backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by masterofpuppet.. on May 31 at 5:55 PM

Microsoft still has no love for OpenOffice

Never one to often pat a competitor on the back, Microsoft has found an axe to grind with the OpenDocument format (ODF). Citing a performance analysis carried out by ZDNET in October of last year, Microsoft's Alan Yates pointed to longer load times and increased CPU/memory usage compared to Microsoft's Open XML format, "The use of OpenDocument documents is slower to the point of not really being satisfactory."

A representative from the ODF Alliance was quick to point out the inconsistencies in the performance evaluations that Yates pointed to. The ZDNET blogger who did the initial tests only compared ODF to XML and not Open XML and he also pointed to the fact that no Open XML products are actually on the market yet. From ZDNET:

Marcich said Open XML is harder for companies to implement as it has more than 4,000 pages of documentation, compared with 700 for ODF. "A skeptic might say the documentation is so long so only one application will support it well," he said. "On my initial reading of the (Open XML) documentation, it looks like Microsoft is trying to reinvent the wheel, while ODF freely refers to existing standards like SVG," or Scalable Vector Graphics.

I have found OpenOffice.org to be generally slower with higher memory usage than Office 2003 in my day to day activities, but I have been using it for the past year due to it being a free, open source alternative. Now that I've been using the Office 2007 Beta 2 which is freely available for download, I can say that its general performance has been faster than both in my experience.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to say Microsoft's office software alternative only runs on top of Microsoft's own platform, meaning a significant advantage for OpenOffice.org, that runs on a variety of other platforms. That also explains why Microsoft Office may be faster than OpenOffice.org: since it's designed to run only on Windows and is made by those who know what happens under Windows' hood, it can link directly to Windows kernel, much like Internet Explorer does. That means a bug in Microsoft Word is a bug in Windows Vista.
Besides, there are other alternatives out there like for example AbiWord (for Word), Gnumeric (for Excel), KOffice (for the whole suite), Lotus 1-2-3 (for Excel), Evolution (for Outlook), AppleWorks (for the whole suite) and of course the legendary WordPerfect.
Besides, people should prefer using non-Microsoft software and file formats to avoid feeding their monopoly, which has been for years a barrier to innovation in the IT market.




RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That also explains why Microsoft Office may be faster than OpenOffice.org: since it's designed to run only on Windows and is made by those who know what happens under Windows' hood, it can link directly to Windows kernel, much like Internet Explorer does. That means a bug in Microsoft Word is a bug in Windows Vista.

1. Do you have evidence that Word "links directly to Windows kernel"? I think Office is written to the Win32 API just like everyone else's Windows apps do. I don't see how linking to the kernel would help them. I'm not sure you understand these things.

2. Office is fast for the following reasons: (a) it is Windows only and directly uses Win32 - no adapter layer, no "runtime" like JRE. (b) it is mostly native code written in C++, no bytecode, no JIT, etc. (c) Microsoft has spent years and tons of money on performance

quote:
Besides, people should prefer using non-Microsoft software and file formats to avoid feeding their monopoly, which has been for years a barrier to innovation in the IT market.

This is just your political view, and an assertion you could never back up. I don't see how Microsoft could be a "barrier to innovation," since realistically, anyone can innovate whenever they want, with or without Microsoft. Think about Java for example - how did Microsoft keep that innovation from happening? How about Eclipse? How about Linux? How about Apache? Etc, etc.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/26/2006 2:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
People get negative when it comes to Microsoft. So what, their office suite is really not all that expensive, and there isn't a large company in this country that isn't using it. Ok so you want to go down and pay 50 bux for a product that you basically need to do real professional looking stuff with your computer. Oh you just want Word, Excel and Powerpoint? Buy the stupid stripdown edition for 150 and stop crying. As much as people trash talk Microsoft they do a heck of a better job making sure everything works without rediculous amounts of modifications. Linux? get real, I have to recompile the kernel everytime I want to install new hardware, or change out drivers/protocols. Linux is far behind Windows when it comes to ease of use, and just working, without user intervention. Ok so it crashes occasionally. I have 12,000 Windows 2k and XP machines here at work, and I see maybe MAYBE 12 BSOD in a week, and 9/10 times its a HARDWARE failure. So.... back the the point in question.

