×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

224 comments

Ummm....Nope. (5, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234413)

>> Wouldn't it be lovely to have a nice, clean installation of Microsoft's Office 2007 Suite to run on your Ubuntu Linux Distribution?

Umm nope. I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy. The words nice, Clean, and Microsoft just don't belong in the same sentence. And why sully a nice, clean Linux installation by letting anything from Microsoft come into contact with it? I'll stick with OpenOffice thanks.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234503)

I have to agree, why bother?
If I want to do something important I use LaTex, if not then OpenOffice works just fine.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234557)

Umm nope. I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy. The words nice, Clean, and Microsoft just don't belong in the same sentence. And why sully a nice, clean Linux installation by letting anything from Microsoft come into contact with it? I'll stick with OpenOffice thanks.

[Quickly pulls numbers out of thin air] I strongly suspect that the number of people who need features present in Office 2007 but not in OOo 3.x is a lot less than the number of people locked into WIndows because of Quickbooks.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (2, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234867)

When you add all the plugins/add-ons/integration with 3rd party software/sharepoint integration/how almost half of Office doesn't have an OOo equivalent at all, never mind feature for feature, and the fact that the percentage of employees in a company doing accounting (well, accounting firms aside...) is relatively low, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were wrong by an order of magnitude or two...

Now, if it was companies instead of individuals, maybe.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (2, Interesting)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236829)

Most users don't use/need all the additional bloated crap packaged in Office. Most just require a good word processor and spreadsheet. Maybe a data base. OOo fits this bill very well.

Me, I'm a contractor, and OOo Writer is perfect for contract documents. Calc handles statements, invoices, payroll and calculation of payroll taxes, bidding calculations, and most anything else. So for most, which option is a wise choice? Cough up hundreds of $$$ for Office, or use OOo which comes standard with most all Linux distributions. This is a no brainer.

But of course life is not this easy for all, and if you're one of the few that needs certain other features found only in Office and have no other alternatives, then you're pwned.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27237163)

It's not always a matter of a single user though. I know that our users use a TON of spreadsheets for example. Half of them don't know how to do much more than plug in numbers into the assigned spots, but they'll still use spreadsheets developed by someone else (we have someone in IT who does Office training who normally will develop spreadsheets for a user if they need help - usually for comparing values. Our Assessor uses a lot them to plot housing sales values in a given area for example in order to determine a proper per sq ft value for property there).

Now, I'm known as the "open source guy" at work. I do my best to promote it where possible, and trust me I get "the look" whenever I bring up an open source solution in a meeting. That said, another employee suggested that we might look at OOo as a way to cut costs a bit. Because of my aforementioned "open source guy" status, it got thrown in my lap to determine how well it would work.

Long story short, around a quarter or more of the spreadsheets that I opened simply didn't work correctly. Even some of the Word documents had some minor formatting errors. The database engine crashed on me quite a bit, and had no Access compatibility whatsoever (though we generally swat a user with a stick if we find them using Access for anything other than a frontend to a server side database). I'll give them credit and say that Impress (the PowerPoint clone) seemed to open everything I threw at it with VERY few glitches (some transitions didn't work right but that's very minor).

All in all though, I ended up recommending that we stick with Office. It just wasn't worth the hassle of determining whether a document would work, and if it didn't going through and correcting everything so that it DOES work.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235517)

Not even gonna bother asking for a citation on that, because I just started work in a company that does financial software, and lock-in is a large part of (from what I can see) most such companies' business models.

Does Quickbooks ( / other package ) run in Wine?

Re:Ummm....Nope. (2, Interesting)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235587)

The numbers you just pulled out of thin air are pretty much bullshit.

For a lot of companies, Office is mandatory for them to function. Instead of hiring programmers to create good solutions, they have managers and analysts sitting around creating the next business-vital piece of shit package of Excel, Word and Access VB scripts to fill a role. Oh and don't even get me started on huge companies who put business critical data on shared drives as MS Access applications. Like it or not, these are the people who can't switch to Linux because they need Office.

