I've been using OO for almost a year. I'm not a power user. So far, I'm very satisfied. I like the feature where I can save a file as PDF.... I don't think MS has this feature right now.
"Howard Coles Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tuesday 07 March 2006 12:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think both sides of the argument are a bit disingenuous. If you listen > to the open-source side and take their arguments at face value, it never > makes sense to buy software. If you listen to Microsoft, using open > source products is no better than trying to solder 1s and 0s directly > onto your hard drive. > > One point that MS is constantly hammering home and the OSS community is > looking away from, whistling as if it didn't exist, is "total cost of > ownership" (TCO.) This is a big consideration for the business customer. > One hundred licenses for MS Office may cost US$50,000, but if it takes 8 > hours to retrain each employee and those employees make an average of > US$25/hr, it costs US$20,000 in lost productivity to switch to OOo plus > the cost of the trainer. If it takes three technicians a full day to > install and configure OOo on those machines, that costs real money. If > each of the users loses 2 hours of productivity trying to figure out > things they already knew how to do in Microsoft Office, that's another > US$5,000 down the tubes. These things add up quickly. > > I don't see OOo making huge inroads into the business market until it > has saturated the markets where its TCO is much lower than > Microsoft's--the home market and specifically the student market. > > While there's no such thing as "free time" in the business world, it's > often an abundant commodity in the student market. Even if you count > each hour spent on learning OOo as an opportunity cost, it makes a lot > more sense for someone who's netting US$10 an hour to spend sixteen > hours learning a free-as-in-beer product than it does to spend US$500 on > the alternative and work 50 hours to pay for it. > > Only when there's an installed user base for OOo coming out of the > universities and high schools will it become a more attractive option to > the business software market. Retraining costs are a huge consideration > when buying new software. > > Quite without meaning to, I've moved almost exclusively to OSS and > shareware tools at home and for my hobbies. Firefox, Thunderbird, OOo, > GIMP, UltraEdit, GAIM, MediaWiki, PHP, Firebird, and CuteFTP take up 95% > of my "me time" on the computer. At work, I make decisions about > software purchases all the time. Here, we use MS Office, MS SQL Server, > Visual Studio, and a host of Microsoft server products because the free > alternatives are just too expensive. Forgive me if this offends, I'm hoping the the message above was written by one of the better quality of manager / execs that make these decisions, but facts are facts. Fact 1: you WILL spend the same amount in "lost productivity" because of "training" if you are upgrading to a new version of MS Office, especially if they have changed enough around to confuse folks. While the amount may be some bit smaller, you still have an amount, and it needs to be factored in. I think what you'll find is that training someone to use OOo doesn't cost all that much more than training them to use MSO 12. Fact 2: This message demonstrates (by way of example, not that the post is suffering from this) the complete lack of long term thinking that screws up major businesses today. Sure it may cost more today to upgrade, or migrate to OOo or StarOffice, I'll give you that. However, what about the next upgrade of MSO? And, the next? What about changed license agreements, etc? How much are those going to cost you in the long run that a little extra investment today would completely remove? How much is it going to cost you to have those same techs go around and upgrade MSO? If they're going to be touching desktops anyway why is it that I often see the burden of cost only listed under the switch to OOo side? (two things here: 1. I'm not saying that was the above poster's intention, just that I have seen others just outright ignore it. 2. if you are using an automatic application delivery setup Techs shouldn't have to touch desktops and it makes no difference) Execs are so focused on what it costs right now they ignore tomorrow! Or more accurately, they want what they want and to hades with the cost. Another question I have along these lines, what "justifications" were used to switch to MSO in the first place? You had to switch from something if you are a part of a company that's been around for very long. What did it cost to switch from Lotus 1-2-3, or WordPerfect? Just curious. I know that MSO was one of the better of the possible "Suites" when that style of application bundling first came out. Fact 3: This message also demonstrates (again, by way of example) the lack of "Big Picture" thinking that execs are always trying to make us peons think they're doing. Why? Because it completely lacks the foresight to realize