Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OpenOffice.org V3.0 Sets Download Record, 80% Windows

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the constant-companion dept.

Software 451

thefickler writes "The newest version of OpenOffice, version 3.0, has set a download record in its first week of availability. Most surprising is the fact that over 80% of downloads were from Windows users. As one commentator noted, when it comes to a choice between almost identical software (e.g. Microsoft Office and OpenOffice), price is the determining factor."

cancel ×

451 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Package Managers? (5, Insightful)

QBasicer (781745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519613)

The question here is do the download numbers also reflect copies downloaded with package managers such in Linux distros such as Gentoo and Ubuntu, or does it only count people that only actually go to the webpage to download? The way Windows users and Linux users tend to get software these days tends to be a little different, where windows users expect going to the website, downloading, and using an something like Install Shield to install.

Re:Package Managers? (5, Informative)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519717)

while gentoo may have an openoffice 'overlay'(not a gentoo user so that may be the wrong term) most ubuntu users will have to download the deb manually (either from here [openoffice.org] or a third party repo (cant think of any for ubuntu) or wait for 9.04

oh and from TFA

Only 221,000 downloads by Linux users were recorded, leading John McCreesh, head of marketing for OpenOffice.org, to suggest a massive undercount. McCreesh said 90% of Linux users traditionally receive OpenOffice.org updates straight from their Linux distribution's vendor, which would explain the relatively low Linux count.

but that would still give windows >66% (assuming os x makes up 0%, which is possible due to neo office)

Re:Package Managers? (2, Informative)

phantomlord (38815) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520175)

ebuilds are the packages in gentoo, overlays are unofficial repositories of ebuilds.

That said, the binary ebuild downloads from the gentoo mirrors rather than the official OpenOffice.org web/ftp servers, but the source built version downloads directly from go-oo.org

Re:Package Managers? (4, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519831)

Your question is answered in the link, which says the numbers are skewed. Thus, this announcement is a bit of misleading marketing on the part of OpenOffice.

Re:Package Managers? (1, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519845)

It's not in either the gentoo or ubuntu repositories yet.

Re:Package Managers? (5, Informative)

niskel (805204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519927)

It's in Gentoo; I have been using it for a few days...

Re:Package Managers? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520371)

It's in Gentoo; I have been compiling it for a few days...

There, fixed it for you

Re:Package Managers? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520377)

It's in Gentoo; I have been using it for a few days...

It's in Gentoo; I have been compiling it for a few days...

There. I fixed it for you.

Re:Package Managers? (1)

incripshin (580256) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520089)

I installed OpenOffice.org on the 17th.

Re:Package Managers? (1)

incripshin (580256) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520119)

Yes, and I use Gentoo. I tried to stop my parent comment but it was too late :(

BitTorrent? (2, Interesting)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519919)

I would also ask how they accounted for BitTorrent downloads, which are provided on the main OpenOffice.org website (in addition to the normal third-party sites). At first glance, it seems like the most logical interpretation is to count each copy of the .torrent file downloaded from the main website as one full download of the corresponding file. Or are they only counting downloads of the software from their own site?

Re:BitTorrent? (2, Informative)

prod-you (940679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520369)

The tracker can count how many people have finished downloading it.

Re:Package Managers? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520165)

I'm guessing at least 80% didn't use a package manager.

Re:Package Managers? (1)

rivercityrandom (626724) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520335)

I would have loved to contribute to those numbers, but as a Linux user on dialup, I have to wait until an ISO distributor puts out a copy for sale. Given how those things usually run, though, by the time I actually get a copy of 3.0, people will already be downloading 4.0...

Got it, it does the job, why pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519629)

Microsoft apparently prefers that people no longer pirate their software for home use, so that was an easy decision. Looking forward to seeing more Open Office files in the wild.

80% (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519631)

Why is 80% surprising? The article makes it sound like that's high, but Windows has more than 80% of the desktop market, so it's still a lower percentage.

Re:80% (1, Flamebait)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519687)

I doubt OOo3 was downloaded by the majority of Windows users.

Re:80% (4, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520101)

I doubt OOo3 was downloaded by the majority of Windows users.

And I doubt that it was downloaded by the majority of Linux users also.

Most Linux users prefer to upgrade software using the channels for their distrobution. None of my 3 systems have been upgraded to OOo3 yet, but they will be, as soon as it shows up in the repos.