As Shados mentioned, OO.org is missing certain MS Office features entirely.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (1)

XMode (252740) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235987)

And just to clarify, by 'need Office' please read 'stupidly made themselves dependent on certain office features that are not present in others software and cant or don't know how to change their package to work on a different system'.

These are also the people that get stung when MS changes the scripting language and breaks stuff.

The only thing I have seen an actual business case for that I would agree with is shared calendars in outlook/exchange. Although I haven't looked very hard I have yet to see another software package that is available for linux that has such an easy calendar implementation.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27236247)

How can you make yourself stupidly dependent on FEATURES not available in competing software? So people that need to make pie charts that can't swap to using NoPieChartingAvailableOfficeSuite have made themselves stupidly dependent on a feature not available in it?

Competing by features is the whole point that software competition is supposed to revolve around for christ's sake.

Quickbooks (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235877)

I strongly suspect that the number of people who need features present in Office 2007 but not in OOo 3.x is a lot less than the number of people locked into WIndows because of Quickbooks.

You're not locked into Windows if you need Quickbooks. Intuit also as a version for Macs [intuit.com]. And it's universal, it runs on both PowerPC and Intel Macs.

Falcon

Re:Ummm....Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27237449)

a lot less than the number of people locked into WIndows because of Quickbooks.

This always makes me laugh. I've setup accountants in dosbox on Linux with a cira-1980s copy of peachtree accounting because they didn't want to move to 'that new fangled windows stuff.'

As an aside,

Your company picks your corporate desktop for various reasons. One of those is the whole environment of (monkey level) easy to use management tools for huge homogeneous deployments. Another is the large kickbacks from Microsoft for licensing. There are also threats of BSA action for non-license compliance.

Office 2007 working on wine? No thank you. I will keep me non-ribbon infested copy of Office XP. It's what came from corporate.

If you are blessed with being able to install whatever desktop you like, you'd probably still install Windows at least to dual boot.

Why?

I have to remind Linux users again and again and again:

Games.

It's the extreme form of users-use-applications-not-operating-systems. I meet a lot of Linux users whose video game is 'making Ubnutu/SuSE/Gentoo/Mint/etc work.' Other people want to play different games than 'recompile the kernel.'

Yes, PC gamers are beholden to directX and Microsoft. Yes they are unwilling to give up a 5 frames per second edge from that native client. Yes, the demand high-performance from video drivers that work. Yes, they demand that sound doesn't die because someone thought alpha-quality pulseaudio (formerly polyp audio) was awesome because of the name. No, PC gamers aren't interested in your console.

wine can support every single office application from Lotus 1-2-3 up but if someone's PC game is Microsoft OS only, sorry but <soupnazi>no Linux for you!</soupnazi>

Re:Ummm....Nope. (2, Interesting)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234651)

This isnt news, really. I snagged Crossover Office last year when it was free and installed Office 2007 so I wouldnt have to load a VM to use it. Unfortunately, as a student, a few of my assignments require 2007, and Id rather run it on my laptop than stick around school doing work.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (1)

Quintilian (1496723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236545)

Same here, I got it when it was free and installed Office 2007 no problem.

The tutorial seemed to make it more difficult by only explaining how to do it in the terminal. I had no trouble installing it using the gui and didn't have to mess with the terminal at all. It seems that when people only explain how to do it the "harder" way (in a terminal instead of with pretty pictures) that only makes people less likely to try linux (again-if this was the only thing holding them back) i would think, because it may look too difficult or complicated for them.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236841)

Damn that sucks, I'd organise an appeal for the student body to have teachers adopt non-proprietary software. To be teaching proprietary software especially with things like this, a stupid office suite, and demanding it's use, is just all kinds of dumb, and I believe wrong for a college to do. And some people wonder why "student software" is so cheap, like a drug sample. No, students should have the freedom to choose which office software they want to use to complete an assignment.

Useful in a few situations (2, Informative)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234721)

I keep Windows software off of my Linux work environment in general, too. Unfortunately, my coworkers have a tendency to send me spreadsheets with more than 2^16 rows. This requires Office 2007. At least, it won't work on OOo 3 or Gnumeric.

