The Next Windows

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As for your very last paragraph: No. XML is a format where anybody can create their own markup language (MathML, XHTML, etc.). That means that Microsoft will create their own markup for documents, KOffice its own, and OpenOffice its own (although they did create a standard that KOffice is adapting).

[Pangloss]

Word will not save in earlier versions of itself. I’m looking, right now, at the ability to save in RTF but this isn’t the same thing. It can also save in Word Perfect 5 and that’s about it. OO has two different files of itself (text and text document), plus the ability to save in other formats.

 

I understand your point about not being able to open documents from owners of later versions on your older versions, I just think it's overblown, and it's really not what the statements I was objecting to said. They were much broader, and I believe my corrections were fair.

 

While I think your point is valid, I think it is just not an overwhelming reason for a business to pick OpenOffice (or whatever) over Office. And I've never known a business to make that choice on that basis. (And I've worked with a LOT of clients.) What they're interested in is cost, and I don't mean the cost of the software.

 

See one key thing that the Linux crowd doesn't seem to get is that the cost of the software just doesn't matter. Companies actually count it as a fixed asset cost, and depreciate it -- it's insured, it's a one-time charge, and it doesn't come off the bottom-line monthly sales figures -- in other words, they're writing it off! What matters to companies, what keeps your typical cookie-cutter MBA up late at night, are *ongoing* expenses, e.g. maintenance and labor. That sort of thing *slays* projects like this, time and time again.

 

But even so, maintenance and labor are not even the *real* killer for Office competition. The first word out of their mouth isn't "compatibility", it's "training". Do you have any idea how many people are too stupid to figure out how to use Word, Excel, PowerPoint or Access? (I've made six figures in a couple of different years from training *alone*, so believe me when I say that I know something about this.)

 

What hurts is that you can't get training on something like OpenOffice. And you can't get training on it because not enough people are willing to install it -- because they can't get training for their employees on it! It's a vicious circle. A total Catch-22. THAT's what we need to be focusing on.

 

When I suggest OpenOffice to a customer, it's all about cost versus benefit. It HAS to be, or they call somebody else. Usually my target scenario for something like that would be that they're several versions behind in Office (not uncommon), they don't have a lot of money to spend on infrastructure, and they're open to new ideas. Sadly, none of my Windows-based offices have taken me up on it yet. But I do try.

 

 

I had some other quibbles with you (and a screen shot of PP2003 exporting to PP2000), but I think I've made my point.

[Pangloss]

Hang on, let me see if I can do something about that screen shot. It's just too big.

(Edit: See note above.)

[Dave]

I've been meaning to post an interesting article by el Reg on here:

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/28/microsoft_skus/

 

For one, I've stopped using Office and switched to OpenOffice. The latest 2.0beta (1.9.something) is excellent. Whilst I agree, Pangloss, that many large companies can attribute the cost of software to fixed costs etc, many small companies, who are struggling to get off the ground, are unlikely to be able to afford the price hikes that Microsoft plan to introduce. Ultimately they're going to alienate their userbase if they're not careful.

[1veedo]

Actually Pangloss, you might be interested to know that open source is cheaper as far as TCO is concerned. I agree with you on training, but anymore (as far as Linux vs Windows goes), Windows is more expensive. With 250 users, by using GNU, a company saves $282,894 NOT including liscence cost.

 

This is why knowing Linux is very beneficial in the work place. There is training you can get in things like open office because I've seen adds around the web. There just might not be as many.

 

http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

 

As for your image, try PNG If you don't want to mess with it, I'll take your word for it. But just to point out, 2000 will not open 2003; 2003 can export it. There is a difference.

[Pangloss]

I think those are good points as well, Dave, and we've already seen a lot of that "holdback". It's definitely a competition-maker.

 

 

But just to point out, 2000 will not open 2003; 2003 can export it. There is a difference.

 

PP2k can open properly exported PP2k3 files, though. Also I just want to point out what you said:

 

If Open Office can open a 2004 power point and save it as 2000 then so can Microsoft. MS, on the other hand, decided not to.

 

This is only possible because that version of OpenOffice understands the PP2k3 file format and can parse it. I don't see how you can realistically expect a program to understand a format released after it comes out. You can make a case that MS should have *patched* PP2k to understand PP2k3, and I'll even agree with you, but I'll also point out that 99% of Office users *never patch* (even if they frequently patch the OS), so they're right back where they started.

 

 

Actually Pangloss, you might be interested to know that open source is cheaper as far as TCO is concerned. I agree with you on training, but anymore (as far as Linux vs Windows goes), Windows is more expensive. With 250 users, by using GNU, a company saves $282,894 NOT including liscence cost.

 

This is why knowing Linux is very beneficial in the work place. There is training you can get in things like open office because I've seen adds around the web. There just might not be as many.

 

I've made these points before, and I have two clients who run Linux offices. But these TCOs are based on two critical assumptions: There's nothing currently installed at that office, and no training of end users is necessary. (Yeah I know I just said that they don't care about fixed asset costs, but there's still a mental block there that has to be dealt with. The phrase "but we've already got Office, why not just upgrade" is tough to beat.)

 

But I will agree with you that both of these issues are theoretically treatable. The training issue I try to address with a pledge to offer discounted training. But the cost of that training is still higher than it would normally be, because they figure (probably incorrectly) that they have to train more people, since none of their people know the competitive product at all. In other words, they've already got people trained on Word, why should they train them again on OpenOffice?

 

But like I said, these are issues that can be dealt with. It's just a difficult task, that's all. This IS the fight that should be fought, and the Linux/OSA community should be focused on that kind of positive message (like your TCO info, which I've seen before), and less focused on the negative message of "Microsoft sucks". (I imagine we probably agree on this.)

[Dave]

But like I said, these are issues that can be dealt with. It's just a difficult task, that's all. This IS the fight that should be fought, and the Linux/OSA community should be focused on that kind of positive message (like your TCO info, which I've seen before), and less focused on the negative message of "Microsoft sucks". (I imagine we probably agree on this.)

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. With these new price hikes, there is a golden opportunity for the open-source community to make a stand and start pushing products. More importantly, it would send a good message to the open-source community as a whole: "if OpenOffice can do it, so can we" type of thing.

[Pangloss]

Not only will I support that, but just because this conversation made me think of it, I'll suggest to my training partners that we revisit the issue of offering non-MS "office" application training. That hasn't been looked at in my market in some time now, and it makes a lot of sense.

[Klaynos]

I hear that openoffice 2, soon to be released, looks very very snazzy on windows (as apposed to the old version which whilst being very powerfull does look like ms office 97) I will say that OO's spread sheet is not the best open source one, I can't rememebr the name but I know I've come accross a better one...