Re:80% (2, Informative)

szundi (946357) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519945)

It's not surprising when you realize that a lot of linux users will simply wait for the next release that has az ooo3 prepackaged. (me too) These users won't generate more than 1 download that the package maintainer will execute :)

Re:80% (4, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520117)

Why is 80% surprising? The article makes it sound like that's high, but Windows has more than 80% of the desktop market, so it's still a lower percentage.

In fact, I think 80% is surprisingly low.

First off, we really shouldn't count Macs as part of the equation. I haven't checked recently, but for a long time, OOo's support for MacOS X lagged way, way behind. It was essentially unusable.

So of OOo's potential audience, I would guess 99% would be Windows users, 1% Linux users. I would therefore expect 99% of OOo downloads to be the Windows version. Not only that, but a lot of Linux users probably aren't going to download it from the OOo web site, they're going to get it when it becomes the default through their distro's packaging infrastructure, and therefore they presumably won't be counted in this statistic. Let's guess (pulling numbers out of my rear end, I admit) that 90% of Linux desktop users won't downloaad directly, and will get it via their distro. So based on these factors, I would have expected the percentages to be more like 99.9% Windows and 0.1% Linux, a ratio of 1000 to 1.

It's actually pretty darn depressing that the Windows figure is as low as 80%. That's a 4:1 ratio rather than the 1000:1 ratio I would have expected. That suggests that the Windows market for OOo is hundreds of times smaller than it would be based merely on the market share of the operating systems. Some possible interpretations, none of which are pretty:

  1. The Windows users who have never heard of OOo outnumber those who have, by hundreds to one.
  2. For every Windows user who's willing and able to switch, there are hundreds of others who can't, because it's impractical for them. (E.g., they don't get to choose what's on their computer at work, or they have too many documents already in Word format that they're afraid would be a huge hassle to convert 100% correctly.)
  3. For every Windows user who thinks OOo is better than MS Office, there are hundreds who hold the opposite opinion.

I wouldn't be surprised of #3 captured the essential truth of the situation. OOo is one of the worst pieces of OSS I use. I've searched systematically for something better, and haven't found it. At this point, I feel like OOo was a dead end that had the unfortunate effect of killing off interest in competing OSS office software.

Re:80% (5, Informative)

Niten (201835) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520287)

First off, we really shouldn't count Macs as part of the equation. I haven't checked recently, but for a long time, OOo's support for MacOS X lagged way, way behind. It was essentially unusable.

No, we have to count Macs. One of the big bullet points on the OpenOffice 3 release notes was its new native Aqua support on OS X.

Re:80% (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520381)

No, we have to count Macs. One of the big bullet points on the OpenOffice 3 release notes was its new native Aqua support on OS X.

Ah, thanks for the update -- my info was out of date, then. But I still wouldn't expect OOo 3 to have built up any significant market share on MacOS X on the day it came out. It's been years and years now that Mac users haven't had a decent version of OOo to catch their interest. That lack of mindshare isn't going to change overnight.

Re:80% (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520315)

I use NeoOffice [neooffice.org] on the Mac, which is a port of OO to OSX. Works fine. It is a bit behind on the most recent version of OO though.

Because it breaks the MS Office grip (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520317)

In the business world, where nobody worries about games etc, MS Office is the "lock-in app" for Windows. Once people realise that OpenOffice provides a desktop solution, then they might also realise that Linux runs all their favourite software, except viruses.

Price a determinating factor? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519639)

People don't want to spend money on something they can get for free? That's amazing! Seriously, I know I'm not working at the only company that is getting ready to dump Microsoft Office. It's pretty sad when you realize that the vast majority of your workers would be happier going from Office 2003 to OpenOffice than going to Office 2007.

Re:Price a determinating factor? (4, Interesting)

Potor (658520) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519881)

That's EXACTLY why I downloaded OOo 3, and use it at home. I was so pissed off that market dominance made me switch from WP to Word, and that the time I spent learning Word has been wasted, since MS changed almost everything around. My desktop at work still has an older version of Word, but my home machine, a company-supplied laptop, has 2007 installed.

I know I am preached to the converted, but that was the worst marketing decision they could possibly make, imho.

Re:Price a determinating factor? (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520291)

"OpenOffice 3 - Now without the Ribbon!"