Stop bashing microsoft, they do a good job, and have modernized the way thousands of companies do business and operate, don't hate them because they aren't giving it away free, how would you like to spend 5 years working and get paid for nothing, pay the bills much? Didn't think so.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think you haven't read all my post too... I mentioned commercial alternatives as well. And surely Microsoft Office isn't that expensive, but it's licensing scheme is very expensive. Simply because the next version of Microsoft Office will use a different, incompatible file format and they will cease support to the old version. Eventually, you will have to update and pay again for something you had already paid - usually there's nothing very special about the newest version and you simply don't want it.
You also have shown me how much you understand about Linux. Of course recompiling the kernel isn't an easy task, but having to recompile the kernel everytime you install new hardware is just ridiculous. If it were a new unsupported hardware maybe I could almost agree with you, mainly because you can usually install a module that will do the work very well. Oh, and don't confuse ease of use with lack of sophistication. There are many modern Linux distributions so easy to use that you will never even have to type a command in a terminal box - meant for the common everyday user. Don't like Linux? There are other alternatives, both free and commercial. Never heard about PCBSD?
Well, if you call it "doing a good job and modernizing the way companies do business", then I think you should learn a little bit about the history of Microsoft...


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simply because the next version of Microsoft Office will use a different, incompatible file format and they will cease support to the old version. Eventually, you will have to update and pay again for something you had already paid

Wrong. The new version, Office 2007, has full support for the older versions. It can read and write Office 2003 and Office 2000 file formats. Also, Microsoft is going to release free plug-ins for Office 2003 and I think also Office 2000 that will allow those version to read and write OpenXML format.

All you are demonstrating is that you know nothing about this topic.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
And you my friend are demonstrating you can't read, I never said Office 2007 won't have support for the older versions... it's ridiculuous not to have support for the old file format.
But older versions don't have support for the new file format.


By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But older versions don't have support for the new file format.

Did you read my post?


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:58:14 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, now I understand! You thought I was talking support as support for the old file format... poor man, doesn't know anything about business and how the real world really is, all he see is his fancy Windows GUI.


By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
When logic and facts run out, switch to personal insults. :o)


By MacGuffin on 5/27/2006 2:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
<q>it's ridiculuous not to have support for the old file format. But older versions don't have support for the new file format. </q>

<q>You thought I was talking support as support for the old file format... poor man, doesn't know anything about business and how the real world really is</q>

Smart Warthog? Don't you mean 'Special'-Warthog?
"I don't know Officer...its like, my hands were typing stuff my mind had no control over. I swear Officer, I am a really smart warthog...I'M NOT ROADKILL!"


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
I surely understand these things much better than someone who never saw something else but Windows and is used to the way things are today after Microsoft has dominated the market - and probably thinks this is normal. That's because I have enough experience to know the difference between before and now. And I think I know a bit about programming too... :)
Both of us know I don't have evidence (and won't have until I break the law and reverse engineer that stuff, which of course I won't do), but as I said, it can link directly to the Windows kernel, I didn't say it do. Of course it's much probable that it does, since most of the Windows API and library calls are undocumented, giving Microsoft a significant advantage: to know what is happening inside that stuff. You don't see how this would help them 'cause you didn't read my post: they get a big performance advantage by talking directly to the OS.
The fact is that Microsoft doesn't innovate: they purchased a CP/M ripoff and named it MS-DOS, and they cobbled Windows together from various bits and pieces that they bought, stole or borrowed; the graphic user interface for Windows was based on IBM know-how and the user interface of the Apple Macintosh, which was in turn derived from technology developed by Xerox ages ago; NT was based on good but old VAX VMS design principles - in short, all Microsoft OS products only implement features and ideas that have been around for as much as a quarter of a century. And they dominate the market as well. Then I ask you: how can a market dominated by only one company, which does not innovate at all, see any innovation? Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention one of their innovations: they came up with an animated paper-clip, how about that?


