Another article from australia.

Microsoft is not going to release a version of its Office suite software for open-source rival Linux, although the company is actively studying how Linux works and how it can integrate with the platform, a Microsoft representative said Wednesday.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/inde...21;fp;2;fpid;1

I can see why. OpenOffice.org would prevent MS Office from becoming popular. Not releasing MSO to Linux is the right move for them, I would do the same. I can't see any way that they would benefit from this.

And I disagree. Office is sold for OS/X now, which is basically BSD Unix. I think that it would be a very good move for Microsoft to position itself as a strong vendor which supplies software for operating systems other than their own. Particularly Unix/Linux.

Microsoft needs to diversify its product offerings. Windows-NT is a fine operating system (gasp! did you hear that?! treason!) ... ... but they should not be tying the entire future of their office systems group to it. Let a fine race horse have its full rein. Let it compete whereever it can win.

office is a BIG reason that people I know won't switch to linux. I can definitly see the reasoning: "Linux is more stable than windows- plus it's cheaper" "people prefer our office product, and openoffice etc don't have a great following" "hmm- favoured os + favoured office- OH! people WON'T buy windows!!!- just office. Get em to buy both and we make MORE money!"

titanium_geek

I never will understand why MS insists on tying all of its products together so tightly; I'd have though they'd have learned a lesson from all the problems that were caused by integrating IE into their system processes.

IMO, releasing a version of Office for Linux, even a closed-source version, would only serve to lock the market into their document formats and limit competition from Open Office or anyone else, so I'm kind of glad they're not.

yeah, I do agree

I can see the logic behind Microsoft not wanting to develop office for Linux at this time. Linux is still emerging and it is risky to get into it with one of their most popular labels. It would also be costly to develop their software for the new OS and they might not be willing to part with that capitol at this time. Microsoft will most likely always tie their software into their OS as tightly as possible, it forces the user who wants easy to buy all of their crap. Just look through the history of Microsoftomics

The emergence of Linux is the PERFECT time to for them to "get into it with one of their most popular labels", as it would create a "toehold" situation (in the minds of the ignorant public) from which MS could attempt to establish a credible (again, to the unwashed masses) presence in the Linux community.

Furthermore, porting Office to Linux wouldn't be THAT expensive as MS already has a version that runs on Mac OSX, which is *nix based.

MS has an opportunity to establish Office as the undisputed cross-platform leader in office software, and they're going to miss it because they're too busy trying to clean up the ugly mess they created and named Vista. This is a MAJOR blunder on their part.

I'm also glad they don't. I've just started converting people to openoffice 2.0. I have a lot of customers that are not really concerned with the file format they use...they just need to be able to send files to people and receive them and not have any issues with compatibility (ie; using native star office file formats and sending them to MS Office users).

I've realized that the key to converting non-computer savvy people to Linux is to not tell them they are converting per say, instead just make sure they use all cross-platform software and then say to them during there next upgrade (when they would need to purchase say vista) 'Hey, how would you like to save $200? Your computer will act exactly the same as before except you will have a K for a start button). This is going fairly well for me...so MS can keep there office.

And as for the MAC people, the reason I've never jumped on the Mac train is I think they are way to overpriced. That said...MS Products fit in perfectly

Chado

Although Office not being available for Linux does hinder Linux acceptance... (even though you can use it with WINE).
Still, as you said, at least this way, Linux users are using OpenOffice.org more than they are using MS Office, so there is less of a file format lock-in...

Ok, let's all sit back and assume for a moment that M$ ported Office for Linux..

OpenOffice is free. Any Linux user knows that.
OpenOffice supports M$ file formats. Guaranteed out of personal experience.
OpenOffice is stable, versatile and full of features.
OpenOffice files take up less space than the exact same files created by M$Office.

What would be the point for M$? They won't gain squat..

-A

It's a question of appearances and market influence.

In the seventies, a commercial real-estate broker (I don't remember who) wrote a book called Winning Through Intimidation. In it, he details how he rose from a complete unknown to one of that decade's biggest names in real estate by, in essence, making his clients AND many of his competitors believe he had more power and influence in the real estate world than he truly did by manipulating THEIR PERCEPTION of his image. MicroSoft's situation in the Office Software market is such that, if they played their cards right, they could conceivably manipulate the perceptions of the unwashed masses who are just now learning about Linux. People tend to go with what they know, and most people, having used MS Office for so long, would be inclined to go with MS Office again if they were to switch to Linux.

You and I and most everyone else here would never buy it, but we are already outside MS's target demographic.

Believe it or not, Microsoft Office runs far faster than OpenOffice on a given system, even under emulation (wine). If you don't believe me, search some other threads where I posted a link to a spreadsheet that OOo takes >45 minutes to open, whereas Microsuck Office can open the same exact spreadsheet in under 10 seconds.

did you mean 45 seconds ??

No, if you search the other thread, you will see I meant fourty-five MINUTES. I have another spreadsheet that takes OOo over two hours (just about 2.5 hours - yes, HOURS) to open, whereas Microsoft Excel opens that same document - even with antivirus software enabled on a Windows box - in well under one minute (under 30 seconds if I recall correctly).

Check the bug tracker for OOo - file I/O is a big, big complaint and the OOo team has become infamous for marking the priority of these reports way down. Why? Because fixing bugs (even major bugs) is far less exciting than developing gee-wiz features.