Free vs "free". (-1, Troll)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519651)

"Most surprising is the fact that over 80% of downloads were from Windows users. As one commentator noted, when it comes to a choice between almost identical software (e.g. Microsoft Office and OpenOffice), price is the determining factor."

So hows the contest between "free" and free [piratebay.com]

Re:Free vs "free". (1)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519741)

M$ is mostly talking about schools and libraries it gave its software to along with computers, of course...

Re:Free vs "free". (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519743)

I've seen plenty of P2P scams in my day, but none that blatantly use the name "Pirate Bay."

Re:Free vs "free". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519921)

How is the pirate bay a scam? It's a bittorrent tracker. You need to read more before you make stupid assertions like that.

Re:Free vs "free". (3, Informative)

GCsoftware (68281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519989)

Um maybe you need to read more carefully but the link in the GGP is actually to a scam site (piratebay.com), not the legitimate Pirate bay (thepiratebay.com)

Re:Free vs "free". (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519991)

Click his link, Mr. AC, and realize that it is not the tracker. Perhaps it is you who needs to read more.

Re:Free vs "free". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520331)

How fonderfully evil! The next level of anti-piracy fight for RIAA and MPAA: scam the teens, damage their systems and make money while doing it! I wonder what could be said about DRM systems effect on a computer, which no longer plays songs or movies. Perhaps that could be classified as system damage.

Linux distro packages (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519675)

I would guess that a lot of Linux users will wait for OO.o to show up in their distro packaging system, and not download it directly. For the systems that I actually need to use to get work done, I am *very* reluctant to go outside the packaging system, because the many extra hassles are rarely worth it. If I wanted to have to monitor external web sites and manually do unpgrades on all my apps I'd still be using Windows. (OK, no not really, but you get the point.) I use Ubuntu on the desktop because, for me, it Just Works, with many fewer hassles than Windows.

Not really the money (1)

wap911 (637820) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519677)

It's a tie for me on Windows and Linux 3 & 3 machines.
Windows no problem uninstall and install.
Linux just a bit more.
Got the DEB file, installed and changed the links from 2.4 location to 3.0 location. So both are still installed and usable.

What matters?

I don't need to spend the additional money for features [collaboration, exotic formatting and bloat] that are Microsoft.
The most complex I have is a 38 sheet spreadsheet with rotated text boxes.

Does Joe Plumber even need that...didn't think so.

So no matter how you carve it up OpenOffice is a TCO winner.
 

Re:Not really the money (1)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519751)

TKO*(?)

"Almost Identical"? (5, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519697)

Is that like saying a cordless phone and a cell phone is *almost* identical because they both make phone calls?

Or did I just get trolled by the summary?

Re:"Almost Identical"? (5, Interesting)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519777)

You have a point. I would conjecture that the dissimilarities of OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office 2007 are one of the driving factors in OpenOffice.org's adoption.

Re:"Almost Identical"? (2, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519793)

It depends on what you are doing. If you just want to make a phone call, then you don't really care if the phone is cordless or cellular - just so it works.

Similarly, unless you are using some particular feature found in MS Office but not in OO.org, then you won't really care which one you use.

If you just want to hammer out a memo or make a crappy-looking presentation, OO.org is just as capable as MS Office.

Re:"Almost Identical"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519795)

Your comment almost made sense.

Re:"Almost Identical"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519803)

You beat me to it - sorry open sourcers, but I have tried open office several times over the past few years. It doesn't impress me. I'll take LaTeX over a WYSIWYG editor anyday (for my purposes), but MSOffice is much better than OO imho.

Re:"Almost Identical"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519843)

I'll take LaTeX over a WYSIWYG editor anyday

Wowz, you are so hardcore.

I'm the same way with lynx, which is how I do all my browsing these days. When I'm not using GOPHER, of course.

We are the hardcore (2, Funny)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520353)

Google is nothing but a couple little improvements to Archie and Veronica. Typical of marketing losers, they take a working search engine like Veronica, "embrace and extend" GOPHER to use HTTP, and then plaster it with useless ads and graphics.

I have my copy of Lynx complied with HTTP off. Screw those corporate bastards!

Re:"Almost Identical"? (3, Interesting)

slittle (4150) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519885)

Or did I just get trolled by the summary?