Re:Useful in a few situations (1)

drummer42 (1503007) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234939)

I keep Windows software off of my Linux work environment in general, too. Unfortunately, my coworkers have a tendency to send me spreadsheets with more than 2^16 rows. This requires Office 2007. At least, it won't work on OOo 3 or Gnumeric.

Its def useful!

Re:Useful in a few situations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235479)

spreadsheets with more than 2^16 rows.

I would most likely commit suicide with a mouse cord if I had to deal with spreadsheets that large on a regular basis

Re:Useful in a few situations (2, Insightful)

statusbar (314703) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236937)

most likely these 'spreadsheets' are referred to by their creators as "databases".

--jeffk

Re:Useful in a few situations (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236853)

That would be a very silly limitation for OOo to have, agreed, and one would think that would be an easy thing to fix, though that's definitely a big sheet...maybe someone should break things apart a little more.

Re:Ummm....Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234749)

And why sully a nice, clean Linux installation by letting anything from Microsoft come into contact with it?

Because all the nasty Microsoft cruft will be sandboxed into ~/.wine/drive_c Your / will remain clear.

With WINE, clearing bloat is as easy as rm -rf .wine :)

Re:Ummm....Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235435)

Office 2007 is absolutely horrible. It's unbelievably sluggish, and the user interface is gawd-awful. I'd rather use vi and nroff. And this is in Windows!

Microsoft's Office 2007 Suite rnning on Ubuntu (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235811)

I'll stick with OpenOffice thanks.

Some people need MS Office. Last I hear OO.org doesn't handle some MS Office macros and because most people use it others need that capability. Use the tool that gets the job done.

Falcon

Re:Ummm....Nope. (1)

Galois2 (1481427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27237289)

Wouldn't it be lovely to have a nice, clean installation of Microsoft's Office 2007 Suite to run on your Ubuntu Linux Distribution?

Before trying to get a nice, clean installation of MS Office on linux, how about we wait until a nice, clean installation of MS Office is available for Windows? I haven't seen anything nice or clean yet. MS Office can't even open its own, older files securely (and so MS doesn't allow it to try), and file format isn't documented so any application that wants to interoperate resorts to reverse engineering. Did you see the piece of crap MS put together for their OOXML "standard"? It's an order of magnitude longer than ODF -- see, e.g., http://government.zdnet.com/images/ooxml.JPG [zdnet.com]

Re:Ummm....Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27237291)

Those were my thoughts exactly. I really like OpenOffice 3.0.1. It starts up 'cold' (uncached) on my computer in less than 6 seconds, and starts up cached in less than .5 seconds. I don't want anything else. It does 99.999% of everything the unclean office 2007 does, except there is no draconian licence attached. The only things it does not do are some extremely oddball macros. OOo does macros and some can be extremely wierd, but would be very slightly different than those used with the other suite. It can produce the same results, but the macro is very slightly different. I don't want that other stuff on my nice clean draconian-license-free computer. Its like dropping a big dump of sludge into a grocery card of fresh vegetables. Sure the sludge might be valuable motor oil, but I don't want it in my groceries. I really don't.

How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (5, Informative)

Little_Professor (971208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234415)

These 'step by step instructions' consist merely of "Install wine" and then "install Microsoft Office from the CD" Blatant blogspam, not worthy of a place on the \. front page

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234761)

Except for this part: ./winetricks gdiplus riched20 riched30 msxml3 msxml4 msxml6 corefonts tahoma vb6run vcrun6 msi2

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (1)

rmcd (53236) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234789)

If Wine 1.1.9 permitted Office 2007 to completely work, IMO it would be newsworthy. But I am willing to bet that significant features in Office don't work. TFB doesn't discuss this.

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235797)

how much are you going to bet? A fool and his money, well, you'll find out how that goes.

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (2, Insightful)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235111)

I agree, it is trivial. Also I get a bit irritated thee days when people present a load of commands to type in. When in fact it is perfectly possible to do the install with the GUI these days. For seasoned linux users commands are quicker, but they are a real turn off for new users.

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236075)

...But its a lot harder to screw up command line options. For example, editing fstab is a lot easier if you tell people to sudo gedit /etc/fstab compared to telling them to log in as root, going to their file browser (which could be a multitude of different things), clicking on their filesystem, going to etc, finding fstab and editing the file.

