MS Office or OpenOffice?

Clues in the question.

Which is best?

I've been trying to use MS Word today and I'm completely sick of it trying to second-guess what I'm doing and buggering up my formatting etc.

If I type something in a certain place, then I damn well want it to stay there!

Considered giving OpenOffice a go, but somebody's told me its word processor isn't even as good as MS Word.

Any suggestions/alternatives?

(don't mention linux apps - not an option).

Well it's free so just try it for yourself.

Also all the autocompletion can be turned off in word if you don't want it.

check this:

http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=67285#751401

Haven't tried MS Office 2007 - been using OpenOffice for the last 5'ish years (but you probably figured that already) so I don't feel I need to. OpenOffice certainly does everything I need it to do, has built-in export to PDF (very useful for sending out electronic invoices) and for some reason it seems to have a more elegant layout engine.

It has it's own quirks that you need to get past, but the built-in help is fairly good.

Im still waiting to hear the answer to the following:

Take all you can do with OO.O away from all you can do with MSO

Then tell me what is left that is worth the money. Considering im a personal / small buisiness customer.

Its quite hard to think of anything i assure u.

Office 2007 is a lot better than its earlier versions. But its all down to personal preference. Ive used both Openoffice, MS Office 97, MS Office 2007 with Office 2007 being the best for me. I really couldnt get used to the layouts in OpenOffice. Office 2007 also now has direct output to PDF.

I realize that I may be in the minority here.

I have OpenOffice and MS Office on my PC's.

I have used both for various purposes. I like MS office better.

Excel is better, Word is better, Visio is better


For PDF export, I use Acrobat.(even though MS has one now) (yes, I paid for MS Office and Adobe products)

The Acrobat exporter is the best.

I love open source but my time is also very valuable to me.

here are some other examples:
1. Blender is a cool FOSS project but 3DS MAX 9 is just plain better.

2. I love what Ubuntu stands for and does, but for me WinXP is just a better desktop. (I have Ubuntu running on 2 machines acting as servers. so I DO think Linux is a much better server system)

3. I think the GIMP is very cool but Photoshop CS3 is better.

4. I also use MindJet MindManager. It is pricey but very cool. There are free FOSS alternatives but they are not as good. and Yes, I have tried them.

5. Outlook is better than TBird.


In all these examples I felt that the Quality difference in the Commercial software was compelling enough to buy it.

one last example:
I absolutely love Python. it is Free, Open source and I use it in my line of work occasionally but I bought BlitzMAX. Why? both support OpenGL, Both are Object Oriented, Both 'can' be compiled. etc. etc.

The reason is simple. BlitzMax (like all of the software listed) allows me to get stuff done faster. It is designed specifically for the type of stuff that I like to do. Python is more general purpose and a bit more complicated in many ways.

Oh,
I do use Firefox and not IE7!

anyway. these are my opinions and I know they probably differ from yours.

Simple point GFK, if your trying to design a formatting that allows you to place text/images in a specific location and for it to stay there, then a word processor isnt really your solution in the first place. you might want to check out Publisher or one of the other numerous DTP packages which were designed for this kind of thing specifically.

Publisher is available both individually, or as part of the small business edition of Office.

On OS X, I use those applications: Mellel, Montage, Mariner Calc, Omnigraffle and iWork. I don't see NeoOffice or OpenOffice as a real option - it's too much a MS Office clone.

On Windows, well, I don't know. Stay with MS Office, I'd say. I don't think there is anything better for that platform available.

I just got OO for my Macbook Pro as I choose not to pay > £300 for MS Office on Mac.

One thing that really makes me chuckle about these discussions (that includes the windows VS XXXX ones) is how many people have actually BOUGHT the software in question.

How many would really walk into pc world and pay 100s of $ for a program which can do little more than the free alternatives. I mean, ok, if you have then fine, but how many here are using pirates or 'oem excess' copys from their companies etc..
Those that say, well.. it came 'free' with my pc, all i can say is erm... no, it didnt.

It would be interesting to see how many private individuals would be using it otherwise :)

I suspect not many.

Dan,
I Don't generally pay full retail price for anything. There are ways to get legit, deep discounts on legal software (and anything else that is sold for that matter) everything is negotiable.