"You must be new here."

For the majority of users, OOo is roughly equivalent to Office. The only cases where I've run into trouble are with funky formatting and hardcore formulas/macros, which is pretty much power user territory. Most people either don't do complex operations, or do them by trial and error which works just as well under OOo as Office.

Also I suspect that most people still have/use the copy of Works/Office that came with their computer, which is probably also running Windows XP and is up to seven (7) years old. Their choice is: use the same old software, pay to upgrade (a much higher price than the OEM got it), or download free OOo. It might not be as good, but it's new and shiny and they didn't have to pay for it.

Obsessive compulsive upgrade disorder just bit MS in the arse.

Re:"Almost Identical"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520113)

in fact, I've seen people (including my father) using excel, with the calculator in the hand...

Re:"Almost Identical"? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519905)

Do you have a point? And why is this modded "insightful" when it should be modded "inciteful"? We'll use your analogy, Mr. Troll: yes, a cordless phone and a cell phone provide a very similar end-user experience, some could argue they are identical, from the end-user perspective. Are you smart enough to see how that applies to OO and MSOffice, or do you need more sarcasm?

I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (4, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519703)

OpenOffice.org 3 sounds like it's going to be great. And I'll start using it as soon as it shows up in the Ubuntu repository and I get prompted to update. Until then, I guess I won't. I guess that a lot of other people are having similar thoughts. (Not to mention, consider the number of MS Windows users compared to all non-MS Windows users, of course the majority of downloads are going to be for MS Windows.)

As for price, price is not a factor in me not using MS Windows (I just don't like it compared to GNOME, etc.). However, given the choice between MS Office and OpenOffice.org, it is.

However, it isn't the only thing, I just prefer OOo. I've been using it for a good number of years (and the only thing that used to piss me off was not being able to word count selections, they fixed that), and I've gotten used to the little quirks.

It also does things simply better! Take creating a business card, MS Word doesn't even come with a template for that job! (Not that OOo makes it easy... Why no bottom and right margin setting?)

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (5, Informative)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519801)

You'll be waiting a while. Ubuntu won't have OO.o 3 until next April. [tectonic.co.za]

Long story short: upstream delays made it miss the Intrepid feature freeze.

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (3, Insightful)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519955)

But it will (presumably) be added to the repository much sooner, right? It just won't be included on any Ubuntu discs until next April's release.

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (1)

cs02rm0 (654673) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520147)

Not sure it will be (at least to the official 8.10 repos). I think they'll only get updates to the 2.x branch.

Might expect it to appear in backports though.

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520415)

OOo 3.0.1 will be in backports, yes.

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520275)

No. That's the idea of a "stable" distro (in the sense of Debian stable) like Ubunutu: the only updates are security updates. This means the people working on the distro can spend time making sure all the software integrates properly.

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (3, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520281)

It will probably be available in the backports repo for 8.04 and 8.10. And there is a semi-official ppa repo for 8.10 now (google for it).

PPC-based Mac users have to wait too (5, Informative)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519993)

For some reason, OO.o isn't providing a PowerPC build of OpenOffice 3.0 in English. You can get 3.0 in French or Japanese, but the latest English build is 2.4. During development of 3.0, PPC builds have been provided by a third party [good-day.net] , but they seem to have stopped at 3.0rc4. I wonder why.

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (2, Informative)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520157)

It also does things simply better! Take creating a business card, MS Word doesn't even come with a template for that job!

Wrong. The templates (yes, more than one is provided) is under Tool -> Letters and Mailings -> Envelops and Labels.

Granted, it's a pain to find it there but they've lumped all the Avery (and other large pre-formatted paper providers) templates in one area.

Re:I haven't got it yet, not in repository yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520177)

Ubuntu has OO.o 3.0 in its PPA repositories. [launchpad.net] You can add them easily.

Almost identical? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519715)

I've been scorched before on slashdot for praising MSOffice, but again I beg to disagree that this is a "choice between almost identical software".
The functionality, features and ease of use of MSOffice (as compared to Open Office) still make it far superior.
Particularly, the new interface of MSOffice makes it much easier and intuitive to use (for most users) compared to any other office automation software.

Re:Almost identical? (4, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519815)

Unless you are a veteran user of the 97-2003 line who used the suite for basic stuff. Then OpenOffice.org looks far more attractive.