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since most of the Windows API and library calls are undocumented

Is this a fact or your opinion? If you are claiming this to be a fact, please provide a credible reference. "Most" undocumented - sheesh, I don't think so!

Also, here are two examples that disprove your assertion, that Microsoft had to access the kernel in order to get good performance.

1. How do all kinds of other companies write applications that are good performers under Windows? Are you going to claim that it is common for apps to access the kernel (I know enough to know it is not) or that other companies commonly access all your hypothetical undocumented APIs (not common either).

2. How is it that Office also runs well on Mac? Did they hack the kernel and use undocumented APIs there also?

quote:
The fact is that Microsoft doesn't innovate


You claim they don't innovate. I'll give just one of many possible examples to prove you wrong. What about the GUI is MS Office. Where did that come from? Did they buy, borrow, or steal that? Or did they come up with that on their own?

Your argument is not based on logic; it is only based on your political/religious zeal against Microsoft.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 5:14:35 PM , Rating: 1
Just to give you a little example: Windows' Structured Exception Handling support APIs have never been documented and had to be reverse engineered for the Wine project and free compilers.
1- In fact they do access these undocumented APIs. How did Borland implement Structured Exception Handling in Delphi? Microsoft knows her buddies...
2- In the early 90s Microsoft muscled Apple into granting them a license for portions of the MacUI (they threatened to withdraw all Mac applications, unless Apple would grant them a license to use MacUI code to port Macintosh apps to the PC). Your code is always faster when it integrates to the code on which it runs.

If you call bells and whistles innovations, then Microsoft was really innovative. The GUI in MS Word was copied from WordPerfect.
Why don't you give me an example of a piece of truly useful technology invented by Microsoft?


By TomZ on 5/26/2006 5:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just to give you a little example: Windows' Structured Exception Handling support APIs have never been documented and had to be reverse engineered for the Wine project and free compilers.

Here are a couple of MSDN articles describing SEH, one from 1997 and another from 2001.

http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0197/exception/except...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/09/hoo...

But your argument is that "most" (your word, not mine) of the APIs are undocumented. I'm not saying that the API is 100% nor 100% documented. Never has been, never will be. This is true of most APIs in commercial software (but I think you know this already). So where is the proof that "most" are undocumented?

quote:
The GUI in MS Word was copied from WordPerfect.

Do you know anything about Office 2007 or WordPerfect? Zero correlation between GUIs, except for the obvious "File Save," etc. Download the Office 2007 beta and have a look-see.



RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By nangryo on 5/26/06, Rating: 0
By Nekrik on 5/26/2006 10:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really get your rant, do you think they're giving their apps access to the run in the same level as the kernel? Or are you thinking they call components of the kernel? Doesn't really make sense either way and there wouldn't be a lot of performance to gain from either. Just a lot of switching back and forth, which is counter-productive.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 10:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft got into legal trouble in the past for having their applications call undocumented APIs. Now, they have internal tools that they are required to run that automatically scans their applications to make sure there are no calls to undocumented APIs. This is the basis for my belief that Word is not making direct calls to the kernel.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By nangryo on 5/27/06, Rating: 0
By TomZ on 5/27/2006 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it's indeniable that's microsoft like to cheating in bussiness to gain what they want.

Microsoft has made mistakes along the way, and obviously there were lawsuits filed. But don't let a few mistakes along the way give you the false impression they have any systematic, on-going, sets of illegal business practices. If there were on-going wrongdoings, the lawsuits would be flying, right?