I tend to think of command line stuff as going via a direct URL. Sure, I can click Mail when I go to Google to bring up Gmail, but if you just type in mail.google.com it gets you to it a lot faster, and its a lot easier.

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (1)

imroy (755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235515)

not worthy of a place on the \. front page

Backslashdot?

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (1)

FearForWings (1189605) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235801)

It's the evil alternate reality /. where Microsoft can do no evil and Google has instituted a worldwide surveillance police state.

Re:How on earth did this get past the Firehose? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236193)

Welcome to one of my user pet-peeves. Every time a user doesn't know the difference between a slash and a backslash, I get a little more annoyed. Every third time, I have to say "the one with the question mark above it" when I say slash and "not the one with the question mark" when I say backslash.

We get to thank Microsoft for feeling the need to differentiate DOS from CP/M so many years ago. Why oh WHY did they have to do that?

Thank you, CS3 please? (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234417)

For some reason all my attempts at running Office and CS3 failed on linux (I use fedora). Both gave similar errors so I assume you can install CS3 as well? Have you tried it?

Re:Thank you, CS3 please? (1)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235157)

I had problems with office 2000 on fedora 8, but 2003 installed with out a problem. Never tried CS3 Also make sure you are up to date with wine as it develops so quickly.

Does not work with the latest wine (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234431)

Regression in wine 1.1.16 (still in 1.1.17) causes the office 2007 and office xp installers to bomb. This guide only works with older versions of wine.

Bug: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17600

Re:Does not work with the latest wine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234683)

Parent is NOT INFORMATIVE. AC dumb fuck needs to learn how to read.

First sentence of 3rd paragraph plainly reads:

In order to run Office 2007, Wine 1.1.9 (or newer) is required.

And goes on to say:

It is currently in a development release. If you donâ(TM)t have it installed already (this is very likely), go ahead and type the following commands, which will set it up for you:

Along with instructions on how to install that version on a Debian based system.

Err... (3, Insightful)

Jon.Laslow (809215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234489)

"...this is the only thing that truly holds them back from an all-Linux environment..."

Linux + Office 2007 = all-Linux? What?

Re:Err... (2, Interesting)

arotenbe (1203922) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234531)

Linux + Office 2007 = all-Linux?

Yes. Remember, as GNU fanatics like to say, Linux is just the kernel. "All-Linux" here refers to Linux on every computer the person uses.

Just confused (1)

Jon.Laslow (809215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234573)

Sorry, I'm used to coming on here and seeing a lot of posts re: why would you want to run anything from Microsoft on Linux? I made an ass of myself by assuming!

Really, why? (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234525)

Microsoft's Office 2007 Suite to run on your Ubuntu Linux Distribution

How could Office 2007's benefits possibly outweigh its costs and complications? This time MS has moved even further to break backwards-compatibility with earlier versions of office, which means you will find it even more difficult to share files with people you know who have older versions of the same.

And with the quality of the free office suites that can read and write the files of the previous versions without needing windows compatibility on non-windows systems, why even bother running the newest MS Office?

Re:Really, why? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234699)

I hate MS office 07 with a passion, since I'd got so used to using the older version. Switching between older MS office versions and OO was, and still is, much less painless. There is some stuff cool new stuff in there, but most people will never use it.

Having said that, you can download a utility (free, from MS) that enables users of older versions of Office to access the newer files. Not that you should have to, of course.

The even better solution is to install OO3 on your clients/friends computers, since it opens MS2007 docs just fine.

Re:Really, why? (3, Interesting)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234713)

For me, it's not about MSOffice. OOO is fine. Its about a mail client that works with Exchange, and Evolution isn't there yet.

I can't change my mail server, or its settings. I have no control over the mail server, or its gateways for that matter.

With the evolution-exchange package I can only connect via OWA, and thats horrible. Let's face it, even with IEx on a native Windows system, the Exchange OWA is horrible.