Re:Almost identical? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520037)

Is OpenOffice.org 3 actually better than Office 2003?

I haven't used either, so I have not idea, but that would seem to be an important factor for people who are worried about how well the software works, rather than about how recently it was released.

Re:Almost identical? (2, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520251)

Unless you are a veteran user of the 97-2003 line who used the suite for basic stuff.

I am.


Then OpenOffice.org looks far more attractive.

It doesn't.

Obviously your and other peoples' mileage does vary.

Re:Almost identical? (4, Insightful)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520343)

Exactly. I have used Word and Excel for ~15 years. I'm not what I'd consider a "power user," but I've grown comfortable with the UI and basic features over this time. Since approximately version 2.0 or 2.1, I haven't felt the need to use the real Word or Excel even once. The Oo equivalents have been able to replicate the functionality of Word/Excel without fail to the point that I don't even bother installing Office anymore. I have also switched over various family members and a few small businesses (sub-50 employees) with nary a complain about missing functionality.

I'm sure there are folks out there that can point to some obscure features of M$ Office products that they rely on, but I think the vast majority of us fit into the mold of users that just use the basic features. I can't imagine needing or wanting to spring for another M$ Office license again.

Cheers,

Re:Almost identical? (3, Interesting)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519827)

Particularly, the new interface of MSOffice makes it much easier and intuitive to use (for most users) compared to any other office automation software.

If by "most users" you mean:

* People who have never used MSOffice sometime in the last 14 years.
* Excel power-users who have never used the chart wizard.
* Mac users who have never needed to interoperate with Windows MSOffice users who have VBA macros in their documents/spreadsheets.
* People who have never gotten used to applications that use menus to organize major features.

For everyone else, the new MSOffice is very intuitive.

Re:Almost identical? (2, Informative)

Forbman (794277) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519909)

Sorry, hard to include Office 2007 in that line...

--another pissed off Office 2007 have-to-user at work.

Just as an aside...how fast to do paste special in Excel 2007? Hmm... not so easy to find in the new "easy to use" interface...

Good News (2, Insightful)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519725)

I've been using it since the .sxw days, and used StarOffice way back when they first released it for free. I find this news heartening given the recent announcements about OSS's supposed impending doom. Give it time; I bet by 4.0, OOo will be as popular as Firefox.

OpenOffice.org vs Office 2007 (3, Interesting)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519745)

I think a lot of people might be looking at OOo because it is the only still-supported Office workalike that works mostly like MSOffice 97/XP/2003. For those of us forced to use MSOffice 2007 it's a no-brainer. Plus OOo can be installed alongside MSOffice 2007 with no problems.

Re:OpenOffice.org vs Office 2007 (3, Informative)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520023)

That is one big advantage. Being able to export to PDF without spending a buttload of money on Adobe Acrobat or spending a lot of time to find a good Windows freeware print-to-PDF program is another advantage of OOo, and OOo 3.0 can also open and edit PDFs to some degree with the Sun PDF plugin, which is a huge feature. One last thing I have heard quite a few others praise is the ability to open almost any document file type out there right out of the box, now that OOo 3.0 has Office 2007 XML support.

Re:OpenOffice.org vs Office 2007 (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520209)

Cute PDF. There, now you won't have to spend a lot of time to find a PDF printer.

Does this beat Firefox's record (0)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519773)

I can't be bothered to RTFM. Hey, at least I'm honest!

Does this beat Firefox's record, or is this a different record?

Re:Does this beat Firefox's record (5, Informative)

Firewing1 (1072250) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520011)

Nope - Firefox had roughly 8 million [spreadfirefox.com] downloads in a single day, versus the 3 million OO.o 3.0 downloads in the first week.

From the article (3, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519799)

While you would think OpenOffice would be most popular among Linux users, the demand for Windows users came as a surprise to many people. The numbers are skewed however, because many Linux users receive their updates from Linux distributors rather than the website. Still, it shows that Microsoft's Office software is slowly loosing its market dominance now that there are suitable alternatives available.

Most Linux users get their software from their distro, so that's the reason for the predominance of Windows in the downloads. However, the conclusion reached by the author is arbitrary. There is nothing here showing that Office is "loosing" market dominance. All you have are OpenOffice download numbers, which don't prove anything about market dominance. Office isn't even available for Linux, so how is its market dominance changing from what it was before?