No fanboy here, sorry. If you read my posts, I am just clearing up misinformation with the real facts. Some people don't seem to have any grasp on the facts, and instead live in some kind of world they made up for themselves that is filled with misinformation that they use to reinforce their biases and hatred. I also think that some people have lost the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/26/2006 2:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Don't speak of Lotus 1-2-3. We had that here, at work, and my god its so much better that we got off that garbage and onto MS Office Excel. Lotus 1-2-3 is blasphemy.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By plinden on 5/26/2006 3:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Forgot to say Microsoft's office software alternative only runs on top of Microsoft's own platform


Oh, I wonder how I'm able to run MS Office on my Mac then.


RE: The world isn't a PC running Windows...
By SmartWarthog on 5/26/2006 4:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
Discontinued... besides, the Mac version is different.


By TomZ on 5/26/2006 4:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, not discontinued:

SAN FRANCISCO — Jan. 10, 2006 — Microsoft Corp.’s Macintosh Business Unit (Mac BU) today announced at Macworld Conference & Expo 2006 a formal five-year agreement that reinforces Microsoft’s plans to develop Microsoft® Office for Mac software for both PowerPC- and Intel-based Macs.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jan0...


Does speed matter that much?
By Sunrise089 on 5/26/2006 12:30:02 PM , Rating: 4
I will say up front I just graduated as a college student, so while I did do a good deal of typing, I certainly do not claim to understand the needs of all business professionals. That said, considering OpenOffice is free and also that most office programs are almost always imput limited, how much productivity could really be being lost due to speed here? My CPU is pretty quick for a single core (Opteron 144 @ 2.55hz), but still I can't imagine a slower Pc taking all that long to open their first document. After that successive docs open much quicker. I would have thought MS would have argued in favor of stability or tech support, because to me minor speed differences in office suites don't make up for the infinite price difference at all.




RE: Does speed matter that much?
By jskirwin on 5/26/2006 12:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the world. Now your real education begins.

This is a technical argument that won't go all that far because PCs are getting faster all the time, and the times we are talking about are a couple of seconds difference.
Overall, I think MS's criticism is rather on the whole lame.

What will determine usage is cross-compatibility and (like bootstraps and catch-22s) other people using it.



RE: Does speed matter that much?
By Bonrock on 5/26/2006 1:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
This is a technical argument that won't go all that far because PCs are getting faster all the time, and the times we are talking about are a couple of seconds difference.

Absolutely incorrect. Remember these benchmarks from a while back?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=120

In these tests, OpenOffice.org 2.0 had drastically higher memory usage than Microsoft Office, and the performance delta was not a matter of mere seconds. For example, I give you this quote from the article (emphasis is mine): "The fact that OpenOffice.org Calc takes about 100 times the CPU time explains the kind of drastic results we were getting where Excel could open a file in 2 seconds while Calc would take almost 3 minutes ."

That's not a couple of seconds difference. That's an "I'm going to go get some coffee while this file loads because OpenOffice.org is so frickin slow" difference.


RE: Does speed matter that much?
By Devil Bunny on 5/26/2006 2:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
I just barely tried that, and Calc took around 5-8 sec to open up for me instead of the sugestive "upto 3 Min" to open.


RE: Does speed matter that much?
By vanka on 5/26/2006 7:08:07 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, but did you have the OOo launch icon in the system tray? If you did than most of the programis already loaded, all it needs to do is popup the GUI. When you have their icon in the system tray, it does speed up application launch times; but at the cost of overall system performance. That little launch program isn't as little as it seems; it eats up quite a bit of RAM.

I'm not a MS lover or hater (I have used both MS Office, starting from back in the Win 3.1 days, and OpenOffice), but on the whole I prefer MS Office to OpenOffice. When OOo 2.0 came out, I said that OOo had finally caught up to MS in terms of ease of use and GUI (OOo 1.0 was horridly laid out and ugly); but know that MS Office 2007 has a completely new GUI (which I love), it looks like the OOo team has their work cut out for them.

I manage several public compter labs and when we can get the funding we always get MS Office. Why? Because people complain about the unfamiliar GUI and they don't know how to do any thing beyond the simplest tasks.


