Just a note....

I've noticed, since I use Microsoft Office 2003 at work, that Open Office looks freakin' ancient.

It looks like Office 97 does.

I am not trying to start a war, I'm just saying that if they ever expect to get anywhere in the business office suite arena, they really need some work.

I have tried all different kinds of open source office suites and none of them come even close to Office 2000. Can't even compare with Office XP or Office 2003.

With the release of Outlook 2003 even Evolution looks ancient.

Is it me......or does it seem like Linux apps are a few years behind what is "current"?

I almost hate to say this, but I don't want to use stuff that works and looks like stuff that I used back in 1997. I like new stuff

Oh well......just something I noticed.

Peace,
Whitehat

Hm, I've not noticed that. I think it looks fine It's not as... blue... as MS Office is, and may be lighter on the eye-candy, but I'd hope that most users would be willing to see past minor visual problems to the underlying usefulness of the thing.

You also have to look at it this way. MacOS(X) and Windows have been around in a GUI type form, where refinement of a GUI is something that took major precedence over stability ( in the terms of early MacOS and Windows :-P ).

Linux and it's brethren are fairly new to the GUI and things looking pretty, however, the curve linux is working on is a much nicer slope because of the forerunners mentioned. Give it time, it'll look all purty too...for right now, I'm looking for functional more than pretty. Open Office is where it's at...

why use bulky programs that make your computer hang?
I prefer LaTeX to write my texts.. doesn't waste my time with stupid GUI menu's and the lay-out always is the way I want it. I'm not against the GUI's (because I do spend some time to make my fluxbox look nice) but in some cases it's just a waste of time.

Please consider: how many of the options in microsoft office do you use? how many of the buttons do you click every hour when writing texts? and how much extra money are you willing to pay for the microsoft office look, since open-office IS free software?

lol

Dude, I think you have the record for the most posts with just "lol" posted in them...

I don't use Office Products except when at work and they use Office and quite frankly if they let me I'd use alternatives but since they don't, well.. I have no other choice. I cringe when I have to load Excel...

so what should I say, "I laughed out loud" ?

Nah, its possible to laugh without letting everyone know about it by posting it and wasting valuable resources to post such posts....

Just a thought.. just a pet peeve as I don't want to be reading posts and come across eventually what will be hundreds or thousands of posts of just "lol"....

At least contribute to the topic if your gonna post..

I think some of you are missing the point. I'm not talking about "US". I'm talking about corporate users. That is why I stated "business office suite" in my post above

What I'm saying is that I, and a lot of other users, actually do use a lot of the GUI buttons and if I have to look at an application most of the time it should look nice.

I mean.........if I look out the back window of my house everyday......shouldn't it be pretty grass, trees and flowers? - or should it look like Sanford and Son's junkyard?

However 80% of Office users use only 20% of the functionality. I'd say I'm one of the 20% that use 80% of it's functionality.



Peace,
Whitehat

I know what your saying. I'm not the type that goes by looks myself, I think I've expressed that many times on this site when "prettiness" is the main topic of whatever.

But I do agree with you. If you want more poeple to use or buy it, its got to look good. Now I don't even mess with installing openoffice on my machines, I have yet to see what it looks like, err, well don't remember what it looks like.

I only wish people would look at functionality more than beauty. I hate the saying when people say "Beauty is only skin deep" but I would have to agree with that statement when comparing Linux to Windows or some kickass application to its counterpart that sucks, for example Dreamweaver to Frontpage. Frontpage my look better but when it all comes down to it, Dreamweaver kicks its arse in functionality and coding.

That was too much thinking.. but my two cents.

One plus that Open Office / Star Office has going for it is that they can be run on multiple platforms. A corporation using MS's Office Suite has to dole out a lot of money in licensing fees which just doubled. If Open Office is good functionally, I'm sure the appearance will improve over time, but cosmetics are less important, especially as one gets experience using a program. Whether Open Office will be able to open files from other companies using the MS Office suite is probably the most important issue for companies selecting an Office Suite. ( Even MS Excel won't read older Excel files! ).

I'm hoping that what does change is the propriety file-format policy of Microsoft. That is I hope companies start demanding open standards and interoperability before they consider purchasing any product. Wishful thinking, I know!

First of all, you are talking about the interface, not OpenOffice itself.

Second of all, OpenOffice beats MS Office 300 times in: Functionality, Compatibility and Price.

And lastly: I hate the way anything related to XP/2003 looks. It's god damn awful, resource consuming and doesn't fit in my goddamn screen!

In conclusion: OpenOffice looks great and operates great, which makes it good.

Just to chime in, XP reminds me of Fisher-Price toys. (I beleive it's supposed to, in order to convey the easy-to-use theme.) From another perspective, "ancient" isn't necessarily bad. I own a 1969 Stingray Corvette convertible (w/427). Ancient design? Hell yeah. Bad design? I don't think so. From a "newer" perspective, I still prefer my 88 GT mustang (mine's all black) to the "modern girly" version. Call me old-fashioned. As for performance, either will put the pretty "new" versions to shame. Of course, neither is great on gas...

Agreed.

Cars are another story. I had a '64 Impala and a '72 Monte Carlo, both kicked butt. I would take them anyday over newer cars today. I could lie down in the trunk of the '64 Impala and not be touching either end And dang those cars rode nice

I guess maybe I shouldn't be looking so much at how the interface looks.

ok. I'm sorry. I just wanted to convey my emotions and I couldn't find a better way to do so. I'll try to refrain from doing this constantly in the future.

Regards,
Jerry