Regardless of what your 'religious' beliefs are about SW, software piracy is stealing.

I think everyone who sells SW for a living generally agrees with this.

That said,
If you are interested in doing pro-quality layout and design, get Adobe InDesign CS3. if you are a student, you can get it for a nice discount. If you are a thief, use bittorrent.

Like Dan says, Open Office ... free - MS Office - more expensive by a factor of infinity. You'd hope that MS Office might be marginally better seeing as its pay per view.

MS Office 2007 home edition (Excel, Word, and Open Notes) which I think is reasonably priced. I picked my copy up from Amazon for about 70 quid. I use it a lot for my university work, and its lot less frustrating than when I used OO. So really there are cheap legit versions out there.

If you are a Student , Teacher or School Staff (Which I suspect many of you are) , you can get Academic SW for very good price. It is usually Full Version, no restrictions

http://www.campustech.com/c/campust/23387.html?id=Vt5mM3Rx&mv_pc=78

http://www.campustech.com/c/campust/MSCD26362WIAE.html

http://www.campustech.com/c/campust/51382.html

If you are not a student, go sign up for a class! :)

You still can't beat "for free".

It can in ooo too: tools>options>language setting>writing aids

I dont have religious beliefs, if somethings good and worth the cash ill pay for it. I dont have any pirate copys of anything. I own a legit copy of XP for my *other* laptop. My relationship with MS ends there (except for at work of course.. And i think ive got a bought copy of AOE gold kicking about but thats it)

Also people who buy the cheap option of 'OEM' copies of office (or whatever), this IS technically piracy as they are in direct violation of the licence, they just dont realise it until they are refused support or try and register it. Its kinda like selling a packet of chips from a multipack that states 'not for resale.'

Do you think you could take your piracy discussion elsewhere? i.e. start your own thread instead of hijacking other people's.

um, i was talking about oo.o and office?!?

What are you talking about :P?

The point of my opinion is that sometimes "for free" is not free at all.

Everything has a cost.

Paying a nominal amount for a software program that produces better results in less time is a good reason.

For me, The Opportunity Cost of using a subpar software solution to a given problem diminishes the value of "for free". The Better solutions I mentioned are worth every bit the relatively tiny amount of money I pay for them.

I used GIMP vs. Photoshop in my earlier example. GIMP is very good but Photshop is Excellent. The difference between them is enough to warrant me paying for Photoshop.



So in closing (and respect for the topic) I believe that Microsoft Office 2007 is Better than OpenOffice.org 2.2 (Even if you pay for MS Office)

Ive been using 'office' since it was dos based. Right up till the latest version and have not (yet) found anything i want to do impossible in the latest open office.

Youre right though, MSO is "better" than OO, but in my opinion, the extra rarely used nicknacks just isnt worth it. I would happily pay up to $100 for OO and still feel the same.

Sure. My point is that MSO doesn't do that. It produces worse results in longer time. For my 4th semester project we decided to use MSO for documentation. Which caused no end of productivity loss.

For starters, although everyone used Office 2003 (the school has a bulk license agreement with Microsoft) some people used the Danish version, and some people used the English version - on our 6 man team, the split was 50-50. Every time a document was saved in one and loaded and saved in the other then the document formatting and style information would get screwed up. Completely and utterly. Regardless of which language you subsequently loaded the document into. This meant that since we where 6 people all working on different documents. The result was an unparalleled mess.

Another thing that OO does better than MSO is it uses the same font style for the automatic index, and not a smaller version of whatever style is used in the heading. Having an index which switches between bold/italics and serif/non-serif fonts more or less arbitrarily looks ugly and disorganized.

By what metric? The only aspect that I can see that makes MSO marginally better is that it's probably the application you where trained to use. If you had to start over, I'd say OO was the best choice, because it's much more intuitive.

After beta testing Office 2007 I've decided to to go OpenOffice for me and Dad can have my copy of Office 2003.

I haven't used OpenOffice much myself, but I haven't found anything OpenOffice can't do, that MS Office can. Sure, I might not have done everything MS Office offers, but how many of us actually will? Should that day come, OpenOffice's writer allows you to convert any document to and from MS Word format. The same is most likely true about any of the others (though I can't confirm that here).

