On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:39:29PM +0200, Yosef Leibovich wrote: > Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > >On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:20:54AM +0200, Shoshannah Forbes wrote: > > > > > >>This time in Maariv: > >>http://images.maariv.co.il/channels/13/ART/597/151.html > >> > >> > > > >Great review. I learned a lot from it. Now where can I get MS-Office 2003 > >for 600NIS? > > > >A number of counter-pointes: > > > >* Some of OpenOffice's stronger points were not represented [fill in > > please] > > > > > The reason those points weren't filled in is quite simple, there aren't > such points. MSO surpasses OOo in any conceivable way, actually this > review was quite pro-OOo, if he was looking at the real bugs (look at > issuezilla especially those concerning Heb+Eng text) he was shouting > "STAY AWAY!!". Even the PDF generator "advantage" was a hoax, a very > simple and inexpensive (and much more efficient as it's concerning ALL > other programs) Print-to-PDF driver could be added into MSO suite and > thus squashing any HAVA AMINA one once had of peeking into the OOo > homepage to determine what were they thinking. > > >* OOo is free. Really. No strings attached. > > > I think one of the stronger points concerning free is "Think about OOo > 2.0 and 3.0, you'll eventually be forced to upgrade your system to them, > they'll ALWAYS remain free, just as their Documents you'll always be > able to use your older. However buying MSO 2003 will force you to buy > the 600NIS (and more) MSO2005 and that will force you using MSO 2008 -
Something like 2000. Visio not included. Is it worth the extra quality? > each upgrade will might force a hardware upgrade and will eventually > cost more than the inconvinience of using a malfunctioning bug-ridden > office suit. Except of all that we should mention MS has about 10 years > of experience to build MSO2003, we've had only three and we're getting > better each version. Eventually OOo will come close to MSO > productability, and then all OOo users will be having a good free office > suit, where MSO users will have just the same super-expensive software > depending office suite, so suffer now in order to gloat in the future. What you say comes down to "stndard format", not to "free software". Interestingly, Microsoft has been making some strange noises in that direction lately. I'm not sure if those are anything serious or just because this is a nice buzzword. > > >This is not an easy point to > > get through, so let's use one little point from the article: > > "MS-Office 2003 is only supported for w2k SP3 and on XP.". An obvious > > question comes to mind: if you have a different system what would you > > install to read MS Office 2003 documents? Right, OOo. > > > > (Not a direct consequence, but a nice demonstration) > > > >* MS's PR contact was contacted and has a nice comment attached. The > > Nobody from OpenOffice/Sun/Hamakor seems to have been contacted > > (right?) > > > > > Even if they did - what would we say? faint apologizes about software > quality won't make us look any better. > Because they would have mentioned at least some of the points raised in this thread. -- Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+ http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------+