Mac downloads already outnumber linux almost 3:2 (2, Interesting)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519841)

That was quick (especially considering they only support intel based macs).
Maybe in the future OSS products looking for market share will support official native Mac versions sooner, instead of leaving us with either X11 interfaces or third party ports.

Re:Mac downloads already outnumber linux almost 3: (1)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520033)

For now, you can get PowerPC builds from a third party [good-day.net] . (I have posted this information before, but affected users might be more likely to find it here.) They don't have 3.0 yet, but you can get 3.0rc4. The most annoying thing is that OO.o actually has PPC builds of 3.0, but only for a few languages, and English is not among them. What's up with that?

Price is not the factor round here (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519853)

It's the cross platform & ODF (though we use Office 07 .doc as the default format because of sending them to third parties)

ahh (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519863)

As one commentator noted, when it comes to a choice between almost identical software (e.g. Microsoft Office and OpenOffice), price is the determining factor.

And that's why more people use OpenOffice than Microsoft Office...oh wait

Probably because of java (3, Interesting)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519887)

When downloading or updating java from Sun the default is to also install OO. Highly annoying if you ask me.

and 80% of windows downloads... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25519899)

... have been from the stupid openoffice installer that sun piggybacks on java installations and updates.

Awesome website (3, Insightful)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519903)

I'm not a huge fan of OpenOffice (which I refuse to call 'OpenOffice.org, because it's an office suite, not a webserver), but I'll say one thing - their main page is exactly right.

Go to www.openoffice.org and take a look. What do you see? A list of things to do, in big text, impossible to miss. I wanted to download. Normally I hunt for a link. Now, it takes me 5 seconds to grab what I want.

No wonder they got so many downloads - they didn't hide them three pages deep.

They aren't the same (3, Insightful)

wicka (985217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25519983)

Unfortunately OpenOffice and Word are not identical pieces of software. Not by a long shot.

Meh. (3, Informative)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520361)

If you are a dedicated ms-office user, and you really need 100% of the functionality of ms-office; then get ms-office - don't even think about anything else.

But, if you are like most of the population, and you just need a good office product, that is basically compatible with standard file formats, then openoffice does the trick.

JMHO.

Almost identical? Not quite. (2, Informative)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520003)

I've been looking for a job over the past couple of months (I've now found one, thanks for asking). I used OO to write my CV (resume) and saved it as a .doc. I wasn't getting anything like the response rate I usually get from applications and really couldn't understand why. Until, that is, I loaded up my CV in Word and discovered the formatting was fucked - my CV looked like shit. I never bothered to work out exactly what happened, but it seems some small difference in font rendering or spacing meant half the dates wrapped onto the next line, so the whole thing looked a mess. I gave up on OO, switched to Word and heard back from the very next job I applied for. Perhaps I screwed up, perhaps there are some compatibility options I should have used, but the fact of the matter is I used OO, selected "save as .doc" and didn't get what I expect. That cost me a good few weeks work and as a result a few thousand pounds.

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (4, Insightful)

aurelianito (684162) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520099)

You should have sent a PDF instead and avoid all the problems.

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520193)

Exactly, sending out a resume in an editable format is just unprofessional for anything higher than a receptionist position.

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (2, Informative)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520217)

After the second person who didn't have clue what a PDF is (I shit you not), I gave up on them. For direct applications to tech companies PDFs are ideal, but recruitment agents are a) stupid and b) prefer Word files, so they can edit out your contact details to ensure they don't get bypassed.

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520225)

You should have sent a PDF instead and avoid all the problems.

Complete waste of time if you're going through an agency. Even if it's for a specific vacancy, they'll demand it in doc format so they can stick it in their database.

(Having said that, I've never had any success through agencies...)

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520255)

Why would you send it as a .doc? They could have viruses, they take a long time to load, they usually aren't write protected (whoops, did I just hit delete?). They are messy - all that formating shows up i.e. invisible table lines appear. Misspelled words are highlighted (showing your poor spelling - or words weren't in the the dictionary) making your resume really messy. Plus, does the person have the correct version of word to read it?

Why send in such a crappy format?

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520349)

Quite a lot of agencies ask for Word format CVs, so you don't have any choice.

It's often so they can add a coverpage or custom headers/footers to the document before turn it into a PDF and send it out to companies.