that once you keep on this upgrade path with MSO you lose access to old docs unless you spend big $$$$ and Time manually keeping them up to date in doc format. It also ignores the fact that you become completely dependant on one company for a proprietary app to fix problems (IF it wants to) and security holes. NOT that your company would fix them itself, but, if OOo developers didn't want to get it right, there is always another WordProcessor or Suite that will handle OpenDoc format that you could switch to. It also ignores the fact that OOo has been able to do things MSO can do for some time, and if any CxO believes their hype they deserve to be removed from the building. I can believe that MSO may be in some ways more advanced, but not 10 years advanced. Not to mention that 95% of any workforce only uses 10% of a word processor's "feature" list anyway. So, if you are an exec (which I hope the above message was written by one) who really looks at the "Big Picture" then you should be able to see through the hype on either side of this issue, and still come to realize OOo is better for your company. Fact 4: "Lost Productivity" due to switching is nearly a myth, because it assumes those workers would have actually been doing something productive during the times you were training them, or that they were all that affective in working with MSO software to begin with. :-D This is the lighter side of things. Seriously, its not really "lost" productivity anyway. Yes its true, while they are in training they are not productive at all, but its an investment, not a clear loss!!!! If by spending 20,000 dollars training a group of people to use a free Software package I save 100,000+ dollars over the next 4 years, I have more than recuperated my losses. True OOo will have its patches, and upgrades, just like MSO, but think about this, when the next version of OOo comes out how much will it cost to upgrade, will you be forced to upgrade, and will you lose access to older docs and have to spend time converting them? Fact 5: "TCO" is nebulous at best, and can be skewed in any direction the person putting the figures together wants it to go, and in my opinion nearly impossible to nail down to any exact figure. There are so many ways to figure this that I could certainly find a way that would favor MS and a way that would favor OOo. Here's the truth: All software costs money, even free software. The difference? What will you spend on a switch to OOo that you would NOT spend upgrading to the next version of MSO? Well, I would need to (re) train users either way, I would need to install new software either way, I would have compatibility issues either way, but I would only have continued license costs the MSO way, and I will have to spend money converting some MSO spreadsheets and macros to OOo. Not only that, if I want corporate support, what is the difference between what I would pay MS per seat as opposed to what I would pay Sun (for example) per seat for StarOffice? This would all depend on your license agreement with MS. Many like to say MSO costs 450 to 500 dollars a seat, I know this is NOT so. Granted its not as cheap as say a 75 dollar per seat license for Sun, considering that you could probably get away with only buying licenses for covering execs and advanced users and using OOo for everyone else. This is how I figure TCO for those who just insist that it be figured up. What will cost to continue or upgrade with app a, and what will it cost to switch to app b. I believe that if any honest exec, or CxO sits down and uses true figures they'll realize that of all the possibilities out there, MS is the most expensive long term solution on the market. Fact 6: "We need to be able to exchange documents with other companies" is a flimsy excuse, and never a reason. Its the last ditch effort of a lost cause that makes everyone go "uh, we can't make our suppliers switch." Listen, OOo does a very decent job opening and saving docs in MS format. NO, not perfect, but very good. Not only that, if I'm paying company A good money to do business with me, asking them to download a free Suite to interact with me isn't asking much. I have worked for the last 4 years at my MSO only shop using OOo exclusively. The result? no one notices. So, I can by 4 years experience say that company A will do just fine if we save docs we send to them in MS format, or ask them to use OOo. This is, just my way of seeing it. I could be wrong somewhere, but I think I've got a decent handle on things. I know that OOo is not perfect, and has its gotchas, and can itself be a headache. But a headache that isn't costing me 200 to 450 dollars a seat is much easier to live with. Not only that, but I don't have to worry about my employees taking an unlicensed copy home to share with their friends and family. Ok, I'll crawl back into my whole now, and let the festive flame throwing have at me. -- See Ya' Howard Coles Jr. John 3:16! Christian Books On-Line http://risenbooks.com http://home.comcast.net/~dhcolesj --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