I don't think the wine tricks is the answer to my problem, but mail is really the last piece I need to fully convert (I run 2 desktops, 1 XP for mail, and 1 F10 for work.) to linux. Let me tell you when I have to capture text on one, and mail it ... I really hate life. Same for the other way around.

I have access to a site licensed CD of MSO2K7, and although I wont be using it aside from testing to see how it works, it's not a long term solution for me (and many others I'd assume). Evolution needs to get better. I'll wait.

Re:Really, why? (1)

centuren (106470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235603)

For me, it's not about MSOffice. OOO is fine. Its about a mail client that works with Exchange, and Evolution isn't there yet.

I can't change my mail server, or its settings. I have no control over the mail server, or its gateways for that matter.

I don't know anything about Exchange, but I gather it's a mail server of some sort, but the foreboding sense I get when people talk about using it suggests to me it's somehow more. In fact, if it was a mail server in the manner to which I'm familiar, you could obviously check your mail using something else, or forward it to another address.

Despite that easy conclusion, I'm still confused. How did Microsoft manage to produce an email server-client solution that's only compatible with itself. It seems like making IIS only serve pages to IE, or MS Word only accept input from fantastic keyboards like the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000.

I suppose if one ignores that email has been standardized successfully for so long, the comparison can be made to instant messenger, where services developed their own protocols and stuck with them. Even so, it was never a big deal to write 3rd party clients that worked with them. What does Exchange do that's so different?

Re:Really, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27236007)

It does other important things - calendaring, appointments, whiteboard collaboration etc - and by all accounts actually does them well, across a whole organisation. For a lot of companies it's *the* app that precludes any possibility of switching from windows.

Re:Really, why? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236323)

Calling Exchange an email server is like calling EMACS a text editor.
Exchange does calenders (including shared calenders and options so others can see your calender), meetings, appointments and more.

What I want to know is, what is the difficulty in producing an outlook replacement on linux that speaks all the proprietary stuff. If people can reverse engineer MSN messenger, Office Document formats and all sorts of other proprietary MS junk, why cant people figure out Exchange? Or is there more to it? (fear of patent lawsuits perhaps?)

Sanity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235611)

Thank you for the only sane comment.

Re:Really, why? (1)

jacksinn (1136829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235957)

I use Thunderbird at work on my Ubuntu 8.04 machine. Of all the mail clients I've tried on Ubuntu, this has worked out best for me for my specific needs which is basically hooking up to the corporate Exchange server. I wish it had a calendar (perhaps there is some sort of plugin or I'm missing something?) but I just use my Google calendar and have that displayed via my desktop date/clock bar.

Re:Really, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27237033)

Synergy.

Re:Really, why? (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27237197)

The open source does-it-all collaborative suite programs like Exchange certainly need to be more competitive, but so far they are promising. So, maybe your Exchange-using organization should switch. Two "larger" looking ones I've found are:

Zarafa [zarafa.com]

Zimbra [zimbra.com]

Both were just a simple google search away. :P

As for an Exchange client solution, well...difficult, since Microsoft controls the communication interface for that and I doubt at this stage they are interested in freely playing nice with non-Microsoft clients. In that case, your best bet is to change the server.

I take that back, they may be getting enough pressure for playing nice with clients due to the whole .NET + Evolution thing, seems like they might be pushing for it a bit, since Evolution is somewhat working with Exchange. I can at least get email as well as see calendar events and get warnings about them, but sending emails I haven't tried very hard to figure out how to do. Hopefully the push for that isn't some sort of patent backstabbing deal though. Regardless, I'd rather not deal with that patent troll if I can help it and would instead ask for something that at least used standards so that you could use what client you wanted to. Microsoft doesn't know the meaning of the term "standard", plus, you know, there's the whole hatred for Linux and just trying to pull everyone onto their platforms thing so they can "collect at a later date" - Bill Gates.

Re:Really, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27237233)

You might want to have a look at Synergy [sourceforge.net] for working across both systems. It can share the clipboard between them so you could copy something on the Linux box, and paste it into an email on the XP box.

Re:Really, why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234895)

I am bolding my entire post to make you feel like a dick. How do you like getting yelled at bitch?