I've had exactly the same problem, but I reloaded my exported .doc file in Word to check it befoer I sent it out and found the same problems, formatting awry, so I went back to Word too...

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520127)

I used OO to write my CV (resume) and saved it as a .doc.

You sent in your CV as a Word file? I, for sure, wouldn't hire anyone who did that, nor would I want to apply for a job where they required such applications. It's a sign of cluelessness.

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (2, Informative)

bigbird (40392) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520155)

It is a common requirement in the UK for submitting your CV to recruitment agencies.

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (1)

spandex_panda (1168381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520257)

you ever heard of .pdf? I'm sure this would also happen (formatting changing) if you used a different word version than your potential employer. Don't be so quick to judge.

In fact at Uni recently I saw a friend get disappointed with word screwing up his formatting, I said "give it here and I will fix it with open office portable" opened it, printed it perfectly! So there are two sides to your argument.

Re:Almost identical? Not quite. (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520401)

So you're the guy who develops web pages in Firefox but never bothers to see what they look like in IE â" until his boss complains months later that the company website looks like shit. I call BS.

java updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520071)

the 'popularity' of open office wouldn't have anything to do with the java update offering would it? do you know how many fucktards have downloaded oo and google toolbar because of these updates? tons, that's who.

don't think people are turning to open office as a solution. they're basically being hoodwinked into downloading it. but all the open office zealots are going to tell us it's because it's great. 90% of windows users who currently have it probably have no idea what it even is and have it only due to irresponsible practices on sun microsystem's part.

Why highlight the lack of MS2007 export? (2, Informative)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520145)

Not sure why the article sees the need to mention this:

OpenOffice.org 3.0 eases some adoption concerns. It is able to open all Office-formatted files, including the latest Office Open XML (OOXML) documents (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.), but it cannot save OOXML files natively.

Why would you need to save in this format? The existing binary support should be all you need if you need to collaborate with Microsoft Office users. It's their saving in Microsoft Office 2007 format that causes the roadblocks, not OpenOffice.org's lack of exporting to it.

Apathy trumps price for most users (5, Interesting)

celest (100606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520159)

when it comes to a choice between almost identical software (e.g. Microsoft Office and OpenOffice), price is the determining factor.

Actually, I'm currently doing my Master's thesis on this exact topic, namely the switching barriers between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org. I'll post a summary of the full empirically assessed results to Slashdot when the study is complete. Currently, however, it looks like that Apathy is a much stronger factor than price. In fact, the author of the article hints at this:

In the past, it's always been included on my computers which is fine

Another important factor which I have hypothesized (and the literature suggests is accurate) trumps price is user inconvenience. Most users will pay to avoid hassle of any sorts. Further, most users will pay to avoid PERCEIVED inconvenience, even if, in reality, there would be no inconvenience. The FEAR of inconvenience is enough to make them continue to pay.

If you would like more details about my empirical research on this subject, feel free to contact me. A paper on the subject will be published by the Open Source Business Resource [www.osbr.ca] in the spring.

Re:Apathy trumps price for most users (1)

fatalGlory (1060870) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520419)

Personal (anecdotal) experience definitely confirms this. When I suggest different software for performing a task to someone who feels they "already know how to do this" (even if the results of their method are shabby), the question generally on their mind is "will I have to learn or change anything?"

People look over my shoulder and marvel at the things I do with GIMP regularly. When I tell them it's free and I'm sharing it on the network, no one is keen to install it themselves.

OO.org vs. MSOffice, Linux vs. Windows, Holden vs. Hyundai. Most people just want to use it. They don't care how it works, don't care about "subtle" advantages. It just has to work so they can go back to what they're interested in.

Did it beat Firefox? (1, Interesting)

Godji (957148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520333)

I don't remember the exact Firefox numbers a while ago, but did OpenOffice beat Firefox too?

Why I downloaded Open Office 3.0 for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25520365)

I use Word 2000 at work, and downloaded Open Office 3.0 in order to read .docx files from coworkers with newer versions of Word. (The rollout of the new version of Word was incomplete across our organization).

omg SPELLING ERROR (1)

Denihil (1208200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25520417)

did anyone else notice the article had "loosing" instead of "losing"? 3rd paragraph, 5th line. /grammarnazioff
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>