MS Office for Linux

woot!

but linux has openoffice?

oh well, it is a good step forward

How to hurt a guy: "It suits us fine the Microsoft and Sun fight about office application suites. We stay away from that. The reason we don't collaborate with Sun is that they're too small," said Pettersson.

Would be nice. OpenOffice is about as functional as MS Works.

Interesting link at the bottom of the article on how running MS OS's is actually cheaper than Linux in the long run.

It's ironic that people choose Open Source software as a way to escape Microsoft, yet here we have companies doing what they can to get Microsoft onto the Open Source field.

nonsense. there are plenty of reasons to use Open Source software, it´s not about "escaping Microsoft". just because the OS is Open Source does not mean the applications have to be. there are plenty of commercial Linux applications, especially from IBM.
i have the feeling this will be nothing more than a new WINE version though.

The reason most people want MS Office on Linux is because of the portability of the proprietary document formats. Despite the adoption of XML, I don't expect it to get any better.

Office first, Photoshop next? Disney has theirs, anyway. I look forward to the day these apps will be made native and no emulator will be required.

mrbiotech wrote:
>OpenOffice is about as functional as MS Works

Excuse me? Have you used it recently? I beg to differ. I am an OpenOffice user on Windows, and I've found it just as functional as MS Office. The problem is that since OO isn't an MSO clone, there is a learning curve...and it's a bit steep. But in these days of petty IP lawsuits left and right, I can see why they chose not to emulate MSO. Still, I'd say that OO's only real weakness is that there is that steep learning curve. IMHO, in some respects OO is more powerful than the apps in MSO. And as is the case with more powerful apps, they tend to be more complex and do things differently. For example, if you're an MS Publisher user, try to do something in Quark or even PagePlus9. Good luck, without spending significant time figuring out how things work. The same applies to OO. If you're willing to invest the time (and I did), it is a very suitable--and in some cases more powerful--replacement for MSO.

Come on, can you render 3D natively in MSO? Or how about frames-based publishing in Word?

Oh, and before you blast me for being a newbie kid or a Linux freak, know that until last year, I'd been a dedicated MSO user for about 6 years, and a MSWorks user for 4 years before that. I first used MSWord in DOS, for crying out loud. I've been around...

In conclusion, I say, "Port MSO to Linux? What's the point?" The biggest interoperability problem I currently have between Linux and Windows is how to mount a FAT partition from Linux. File compatibility isn't much of an issue nowadays.

"The problem is that since OO isn't an MSO clone, there is a learning curve...and it's a bit steep."

This is the Problem. Think about retraining a workforce of say 1000 people to use OOo. The cost would be tremendous.

If MSO can be ran on Linux it will make a transition to the OS easier for a company to do.

Random thoughts: If MS has Office vX for Mac OSX how hard would it be to port it to Say KDE or Gnome?

In the future there will be MS Office for the 'nix OSes. I would venture a guess that it will either come with a MS X server and desktop or that MS will wait till Kde and Gnome have matured to a level that is on even ground with OSX and Windows. Then throw in support for one or the other and set office to run on the chosen one. Thus setting a standard desktop for business and casual user linux.

It makes it simple for MS just lie in wait, then swing their mighty Hammer when the time is right.

Linux for the average Joe will eventually be controlled in part by MS.

TasT wrote:

"In the future there will be MS Office for the 'nix OSes."

Well, given that Office really is the cash cow for Microsoft, much more than Windows, I'm not going to be surprised when the day comes that Gates announces his "initiative" to release a 'nix version of Office.

People change versions of Office much more frequently than they change operating system versions, in my experience.

TasT wrote:
>Think about retraining a workforce of say 1000 people to use OOo.

Your point is well-made. Retraining a large--and likely mostly computer-illiterate workforce to use OOo is definitely prohibitive. It would be an IT nightmare. That's one thing I'll give MSO--it's fairly user friendly. OOo isn't always. Guess I got caught up in a little geek conceit. Migrating to Linux wouldn't even be such a big deal nowadays as changing the office software--especially with distributions like LindowsOS really doing a nice job of smoothing over Linux' rough edges.

It would be a business strategy for MS that would make sense. On the other hand, Gates' personal vendetta for Linux and Open Source may be as such that it will take him awhile to get around to it. It's really been something watching his and Michael Robertson's (LindowsOS) grudge match.

elempoimen- EXCUSE ME!!! I have used it recently, and I completely beg to differ with your assessment. Not that I've ever had to integrate 3D into my documents (that was a lame selling point, bro.), but just importing graphics became a headache. The formatting options are archaic (have seen better in DOS-based word processors).

The learning curve for OpenOffice and the difficulties in integrating the components have exceeded my time limits for publications. I find no functional advantages over MS office (and quite frequently run into things I WISH it could do because Office can). For me, there is simply no incentive to use it. I'm glad it does for you.

BTW, I had the VFAT problem too. It sucks when you have to configure your opening scripts just to get it to recognize a partition that's already there. Waste of time and productivity. It's a pity so many of the molecular modeling systems are ported for Linux, first.

mrbiotech--

Then we shall, my friend, agree to disagree.

Ok 3D was lame...I'll give you that. I've not had graphics importing problems...and I have had to do it. As far as formatting goes, I've actually found some nice features there that MSO doesn't (or didn't--haven't used it since XP) have, like text shadowing. I'm not sure where you're looking in the program, but it's obviously not in the right place--there are great formatting options in OOo.

You wrote: "The learning curve for OpenOffice and the difficulties in integrating the components have exceeded my time limits for publications."
The learning curve is steep. That's what turned me off to OOo initially. What turned me on was ethics (you do the math) and an open file format. But I did learn this: don't use it on a deadline when you first start. Learn it when you have the time to experiment--most people (apparently including you) don't have that time. It can do many of the things Office can--sometimes you just have to know what you're looking for. And example: unformatted pasting. I missed this from MSOXP--it was a great and long overdue feature. I was disappointed that OOo couldn't do it...and then I discovered that if I long-clicked on the paste button, it could! And right there my second biggest hang-up with OOo was gone. That's just one example.

My biggest incentives to use it:
- it doesn't wrench itself into my OS like Office does. I'm still cleaning up from my Office installation...months later.
- it's free--I can't afford Office. And I'm not into stealing software anymore...changed my ways.
- a completely open file format. I like standards. OOo XML is great--no proprietary extensions.
- built in PDF export--slick!
- when MS decides to pull the rug on a file format or a program, I'm not effected.
- because it doesn't bury itself in the OS like MSO, I'm not as effected by security concerns.

I could probably think of others.

Bottom line: it's all in what you like. Once I got used to OOo, I liked it better. There are things I would change, but then there are things I'm sure you'd change about MSO, too, given the chance. Using OOo, I have a better chance at it than you do, though.

Blessings...
.:elem

Long-click, I'll have to try that! (Nice feature). I have to admit, linux does have the advantage of efficiency in the copy/paste department. Much faster than hitting Ctrl+c or Ctrl+V (replaced by one click).