Re:Really, why? (3, Insightful)

gknoy (899301) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235091)

Usability, I guess. I'm not a frequent user of office-type tools, but when I use the new Office (excel or word), I find its handling of some things just a bit easier than in the older version of MS Office I normally use. When I go home and use OpenOffice, the differences in convenience are GLARING.

For example, deleting the contents of cells in OpenOffice Calc is significantly more annoying than in MS office (of any recent version). It sounds silly, but it's also really annoying, and if I had both on my system I'd be using Excel with no hesitation. If productivity is a concern, rather than merely cost, I feel like MS Office would win out. (I have no studies to cite, peer-reviewed of otherwise -- this is just my opinion.)

Re:Really, why? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235723)

This time MS has moved even further to break backwards-compatibility with earlier versions of office, which means you will find it even more difficult to share files with people you know who have older versions of the same.

Not true at all. You can save to different compatible version of office if you want (although if you use features introduced in newer versions, obviously you're formatting might get messed up) + there's an official free PDF exporter plugin (if you don't want to use the printer).

And with the quality of the free office suites that can read and write the files of the previous versions without needing windows compatibility on non-windows systems, why even bother running the newest MS Office?

Because the new Office UI actually improves my productivity (from someone who did the cold-turkey switch having over 10 years experience using the old UI). Despite all the bitching from people who have never used it, and people just switching from the old UI, if you give it half a chance it makes things a lot easier (for instance using styles properly is now a sinch).

Because I want to use something better than the mess that is OO. For anything slightly more complicated, it feels like OO starts to fight you & it's got the feel of Office 2000 or earlier (lessons they learned from & fixed in 2003 & later), and I'm talking from a usability perspective (not whether or not it's pretty).

There's plenty of valid issues & critiques to be made about Microsoft & its products. Office is now a very stable, fast, reliable, & secure piece of software that beats the pants off of the competition. The only real issue remaining is the slight vendor lock-in using Office entails (since OO does support the formats fairly well).

Free software is great & I use it now almost exclusively (except for booting into Windows for proper tablet support when I need it), but you have to be realistic as well - why do you think Linux has been gaining some more mainstream momentum the past year? Because there was a conscious effort to clean-up the UI & make it more appealing. OO could learn a thing or two (and perhaps make the transition easier by including a Office-compatible shortcut mapping)

* Caveat - when I refer to the Office suite, I'm referring to Word, Excel, & PowerPoint (and OneNote but it doesn't have any competition with respect to pen support). The other pieces don't have as big a following (with the exception of Outlook - but I think Goggle's web software provides a far better experience).

Re:Really, why? (1)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 5 years ago | (#27237481)

The only real issue remaining is the slight vendor lock-in

have they resolved the whole 'the way your document looks when you print it is dependant on your printer drivers' thing? I know it was around in 2000 and pretty sure 2003, I know office isn't meant to be used for actual publishing or the like, however it's still something pretty major to be fixed.

Re:Really, why? (3, Interesting)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236199)

Speaking as someone who reluctantly installed Office 2007 (Well, Office 2008, which is Office 2007 for Macs) recently I actually have to say I'm impressed with the way it treats compatibility with Office's older formats. If you save a file as an older document type like Office 97 or 2004 it runs compatibility checks on your content and everything to make sure you don't lose anything. I'd love to see that in OpenOffice, as opposed to the vaguely frightening dialog that basically tries to get you to save to ODF because that's the only format it's sure of.

Re:Really, why? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27237527)

Office 2008 is much better than 2007 for basic stuff. Only problem is that it doesn't support VBA macros at all. You have to use Applescript for macros, and they don't work in Windows versions of Office.

For that reason I still have Office 2004 for when I get files with macros.

Executive summary (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234529)

Install wine

Get the winetricks script from http://www.kegel.com/wine/winetricks
Use winetricks to get a bunch of dll files:
winetricks gdiplus riched20 riched30 msxml3 msxml4 msxml6 corefonts tahoma vb6run vcrun6 msi2

install MS Office

There. Was that so hard?

