stealing software. I think if someone came to me and said I could save my business $2000 by using OOo I would listen. There is no hard and fast rule. You can take the triggers from the person you are talking to and sell to that individual on the value systems they respond to. Some markets are more price sensitive than others but only a fool has disregard for costs in business. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