RE: Does speed matter that much?
By Locutus465 on 5/26/2006 8:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'd imagin the issue is more prevelant when one is trying to run multiple applications at once. For my previous job I was stuck using several slow bulky Java applications to get my work done. My work PC was a 3+GHz P4 with HT and 1GB memory. Yet I can't tell you how often durring the day my computer decided it was time for me to take a 10 minute break because it needed to garbage collect, the processor got tied up trying to calculate function auto completes or some such thing. Yeah, computers are fast, and getting faster. But it's still too eash to overburden a system (particularly single core) with many inefficient applications running at the same time.


You get what you pay for...
By TheShniz on 5/26/2006 12:25:03 PM , Rating: 3
It's all user preference, interoptability (sp?), & wallet size :)

$$$ + MS Office = Fast
Free + Open Office = Not fast

Can't complain w/ either :)




RE: You get what you pay for...
By Xenoid on 5/26/2006 1:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
Some new-age math for you all:

Bittorrent + * = Fast, Easy, and Free


RE: You get what you pay for...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 1:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
... as long as * doesn't get you sued or thrown in jail. LOL


By masterofpuppetz on 5/31/2006 5:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
frankly, people here should read and experiment a little more before just posting whatever comes to your head first...

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl... - M$'s big lie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_Software - List of ODF supporting software

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDoc... - some information for you guys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_Standard... - ODF involved companies


Format != Application
By psychobriggsy on 5/26/2006 1:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
The speed of the parser of a format does not makes the format slow, it makes that individual parser slow.

Sure, XML will be slower than XML+Binary, or completely binary. Then again we're not using 200MHz Pentium MMXs with 32MB RAM any longer, so we can afford to have such a strongly defined open format for documents.

Saving can be done in the background inside another thread (and Office already has background saving whilst editing functionality, so there's no end user issue here, oh no, the background save task took 10 seconds instead of 5). Otherwise the vast majority of the time spent with a document is not opening or saving, but editing or merely having it open.

It's a stupid argument, a petty argument, and so obviously a Microsoft push for their own OpenXML (lol, Open) rather than OpenDocument it is laughable.

Hopefully cleaner nicer OpenDocument native or supporting applications will come along in due time rather than OpenOffice, which in my opinion isn't the nicest application to use. Can't diss free stuff though.




RE: Format != Application
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 1:23:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's a stupid argument, a petty argument, and so obviously a Microsoft push for their own OpenXML (lol, Open) rather than OpenDocument it is laughable.

1. Microsoft format is just as "open" as any other, since they have published complete, detailed specifications, and have created an open license for the format. Microsoft's format is obviously also based on XML and ZIP which also make the contents very accessable.

2. Microsoft's format has more capability than OpenDocument, because it needs to support everything the existing Microsoft binary formats do. This is a strong requirement, since customers would never accept a "subset" file format. Really, the responsibility for this falls on OpenOffice since they haven't implemented everything that the Office binary formats can do. If they did, some of Microsoft's reasons for defining their own would go away.


RE: Format != Application
By smitty3268 on 5/26/2006 2:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
1. Microsoft format is just as "open" as any other, since they have published complete, detailed specifications, and have created an open license for the format. Microsoft's format is obviously also based on XML and ZIP which also make the contents very accessable.

Partially true, but it isn't an open license - they can start charging you $1 million for it at any time they like.

2. Microsoft's format has more capability than OpenDocument, because it needs to support everything the existing Microsoft binary formats do. This is a strong requirement, since customers would never accept a "subset" file format. Really, the responsibility for this falls on OpenOffice since they haven't implemented everything that the Office binary formats can do. If they did, some of Microsoft's reasons for defining their own would go away.
Some of the excuses would go away, but not the real reasons. MS is never going to use someone elses standards, even if they were perfect. For instance, OpenXML basically redefines SVG within it, while OpenDocument simply uses the open standard.


RE: Format != Application
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 2:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Partially true, but it isn't an open license - they can start charging you $1 million for it at any time they like.