Re:Executive summary (2, Funny)

lordtoran (1063300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235709)

That was definitely too hard. You expect me to copy and paste an entire command, when I could have written down the names and manually selected them from a user friendly GUI with 300 DLL files listed?

Vital instructions missing (2, Funny)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234589)

Of course, every /.er knows how to get *buntu.
For this strange thing called 'Microsoft Office' you can download for free here:
www.piratebay.org
Or if that gets /.ed, use the mirror at:
www.isohunt.com

More seriously, use OpenOffice if you can; it keeps getting better and better.

Re:Vital instructions missing (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234943)

There's the small issue with OO.o 3.0 doesn't allow more than 65,536 rows (It must store the row count in a uint16) in a spreadsheet, but excel '07 will allow that, so you can't use OO.o in that instance.

Yes, if you're using that big a spreadsheet, you ought to use a database instead, but that's beside the point when I need to open that spreadsheet.

Still, I do like OO.o and it works quite well for 99% of tasks.

If it requires instructions, (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234627)

it's not easy enough.

Wasn't this already possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27234679)

I was under the assumption that doing this was already possible using Crossover Office. I'm not sure if it would run Office 2007 but I'm pretty sure 2003 ran on it fine.

Why is this news?

Re:Wasn't this already possible? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236667)

I was under the assumption that doing this was already possible using Crossover Office. ... Why is this news?

Just guessing here:

Because Crossover Office is proprietary and contains compatibility hacks that (as far as I know) aren't in the Wine mainline?

Perhaps the news is that somebody else did a set of compatibility hacks and got it working.

What a gal really wants (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234725)

"Wouldn't it be lovely to have a nice, clean installation of Microsoft's Office 2007 Suite to run on your Ubuntu Linux Distribution? For some people, this is the only thing that truly holds them back from an all-Linux environment ... But not anymore! We have compiled a nice, concise set of instructions to help guide you along."

Exactly what a gal really wants.

Except, I'm a bloke.

Re:What a gal really wants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235247)

They have surgical procedures to fix that.

One Note (2, Interesting)

iVasto (829426) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234913)

The only reason I would want to run MS Office in linux is for MS OneNote. Believe it or not this is actually a great piece of software for students and there is no FOSS alternative that comes close. The closest competitor is Evernote which doesn't run natively on linux either.

Re:One Note (1)

jasager (1496671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235149)

Believe it or not this is actually a great piece of software for students

i don't

and there is no FOSS alternative that comes close.

what about your filesystem?
echo "i don't need nicely colored icons" >> ~/insights.txt

Re:One Note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27236367)

I completely agree! that's actually the reason i wrote this article :)

Just Say No (0, Redundant)

SubaruStarship (1434951) | more than 5 years ago | (#27234995)

Teach your clients that it's OK to pass on the ribbon, the bloated system requirements, and above all, the enormous expense of Vole Office 2007! Give them the tools they need to combat peer pressure: OpenOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.

Wake me up when Adobe suites run natively (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235047)

Most people I know suffer through MS Office only because the companies they work for force them to. That's why I run it on the company laptop.

On the other hand, when someone gets Adobe suites to run on Linux, I will sit up and listen.

Also wake me up when Adobe suites run natively (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235359)

I'm with you. I'm done with Windows when I can run all the Adobe movie/music/photo editing software in Linux.

I noticed that Adobe has been using some Qt also (for Photoshop Album). I wonder if that portends anything . . .

Screenshots on my blog: Easy with Crossover (1)

anothergeekrambling (1503011) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235053)

I have some screen shots on my blog for anyone who cares to check it out. Also working on a script to ease the installation of Mac4lin. http://anothergeekrambling.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] I've been able to run Word, Excel, Publisher, and One-note with no problems so far. I've experienced some file corruption with PowerPoint and have not been able to save files.

More proof (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235185)

we wouldn't be seeing articles like this if linux was really ready for the desktop.

once again open sores fails it and i'm laughing at you faggot dicksmokers. thank god i had the common sense to get out of that trainwreck before i invested too much time into it.

Want to win Friends for Linux and Open Source ?? (1)

bmullan (1425023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235239)

I read alot of the wise-cracks posted on this thread and those folks need to remember its NOT ABOUT YOU !! You may already use Linux and Open Office and other Open Source s/w ... the majority of the world does NOT. If you want to convince them to join you... then show them they can get to where you are and not lose what they already have & know. or... let Microsoft continue to brainwash them that "see linux doesn't work"

Far easier to just use a virtual machine (1)

pavelthesecond (1180489) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235285)

Just run XP in a virtual machine (such as VirtualBox which available for free from sun) and install office, and any other windows only apps, on to it. And then you don't need to worry about configuring wine and having the app crash because of some unsupported functionality. I've been doing that for office, winamp and a few other windows only apps for a few months now. In my experience, the apps inside the vm stay very responsive even when i have 2 or 3 vms running. And this is on an dual core amd 5600.

Re:Far easier to just use a virtual machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27236651)

So in other words, a machine which is several times more powerful than what most people run office on. Also, what is so special about Winamp? It hasn't been any good since AOL bought it.

OpenOffice devs raise hands (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235523)

As if millions of OpenOffice developers have cried out in terror "So, why have we've been developing OpenOffice for these last 10-15 years?!" and were suddenly silenced...

Ubuntu isn't the only Linux distribution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27235543)

It annoys me how TFA singles out Ubuntu. This process should work for any Linux distribution.

I stopped wanting Office a long time ago, I just use Open Office for everything now and if I really needed MS Office I would run a virtual machine so that way I don't have any MS crap floating around nice Linux system.

OTOH, this article does give people a more up-to-date view of what Wine has become. People are saying "when I used it it couldn't do X" - well when was the last time you used it? "About 5 years ago -" well no bloody wonder why it sucked!

Crossover (3, Interesting)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235601)

For those of us who took advantage of the Lame Duck Challenge...

I have Photoshop CS2, Dreamweaver CS2 and MS Office 07 running flawlessly in Crossover.

Crossover has been doing this for awhile now (1)

wangmaster (760932) | more than 5 years ago | (#27235791)

Crossover has been doing this for a while now. I've been running Office 2000, Office XP, Office 2003, and Office 2007 under it for work. I even purchased crossover myself to use at work because of their awesome licence policy basically saying:
        a. run the Software on any computer, so long as no more than one person per license is ever using the Software at any one time.

Otherwise, these guys provide a great service to the linux community with their work on wine, and their prices are very reasonable. I can't stress enough how worth it I think giving these guys money so that I can do much of my work in a Linux world and do it easily without having to jump through the hoops of dealing with a straight Wine configuration.

Re:Crossover has been doing this for awhile now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27236495)

Agreed, Crossover is used at my school in a bunch of computer labs with RHEL5. Not that I use it much (or at all, LaTeX FTW), but it seems to work pretty much flawlessly. It took me a while to figure out that my school wasn't getting some magic native Linux build of the MS Office suite.

Office 2007 on Wine OpenSolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27236057)

Already had this running on OpenSolaris last year...

http://synesius.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/microsoft-office-2007-on-opensolaris-200811-rc2/

Microsoft Windows -- still a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27236109)

Microsoft aren't doing themselves any favors. I did a small windows network install today (rare I'm a unix guy) and it was a nightmare. Server 2008 is a step in the right direction, in as much as Microsoft have very nearly finished reinventing unix, as the saying goes -- badly.

It's not all bad, some of it is very bad indeed. I get the impression MS are using 'security' to justify locking third parties out now. Several apps needed to be upgraded (at great cost) to run properly on MS new OS line-up, and the Windows GUI's and Wizards are all over the place. With RDP, Wine and virtualization software, we're fast approaching the point where the best way to install Windows software is on linux or mac.

Why??? (0, Offtopic)

GomezAdams (679726) | more than 5 years ago | (#27236369)

This is like buying an iPhone. Why? I've been successfully creating and/or exchanging M$ Office format documents with MS Windows users using OOo for many years. The Redmond Encumbered Ones never know unless I tell them.

Better yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27237347)

or just install Windows. ubuntu's for sissies anyway.

But I guess you'd still get props from all of your 1Ee7 haxor friends for using ubuntu and having office 07

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...