I think one argument holds true for me: If you removed all the similarities between OpenOffice and MS Office, would the remaining features in MS Office be worth its price? At $130 USD, I can't imagine that being possible.

Sounds like lack of user familiarity to me. An independent study by the EU commission into the use of opensource software has found NO loss in productivity between the two environments for normal 'office and publications use', where users know the software and use it regulary.

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how a user can be unfamiliar with concepts like saving a document or loading a document back in.

Personally I haven't found anything that I actually use that OpenOffice couldn't do while MS Office could... they are fairly similar, but both have their own little quirks, good things and bad things.

I use OpenOffice myself, because the pricetag sure blows Microsoft's out of the water.

EDIT: sorry flame, i thought u were talking about loss of prductivity using OO LOL! Either way round though, the above does hold true as people hate change and get all flustered and moody when something like 'table formatting' is in a different place. Until they get used to it.
Im @ work so must scanread with my fingers on alt-tab :(

True, but the difference between Gimp & photoshop is substantial. The difference between open office and MS office is next to nothing for the 95% of us who only use a fraction of the functionality in an office suite in the first place.

I use both MS Office and OpenOffice. OpenOffice has come along way in the last few years and the compatibility with MS Office is very good. However, as an IT Manager, I can tell you that the value you get for MS Office in a business setting is very high. And let's face it, its pretty ubiquitous.

I would only recommend OpenOffice for a startup company with no money.

http://www.osalt.com/

The two points where OO is inferior for me:

1. MSO compatibility. Opening OO docs in MSO doesn't always work properly. As MSO is the accepted standard, this can cause problems.

2. The equation editor in OO is sub par. i.e. more sub par than MSO's.

I'm basing this on my use of OO a couple of years ago so maybe I'm out of date.

The thing I like the most about Office 2K7 (aside from the ribbon) is how it looks. Office 2003 looked horrible, and OO has all the excitement of a five-month paint drying contest. Office 2007 on the other hand is a really nice environment to work in... especially the silver background, which makes me feel more like I'm playing a game than creating an Excel list, or writing a document in Word.

The difference between OO and 2K7 might be minimal to some people (I think it's more than minimal, but there you go) but unlike OO, Office 2007 actually makes the job semi-entertaining for the visually stimulated crowd. Aside from the hundreds of other things it has over OO, that for me was worth paying for.

I have office (versions from 97 and up to XP) and TBH I now use OpenOffice as in my eyes its better.

@normen, dont you mean loading MSO into OO? If so then the latest few versions have no problems (from personal exp) loading or saving XP/2003 format.
If im sending docs to someone else then i will always save them as .DOC/XLS/PPTs or save them using the built in PDF exporter if there is no need for editing.

Lol, since when has office software EVER been exciting. Its for doing documents, its not supposed to be exciting, its just supposed to be functional. :C
Sounds like you need to go out and have some fun ;P

(There is however that new excel game thingy but have not read much about that. Not that excited about that either as its no doubt a 1 platform affair)

Word is better than Writer by a quite a large margin, but both adequately satisfy for the basic wordprocessing needs of the average user. The only advantage that Writer has over Word is that it's free.

What justluke said, but would add, small - medium business users, and "spreadsheet,database and presentation" to "basic wordprocessing"
It also seems to be lighter, smaller and uses far less resources (at least its linux counterpart anyway)

I think that given that this thread is over 10 months old, GfK is likely to have made his decision regarding OpenOffice vs MS Office...

Yep, I have. Thanks guys.

Open office looks like office older office did. like 2003.

you can have both :D

1) Create document in office.

2) Load it in in open office save as PDF :D

I've used Star Office and Open Office for years but Office 2007 made me switch back especially after I had to do some team presentations with others and struggled over the high degree of trash that OO creates when it comes to "correctly parse the data loaded" and render it correctly.

Its about impossible to work with others that use Apple Keynote or Power Point for example due to Open Office 2.X.Y and its active ignorance towards format specifications.

That's a biggie, though. The retail version of MS Word (not office, just word) is listed for $197 on Newegg.com.

There have been 6 versions of word between '95 and '07 (95, 97, 2000, xp, 2003, 2007), so they have a 'current' lifespan of just two years.

Especially for those who don't do word processing very often, that's a significant cost per document, vs. 'free' for OpenOffice.

Aside from all of that -- Microsoft has such a bad attitude and sense of entitlement when it comes to the software market in general, that I don't feel like I need to contribute to their coffers any more than I have to. That doesn't mean using their software without paying for it, but it does mean picking the non-MS alternative especially when it's as good as OpenOffice.
In the long run a healthy market with choice is much better than a single vendor lock-in.

The Home Version of MS Office costs 130 USD here ... so you did something wrong ...
Upgrades most likely even less.

Yeah, I hear this is a lot. It's kind of like people saying that you can see the great wall of China from space - everyone knows that it is true, except that it is not.

Actually you can see the Great Wall From Space

I use Word & Excel for basic wordprocessing of project documentations.
MS Word 2003 can do fancy stuff. I spent an hour figuring out OO Writer can can do the same. My area of investigation was: formatting tables, headings, text outline.
Then checked out OO Calc and it does formatting, sorting data, sumtotals. Perfect.

My verdict;
OO Writer (sometimes) screws up the Header-formatting, besides that its a perfect alternaitve to MS Office.

Well for common home usage the excel counterpart of OO might be nice.
For professional work, its a bad joke as Excel can do worlds more than "creating a simple table" ... that the super noobs beginner tip of the iceberg of what Excel can do.
The 3D Engine thread in offtopic is just one of the things Excel is good at. actually its often used in mathematical stuff (university level) as well, which are hard to do with other solutions. Like math optimation theory on simplex and the like.

OO is just an alternative for pure homeusing beginners of it. Everyone with more knowledge needs about 5 minutes to get angry the first time because they try to fake OO to be a "second MS Office"

Ive done more with it than a few tables.
If that is the case then why are some major corporations offering it as an alternative to their workers? (The one i work for for example)
It cant be only cost (as unproductivity costs more) One reason could be because more and more people are training on it in academic institutions around the world and because they know their way round it better so are more productive with it.

well I'm student and I get MS Office Pro Plus for 80 USD ... so its hard for me to use an application that has serious problems with loading the defacto standard formats doc, xls and ppt correctly.

And you can not do heavy mathematical stuff with OOs Spreadsheet thingy. It is on the level of office 2000 (at best) when it comes to the capabilities and Excel learned a whole lot of new tricks in the numerical department and programability.

I don't say that OO per se is bad. But its incapability to load known formats correctly and render the data it stores and reads correctly make it highly useless (thats what we learned in our KeyNote - OO 2.x - PowerPoint 2003 - PowerPoint 2007 presentation where all stored the same data, OO just rendered it totally wrong in many cases) at least to me who has to present the stuff to others and work with others that depend on correct handling of the data and correct rendering of them.

the "rare" issues with formating in OO tend to get a very unrare problem the moment you start using it on data that come from Apple or MS Office.

Unproductivity may cost more, but the vast majority of large corporations will always choose saving the mighty dollar when they think a bit of software 'might' do the same job as what they'd have to pay for. I've seen this happen quite a few times.

the whole reason it has some problems loading "known formats" as you call them poorly, is because the Office formats are *not* 'known'. MS stopped releasing the office file format specs after office 6.0 IIRC -- everything since is just reverse engineering.

Which is complicated by the fact that it's mostly a binary memory dump out of office itself. Even the office 2007 OOXML format blows -- while it is supposedly described, the official spec is riddled with bits that literally say "do this the same way word 95 does it", without going into any details about how that might be. And since those are closed specs as well, that still means that you end up guessing what to do with it.

This is one of the reasons that the EU's anti-trust case against MS has mandated them to release API's and fileformat info, because there can never be a level playing field as long as MS has a monopoly and hides the interoperability specs from the rest of the world.
Note that this info *was* out in the open in the past, when WordPerfect was the big dog -- but once MS became #1 the publically available fileformat info magically didn't get updated anymore while the document formats themselves kept evolving.