Not true; Microsoft has stated clearly that the formats can be used without constraint forever. There is not even a license that you need to agree to:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/itpro/ecma...

quote:
MS is never going to use someone elses standards

Yes, you are right - they are against that because it ties their hands in terms of being able to take their products in directions that they think make sense, to move forward quickly, and to innovate. This is a lesson they have learned again and again in the past - if they let someone else control their destiny, they will get burned in the end.

For example, think about the Java debacle. From one perspective, you can say that Microsoft tried to embrace and destroy it by trying to make their "own flavor." But from Microsoft's perspective, they saw things that were lacking in that platform and wanted to add them. Obviously their decision to do that was a little misguided, but it illustrates how Sun was able to control that platform to their advantage, at the expense of Microsoft being able to innovate. That was an expensive lesson I don't think they will be repeating any time soon.


Of course they do
By vingamm on 5/26/2006 12:28:10 PM , Rating: 4
It is Un-American to get something for nothing. You should be banned to the island of lepers for even considering using a free product on a PC. And, it is kind of selfish of you to even consider it. How will Bill Gates pay for that new Mars Lander he was looking at if we stop buying his stuff? OpenOffice may not be as fast as Office 2003, but it is free. and their are some people that if they had to pay for M$ Office (myself included), just would not have it. Office to me is a product that costs way too much for what it actually does.




RE: Of course they do
By Zoomer on 5/28/2006 11:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
What, the interest payments from his billions isn't enough?

Just how expensive is that mars lander? Maybe you could take out that swimming pool, water bed, built in theatre, etc.


Erm?
By phisrow on 5/27/2006 5:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Now, I'm not here to deny that OpenOffice is a pig. That thing is practically an OS in itself, what with all the custom toolkits and whatnot bolted to it(Koffice user here), that is entirely unconnected to the issue of ODF. Application that uses ODF is slow = ODF is slow? WTF? That just doesn't make any sense.




RE: Erm?
By Suomynona on 5/27/2006 9:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree. I don't see the connection.

If they were to make that conclusion atleast they could have tested OpenOffice vs Office with formats both apps support or have tested ODT performance in more apps fx. AbiWord (I don't know if they use the same implementation).

They could prove to me that ODT had design flaws if they pointed out bottlenecks from the ODT specs. A slow implementation if that is the case is not the same as an illdesigned format.


RE: Erm?
By Suomynona on 5/27/2006 9:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
s/ODT/ODF


This is Obvious
By TomZ on 5/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: This is Obvious
By Bonrock on 5/26/2006 1:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
All that said, however, there is no reason that Office couldn't have supported OpenOffice's XML formats in a "limited functionality" mode meaning that certain functionality available in Office would not be preserved in the file format.

This is the number one thing people outside the software industry don't understand about what it takes to make software. It's all about tradeoffs. Every feature you add to the product has an associated cost, not just in terms of money but also in terms of potential bugs. Adding support for OpenOffice XML formats could have added several months--or more--to Microsoft's development process for Office 2007. The design, development, and testing involved would be significant, and what if supporting the new file format resulted in bugs with the native Office formats?

Ultimately, Microsoft had to ask itself: Would our customers want us to spend 3 or 4 months adding OpenOffice XML support to our products, or would they rather have us spend that time developing new productivity features and refining the product? Obviously, they thought the answer was the latter. I think they were probably right.


Who was the comment from MS for?
By murray13 on 5/26/2006 8:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
The comment from MS about speed wasn't pointed at us individuals. It was pointed at all the corporations that run MS Office and are thinking of switching to save money. MS is pointing out that if you switch you will save money on the software but loose money with lost productivity.

Do you really think MS even cares about the individuals using Office? Not really, as long as corp. sales stay or go up. That's where they make most of their money.




Yeah, RIGHT!
By mindless1 on 5/28/2006 9:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm so sure we expected OO to be called the best thing since sliced bread here. I entirely expected him to say "We might as well just throw Office 2007 away". Not.




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki